particular assent and affiance also in him as the Messiah promised as by view of some of the principall obligations will appear For think we the acknowledgment of this proposition in generall That Jesus Christ is the Son of God is that See Joh. 20. and 1 Ioh. 5. that justifieth and saveth Then how fail Divells of justification yea and of eternall life that sensibly acknowledg him to be Jesus the Son of the living God Mark 2. Besides what means our Saviour so often to invite us unto him and propounding the condition of eternall life to utter it in a phrase importing affiance as Ioh. 6.40 yea particular acknowledgment of him to be a Saviour unto us Lastly Thus I reason A Pari other parts and conclusions of Scripture propounded generally are to be believed not only as they concern the generall but particularly as having their truth in us Why not then these that propound remission of sins righteousness and salvation to be obtained by Christ For instance when the Scripture teacheth that every one is accursed that keeps not the Law that the wages of sin is death c. Binds it not me also to believe that I also for my sins am by nature subject to the curse that the proper wages for my sins is death When it propounds promises of temporall blessings as it doth to them that seeks Gods Kingdome and his righteousness ought not I to acknowledg this promise to belong to me and to place confidence in God for the performance Why then when the promise of remission of sins is made to believers binds it no me and every believer to assume that my sins are pardoned when it teacheth Christ to be the Saviour of the world and Author of Righteousness to those that obey him should I not say that Christ requiring generall faith intends also a particular applying of this generall to my self for my comfort and salvation More I add not in this kinde Two paradoxes only of Bellarmine Bellarm. l. 1. de justific cap. 8. I will briefly propound and so leave them The first is that faith is justifying though it have no respect to Gods speciall mercy The Second That it is not justifying if perhaps it have respect thereto The proofes have in them the quintessence of Iesuitical acumen The Leprous mans faith Mark 1. was a justifying faith and yet had no respect to speciall mercy Ergò Faith not respecting speciall mercy is justifying Answ The proposition needs proof inasmuch as many had faith for obtaining Miracles that had none at all touching the person of the Messiah Luk. 17. 2. How proves he that he had no speciall faith concerning remission of sins by Christ What because he doubts of his will for his cure As who say there may not be speciall faith touching pardon of sins even where there is doubt of obtaining some remporall blessing the one having a promise for Gods children to rest on the other not so but with limitation to expediency But will you see how he proves that faith is not justifying if it have respect to speciall mercy The Pharisee having it even because he had it was not justified Ergò Answ And was the Pharisees affiance in Gods speciall mercy the Reason why he was not justified Nay rather the vain boasting of his own righteousness as appears by the drift of the parable expressed Luk. 18.9 Vacuus proindè rediit Bernard de Annuc Ser. 3. ad calcem quia plenitudinem simulavit as S. Bernard and therefore failed he of justification not because he trusted on Gods speciall mercy to obtain it but for that he trusted in himself that he had it Some Ancients let us hear in this point Bernard de Annuc Serm. 1. saith Bernard Si credis pecoata tua non posse deleri nisi ab eo cui soli peccâsti in quem peccatum non cadit benè facis Sed adde adhuc ut hoc credas quia per ipsum Tibi peccata donantur hoc est Testimonium quod perhibit in corde nostro spiritus sanctus dicens dimissa sunt tibi Poccata Tua The Second opinion touching the nature of saith justifying as it is justifying is this that justifying faith is an assent not so much to the truth of the whole word of God as to the promises of the Gospell and that as having their truth in us The difference betwixt this and the Popish opinion stands in two things First in the object which they make the whole word of God these only the Doctrine of the Gospel Secondly In the manner of assenting which they make generall without any particular applying to our selves these particulars They consent in this that it is an act of the understanding rather then of the will perswasion rather then considence assent rather then affiance And for this they have these Reasons First For that the faith that justifieth is so often expressed in a phrase importing assent or giving credit as in this Scripture Abraham believed God that is gave credit to God promising to be his reward c. Similia vide Mark 1.15 Their Second Reason is because the object thereof is usually made the propositions of the Gospel and that which they call Terminum complexum or as Thomas speaks something propounded per modum enuntiabilis or to speak more plainly and agreeably to the phrase of Scripture a testimony which God gives in the word and in the heart See Rom. 8.16 Gal. 2.20 A Third Reason Because it seems strange that faith justifying should have divers seats or subjects The understanding as an assent the will as an affiance From hence and the like reasons it is concluded that faith justifying is an assent rather then affiance Now that it hath not for the proper object the whole word of God but rather only the doctrine of the gospel as it is justifying these Reasons evince First For that our Saviour prescribing the act limits out also the object and makes it the Gospel rather then any other part of the Scripture Mark 1.15 Secondly Kemn it in Exam. part 1. de Fide justisic For that in other parts of the word of God faith findes not what it may lay hold on for reconciliation remission of sins and justification but only in the Gospel that is the word of reconciliation there is Christ the Mediatour propounded there remission of sins promised For the Third branch that its a particular assent particular I mean not only in respect of the Subject but of the Object Examples prove Gal. 2.20 Christ loved me gave himself for me The generalls of the Gospel thus particularized are that which faith justifying as it is justifying respects by this faith Paul lived Secondly In point of believing there can else be no difference betwixt faith of Reprobates and that of the Elect betwixt faith of Divells and of justified men For it s an idle tenant of theirs that they make charity the form of faith a
spirit is obtained as he gives instance in Cornelius Act. 10. I have dwelt perhaps too long in this question yet it repents me not considering how I see many carried away with authority of some ancients incline to this merciless errour of Papists shutting up all infants that die unbaptized under condemnation except perhaps some extraordinary work of Gods power exempt them from hel We were wont to teach not that Baptisme gives title to the Covenant but the Covenant to Baptisme so we reason against Anabaptists the Promises are theirs Acts 2.39 the spirit theirs Acts 10. Mark 10. Gods kingdome theirs therefore Baptisme must not be denied them how turn we the argument now on this manner They must be baptized that they may come nto the Covenant and that they may have title to the promises of God and kingdome of heaven And how stand these arguments in force against baptisme of Turkish and other Pagan infants Nay if in Baptisme there be this vertue to give the baptized title to Gods kingdome if want of it so perillous merciless were we if we forced it not upon such children What should we imagine the cause of this change of judgement One or both of these 1. The authority of ancients 2. An inconvenience they desire to prevent in the people For the first of these Let ancients on Gods name have their reverence but yet shall we be so sworn to their words that we shall suffer them to lead us with them into their errours Love Augustine and give him reverence yet let truth be preferred in esteem before him as to the second The perill of our peoples neglecting this holy ordinance upon perswasion that it is not of so absolute necessity 1. Where learn we in Divinity to expell poyson with poyson one errour with another 2. Besides that arguments there are sufficient to press on their conscience the use of this ordinance if it were but that it stands in force by Gods commandment and as Bernard speaks Vâ—ra plena Fides universa praecepta amplectitur And this is one yea a chief one of Gods commandments Quomodo denique Fidelis qui Dei contemnit Sacramentum Contemtu violatum iri Domini foedus affirmo saith Mr. Calvin Calvin in stit lib. 4. cap. 16. Ser. 26. Are not these arguments sufficient to support the reverence of the Sacrament unless we winde in Infants in the peril of remediless damnation not for their own but for their parents contempt 3. Nay see whether as great mischiefs follow not upon this conclusion as profaning these mysteries by unconsecrated hands of Lay-people For where grew the ancient audaciousness of midwives Baptizing save only from this errour that without Baptisme the infant dyes condemned 4. Yea consider I beseech you into what a gulfe of comfortless griefe poor Parents are by this means plunged when once they cannot be perswaded but their children are gone to hell who shall blame them now if they weep for their children I say not as Rachel because they are not but as Heathens and men without hope because they are for ever shut up under condemnation To close up this point touching necessity of Baptisme there are these opinions First That it is none at all but meer superfluity such miscreants abhorre Secondly That it is so absolute that bare want excludes from heaven such cruelty detest Thirdly That it is necessary where it may by any means be had regularly so as the contempt is damnable in those that omit it yet not so prejudiciall to the infant as to plunge it into hell This the sentence of Scripture herein rest Now let us go to that which followeth And he received the sign of circumcision a seal of the righteousness of faith c. The point here proved is this as we have heard that to believing both Iewes and Gentiles the blessing of justification belongs proved from the first branch because Abraham had righteousness being yet uncircumcised Now that to Jews onely it belongs is next concluded and to this the passage is by a new Prolepsis the objection whereof as it seems hath these two branches If Abraham were justified in time of uncircumcision to what purpose was he circumcised The use of circumcision seems needless yea and if because he had it in uncircumcision therefore Gentiles are sharers in it follows it not that the circumcised Jews have no part in that blessing Answ Neither of these follow for though he had righteousness being uncircumcised yet he tooke the signe of circumcision an evidence that to the circumcision it belongs also and he took it to be a seal of the righteousness of faith therefore not unnecessarily for it is not vain that faith should receive confirmation and if any shall further demand a reason of both these why he had righteousness before circumcision and why having righteousness he was after circumcised It was for this That he might be the father of both people believing This the Context In the words let these particulars be observed 1. Abrahams fact 2. The object what he received the sign of circumcision 3. The end of it a seal of righteousness 4. The applying of the whole to the purpose in hand by assigning the end of Gods dispensation in Abraham that he might be the Father Observ From Abrahams act considering together with the state of his person amounts this instruction That no measure of grace received exempts any from use of Sacraments or thus That men enjoying the grace signified by the Sacraments are yet bound to the use of Sacraments The collection is direct and naturall Abraham was justified before he was circumcised yet received he the sign of circumcision Who then shall think himself free from use of them Cornelius had received the Spirit of God Act. 10. Doth that prove he needed not be baptized It makes him capable of baptisme saith Peter yet give water that they may be baptized What needs much proof It s a point of righteousness saith our Saviour to Iohn Baptist Mat. 3.15 Vera Bern. epist 77. plena fides universa praecepta complectitur saith Bernard fidem convincitur non habere perfectam si negligit sacramentum Add to this consideration of thine own necessity for darest thou assume to thy self perfect perswasion of thy justification so that at no time thou feelest wavering sure that arrogancy for it is no less sorts not with the practice of faith And Abraham though he be commended for his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at some time yet at others bewrayed distrust But say it is perfect for the present may it not be shaken to preserve that perswasion to prevent doubtings thou hast need of Sacraments Lastly Canst thou assume to thy self perfection of sanctification for shame leave that pride to Catharists count it a part of thy perfection to acknowledg imperfections and with Paul to strive for it What need more words The use is enjoyned to all necessary for the most perfect therefore upon no
fidei justitia accessit circumcisio signaculum justitiae fidei c. that in some justification goes before the seal as in Abraham and Cornelius In others the seal is before righteousness Hear his words Sicut in Isaac qui octavo suae nativitatis die circumcisus est praecessit signaculum justitiae fidei quoniam patris fidem imitatus est secuta est increscente ipsa justitia cujus signaculum in infante praecesserat Ita in baptizatis infantibus praecedit Regenerationis sacramentum si Christianam tenuerint pietatem sequitur etiam in corde conversio cujus mysterium praecessit in corpore Sense The last thing in this period remains to be explained and that is the application of all this to the purpose by setting down the end which God aimed at in giving Abraham testimonie of righteousness before circumcision and enjoyning him circumcision after justification The end was that he might be Father of Believers in both people whereout amounts the conclusion intended That the blessing of justification belongs by Covenant both to uncircumcised Gentiles and circumcised Jews believing That he might be Father That is that he might be declared or known to be For these things made him not so but signified him to be so so Matth. 5.45 Bless them that curse c. that ye may the sonnes of your father in Heaven that is that ye may be known to be Frequent is that phrase in Scripture whence is that old rule That a thing is said to be when it is known to be John 15.8 Ye shall be my Disciples 2 Tim. 2.21 He shall be a vessel unto Honour that is known to be so Psal 2.7 This day have I begotten thee that is manifested that I have begotten thee as many expound that place Acts 13.33 Father of all them that believe Rolloc ad Loc. Father that is say some Pattern of justification And they suppose it usuall in Scripture that those in whom a thing is first exemplified should be called Fathers thereof Cajetan Say others Father because of him Believers are after a sort begotten in respect that by example of his faith others believed others because from him the Blessing of justification is derived as an inheritance or Free passeth from the Father to the Son Thus rather I think He is called the father of believers in both people because in him the covenant is made with all believers And they are all counted Abrahams seed with whom the Covenant of Grace is made in Abraham the Father that walk in the steps of his faith Of them that believe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is of Gentiles uncircumcised by uncircumcision enallage praepositionis as Rom. 2.27 Howbeit perhaps it may stand without any such enallage as intimating that the want of circumcision occasions after a sort the Gentiles betaking themselves to faith thereof if any difficulty be shall be after explained Observ Observe we here out of the body of the Text That many the actions and accidents of Patriarchs were not without their mystery Gregories speech is something too large if we take it universally but make it particular it hath frequent Truth Scriptura dum narrat gestum prodit mysterium Abraham was justified before circumcised chat wanted not its mystery Thereby was signified that Abraham was father even of uncircumcised believers That of his two wives and their children with their severall condition and issues Gal. 4.24 the Apostle hath avouched to be mysticall the like thinks Augustine of his offering his sonne of taking Keturah to wife after Sarahs death and resolves though too largely Quicquid dicit Scriptura de Abraham factum est Prophetia est Augustin Ser. 72. de Temp. Augustine out of this ground takes occasion though not to justifie the falls of Saints yet to defend the Scriptures of the old Testament recording them Nos Scripturas sanctas non hominum peccata desendimus Augustin contr Faustum Manich l. 22. c. 45. c. 42. against Faustus the Manichee and shews how many the sinnes of Saints are holily recorded in Scripture though wickedly committed by them They are recorded saith he as Prophesies and presignifications of things to come God so disposing even of their falls that they figured mystically some matter either of knowledge or practice one instance he gives of Lots Drunkenness and Incest allegorizing it vainly as he doth many other things and at length concluding Illud factum cùm in sancta scriptura narratur prophetia est cùm verò in illorum vita qui hoc commiserunt consideratur Flagitium est Better satisfaction to the Manichees cavill he gives after Narrata ista sunt non laudata c. Papists some of them have hereby taken occasion to turn the whole Scripture into an Allegory and endeavour a mysticall interpretation of every part of Scripture It were a wonder they should attempt it in the ten Commandments Yet that ye may see how spiritually these men understand all things in Scripture Dionys Carthus in Exod. 20. the very Decalogue hath with some of them besides the sense literall another mysticall Others of them more judicious acknowledge that there is not in every sentence of Scripture to be found or sought after this spirituall Bellarm. de verb. Dei interpretat l. 3. c. 3. or mysticall sense But yet in many they acknowledge it And in so many they hunt after it as may afford them either arguments to support their errours where the letter fails them or evasions to decline the stroke of the letter when it directly strikes at them An acute disputant amongst them would needs take upon him to prove by Scripture the Imperiall power an underling to the Papacie What is his argument God made two lights the sun the greater light to rule the day and that signified the Pope the Moon to govern the night and that was the Emperour Another would prove that spirituall and temporall jurisdiction are both by Christs ordinance invested in the Popedome For Peter said to his Master Ecce duo gladii hîc The like in sundry answers to our arguments they practise such and such texts must be understood mystically My purpose is not on this occasion to run out into that controversie I note it onely for that I have long observed it with grief our Ministers growing into a Fryer-like Preaching turning all things almost into Allegories wherein howsoever they make shew of some such wit as he speaks of Wit whither wilt yet questionless with judicious men they lose all authoritie in Conscience the chiefest point of eloquence in a Preacher I would entreat them to consider the inconveniences should I terme them or mischiefs such dealing with Scriptures brings with it As 1. Leaving little or no certainty in the sense of Scripture and strenthening many in that blasphemous opinion of the waxen nature of Scripture flexible to any sense that mans wit shall bring unto it 2. Occasioning many through
him Hear the Apostle assuring us that for our sins not for his own he was delivered even for the sins of all that believe in his name Act. 10. For us he was born our sins he bear the chastisement of our peace was laid upon him It is no blasphemy to say he is more ours then his own our benefit we are fure more by him then his own by himself saith Bernard Bern. in Epiphan Ser. 1. Vtamur nostro in nostram utilitatem If we lack what to give for our sins we have Christs body to give it is of ours and it is ours And as Bernard so may every believer say De Te Domine suppleo quod minus habeâ— in me And of the first member the cause meritorious of our justification thus far Proceed we to the Second containing the evidence of the value that was in his humiliation for righteousness to wit his resurrection from death amplified by the end thereof our justification And was vaised for our Iustification How for our justification To work it say some to apply it say others to preserve us in it saith a third To declare and assure us of it say the most Iudicious It is good advise a Learned Interpreter here gives Not auxiously to dispute or enquire how the Apostle distinguisheth the effects of Christs Death and Resurrection ascribing to his death the expiation of sins to his resurrection our justification Touching the thing I will not be inquisitive but of the sense it will not be amise a little to enquire The first exposition is commonly received amongst our adversaries and thus they explain themselves Bellarm de Iustific l. 2. c. 6. Justification they here understand our internall renovation and regeneration by which we walk in newness of life and that they ascribe to Christs resurrection not as to a cause meritorious for Christ by his Resurrection merited nothing being then extra statum merendi How then say some As causa exemplaris Thomas par 3a quest 56. Art 2. Bellarm. quâ suprâ Cajetane ad loc quatenus he hath given us therein a forme of rising in our souls to newness of life as he in his flesh rose to the life of glory Say others His resurrection avails to our justification rather as an occasion and help or motive to faith for had he not risen from the dead who would have believed in him as Author of life These interpretations both of them contain truthes It is true that Christs Resurrection is a pattern for us to follow Rom. 6. True also that it is an enducement to believe in him as able to save us but impertinent to this place For 1. In what Scripture finde they Renovation to be called Justification And 2. The Apostle is not yet come to treate the point of sanctification And 3. How fits the Reason to the Apostles conclusion Faith shall be imputed to us for righteousness for Christ rose to give us a pattern of rising to new life dissolutae scopae To apply it â—rsin Kemnitius and to confer it upon us say others For it behoved the Mediator not only to merit but also to confer what he had merited upon us that also is a truth but these in explaining themselves make his resurrection availeable only as a cause sine quâ non to our justification except he had risen he could not have conferred his benesits upon us To preserve it unto us saith a third some such thing we finde after a sort ascribed to Christs Resurrection Rom. 8.34 But if we attend the place to his Resurrection it is assigned remotely our continuance in grace following rather from his session at his Fathers right hand and his intercession there made for us The last I rathest rest in conceiving Christs resurrection to avail to our justification as an evidence assuring us of it rather then as a cause in any sort procuring it unto us By raising Christ from the dead God the Father shewed that he accepted the obedience Keumit part 1. de Justificat Uâ—sin and satisfaction of his Son Christ for our reconciliation and atonement Christ was thrust into such a prison as out of which he could never have come forth except he had paid the utmost farthing The least sin unsatisfied had for ever detained him under the dominion of death but God raised him Ergo He hath satisfied or thus you may conceive it As when Christ our surety was condemned we in him and together with him were condemned So when he was discharged we in him and together with him received our discharge from the guilt and punishment of sin So that the point we have here is this That Christs Resurrection is to us a pledge of our Justification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Amen FINIS Texts of Scripture explained in this Commentary GEn. 17.17 p. 155.156 Levit. 18.5 compared with Rom. 10.5 p. 106 107 112 113. Num. 23.10 P. 170. Nehem. 1.8 p. 180. Nehem. 13.22 p. 179.180 Psal 2.7 p. 92. Psal 32.1 p. 48 49 57. Psal 143.2 p. 38 39 40 41. Isa 38.3 p. 104. Isa 64.6 p. 123.124 Dan. 9.18 p. 178 179. Matth. 5.45 p. 92. Matth. 10.3 p. 44. and verse 37. p. 126. and vers 38. p. 125. Matth. 11.30 compared with 1 Joh. 3.5 p. 125 126. Matth. 16.18 p. 142. Matth. 19 1â— p. 128. Mar. 16.16 p. 70 89 97. Luk. 1.6 p. 126. Luk. 10.28 p. 115. Luk. 17.6 p. 157. Joh. 2.19 compared with Joh. 10.18 p. 182. Joh. 3.5 p. 72. Joh. 8.36 39. p. 97 98 99 141. Act. 13.39 p. 62 63. Rom. 5.19 p. 52. Rom. 6.23 p. 122. Rom. 7.14 p. 122. Verse 18. p. 120. Rom. 9.32 p. 51 52. Rom. 10.5 p. 106 107 112 113. 1 Cor. 3.21 22. p. 104 105. 1 Cor. 10. p. 90. Gal. 1.8 p. 150. Gal. 3.10 p. 121 122. vers 18. p. 103. Gal. 4.1 p. 104 105. vers 30. p. 115. Gal. 5 4. p. 116. Eph. 2.12 p. 96. 1 Tim. 4.8 p. 106 107. Heb. 8.6 p. 134. 1 Pet. 1.3 p. 183. vers 18. p. 153. 1 Joh. 2.2 p. 100. 1 Joh. 3.9 p. 127. 1 Joh. 5.3 p. 125 126.
was imputed to righteousness True saith Bellarmine Abraham was now regenerate and had done many good works of faith and yet the Apostle when he saith he was justified by faith and not by works rejects not his works done in faith from power of justifing but those only which he might have done not of faith For even they who have faith work sometimes not of faith as when they sin or do works meerly Morall without relation to God In a word the Apostle speaketh conditionally and according to their opinion which ascribed righteousness to their own strength Answ Now what is to be willfully blind if this be not was it ever heard of that a man should be justified by works not which he had done but which he might have done or think we the Saints of God to whom he wrought or the Iews that perhaps disturbed them were ever so shameless as to ascribe justice to works finfull or meerly Morall such as heathens performed It s apparent that the Apostle fits answer to Iewish objections who urged works of law written for matter of justification yea in likelihood works done in grace for whereto else comes in the example of Abraham so worthy a Saint of God Certes if of works meerly naturall there had been question example of Abimelech or Socrates or Aristides had been as pertinent to the purpose Lastly say others the Apostle speaks not de justificatione Pii but Impii not of that justification whereby a man of a righteous man is made more righteous but he speaks of justifiing a wicked man which is done by faith Answ Concerning this distinction see Annotat. in Chap. 3. But it is their opinion that he speaks of the first justification only surely Sasbout confesseth that the testimony out of Genesis treats only De augmento Iustitiae non de justificatione Impii And that is apparent to every confiderate Reader This mist of cavills thus dispelled let us now resume the Apostles conclusion and lay it for a ground that Abraham was not justified by any works of any law in any state by him performed Use Hear this now yee justitiaries that dare obtrude your menstruous merits to Godsjustice and for them claim righteousness at his judgment seat Behold Abraham that mirrout of good works as well as of faith yet stript of all right and claim to righteousness by any his obedience and dare any of his children challenge more at God hands then Abraham the pattern of justification Bring to the ballance your voluntary poverty building of temples pilgrimage vvorks of mercy or if there be any vvork that you think more glorious and see if they be not found lighter then vanity it self to those of Abraham that one vvork of obedience in offering his Son Isaac upon the altar vvhich of the sons of men can parallel I spare amplifications because they are extant in the Apostle and particularized in Ambrose De Abrah Patriarch lib. 1. Cap. 8. VER 3 4 5. For what saith the Scripture Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace but of debt but to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justfieth the ungodly his faith is counted for righteousness VVHether the words be conceived as proof of the Minor or of the principall conclusion it is not much materiall the issue being all one The argument proving it is taken from the manner or meanes of Abrahams justification which was meerly gracious the Scripture affirms that Abrahams believing was counted to him for righteousness Gen. 15.6 Ergo he had no cause of boasting because that not to the worker but to the believer only faith is imputed unto righteousness The consequence of this Enthymeme hath its proof from the place of unlikes That the force of the proofe may be better conceived let us view a little the terms of the comparison The persons compared are he that worketh and he that worketh not but believeth The things wherein they are compared as unlike is the manner or means whereby these severally obtain righteousness The worker that is he that hath works to be justified by he hath righteousness reckoned to him as wages not granted out of favour but paid as of debt He that hath no works but believes hath righteousness counted to him not of debt but of favour as if he had said that yee may see how Abrahams having faith counted righteousness left him no cause of boasting observe this difference betwixt the worker and believer viz. He that hath works to bring before God hath righteousness ascribed unto him of debt not of grace because that by his works he hath purchased righteousness as wages and so by consequence hath cause of boasting him that justifieth the ungodly it s otherwise this faith is of grace imputed to righteousness Abraham therefore being of this latter sort not a worker but a believer and by consequence hath faith of grace counted to him for righteousness surely had no cause of boasting for this matter of justification This having the better judgment of the learned I take to be the naturall resolution of the text Let us now turn back to the words and enquire their sense and what instructions they afford for our use In verse the third are two things 1. The Judg whom Paul appeales unto 2. The sentence of the judg For what saith the Scripture Holy Apostle thou forgottest thy self that didst appeal to Scripture to give sentence in a matter of dobut For we are taught by men of unerring spirits the Scripture is Mutus Index a dumbe judg not able to utter what may resolue us in matter of doubt Now how much better were it that these men were dumb then to use their tongues in manner so blaspheously derogatory to him that inspires the Scripture For be it that in property of speech the Scripture is speechless yet contains it not directions sufficient to determine doubts or needs it any more then mans minde to conceive and his tongue to publish what it contains Or hath the Church any other authority about the Scripture save only to declare what Gods Spirit therein speaks Must the sense needs be locked up in the Popes breast and the Scripture taught to mean only what he determines 2. Is it so strange and abhorrent from common language that the Scripture should be said to speak In common assemblies what more usuall How saith your record What saith the Law 3. How ever I hope Gods Spirit may be said in Scripto speak to his Church without any great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inasmuch as he doth therein utter what his meaning is And writing doth the office of speech thus far that it serves to express the conception of our minde As David said of his tongue it was the pen of a ready writer Psal 45.1 So may we say of the pens that the Lords holy scribes used they were the tongues of a ready speaker
finde faith to have any such act or office as to apprehend and receive Christ and his righteousness Answ Amongst other places that is pregnant Rom. 5.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est oblatam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fidei videlicet manu Beza Where believers are deseribed to be such as receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness that receive to wit by faith as by a hand the gift of righteousness that is the righteousnes of Christ given unto us After this sentence we see how faith alone justifieth namely because faith only hath fitness to receive the gift of righteousness This laid also for a ground boasting is excluded in every respect which after all other explanations is left in some respect unto men Thus also is the comfort of conscience left provided for when Gods children shall be taught out of the word of God that the righteousness whereby they are justified before God is so absolute and every way perfect as is that of Christ and that it sufficeth them to justification that they receive it whether by strong or weak Faith the virtue of Righteousness being stil the same when it is received in what measure soever it be received As the alms given is of the same benefit whether the hand that receives it be steady or shaking so it be received The summe of all is this sith Faith is accepted to Justification neither in respect of the Worth of it to procure it nor yet as being the Form of righteousness nor as a Preparation nor as a Condition It remains that it justifieth Instrumentally onely or because it apprehends that for which we are justified namely the merit and Righteousness of Christ For Use of this point let it be this It affords Comfort to every weary soul groaning under the burthen of sinne and pressed with the Terrours of the Almighty and affrighted with the Curse of the Law due to Transgressions If thou believe in the Lord Jesus and hast received this grace by faith to receive his righteousness offered in the Gospel thy sins are forgiven and shall never be imputed to Condemnation Thou standest as just in Gods sight as if thou hadst in thine own person performed exactly the whole obedience that the Law requires And let no man say it is true if they could firmly believe as Abraham but their faith is so weak and wavering that even for it Condemnation is due them Answ For this Consider that it is not the strength of Faith that justifies not Faith as an Act wherein our Righteousness stands but it is that which Faith apprehends that justifies even the obedience and righteousness of Christ That apprehended truly in what measure soever covers all defects not onely of Legall obedience but even of Faith it self A second thing here observable is this That whereas to Abraham that had now long time been Regenerate and in state of grace had done many works of Piety and obedience Yet Faith is still counted to Righteousness it follows well that whole justification is absolved in Faith and that Faith is not onely the beginning of Righteousness but the very complement thereof And Bellarm. qua supra it is to be observed against that errour of Romanists that to evade the direct testimonies of Scripture against Justification by works and for that by Faith alone have devised a distinction of Justification It is say they Concil Trident Sess 6. of two sorts The First whereby a man of unjust is made just and that stands in two things 1. Remission of sins 2. Infusion of gracious habits whereby the heart of man is disposed and inclined to actuall justice The Second is that whereby a man of Righteous becomes more righteous encreasing the habits infused by exercise of them in doing good works The First of these is ascribed to Faith The Second to good works Now To omit that in this Doctrine they confound things to be distinguished namely Justification and Sanctification There is no ground for this distinction of justification in Scriptures nay grounds many against it For 1. If good works have this force to make us more justified in the sight of God how comes it to pass that Abrahams Iustification is still ascribed to faith For that the place Gen. 15.6 is to be understood de secunda justificatione Sasbout confesseth Sasbout ad locum Besides this the Apostle Phil. 3.9 apertly declares his whole justification both in his first Conversion Kemnit in Exam. in that time wherein he wrote yea at the day of Resurrection to be wholly and meerly absolved in Faith And surely if there were such virtue in the exercise of Good works as to make us more justified in the sight of God Saint Paul did fondly count so basely of them as to call them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dung and loss Add hereunto that the Apostle 1 Cor. 4.4 speaking of the righteousness wherein he lived after his Conversion yet plainly disclaims opinion of justification thereby he was privy to himself of no insincerity in his calling having since his calling lived in all good conscience yet saith he I am not hereby justified What shall we say he speaks of his first justification as if it could possibly be thought that the works not yet extant could be the means of that justification which he had before he had works More I adde not We will now proceed to that which followeth VERS 4. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace but of debt The applying of these verses to the Apostles purpose see in the Analysis Sense To him that worketh That is say some that presumes of his works others that deservs by his works Thus rather To him that hath or brings works to God The wages or reward What is the wages here mentioned Paraeus Some take the Apostle to reason out of a principle in Civil life by similtude applyed to this purpose but the Antithesis bears it not Wages here understand Synecdechicè put for estimation of righteousness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is say some is not imputed but the Catachresis is too hard and abhorrent from all custome of speech Cajetan Is notreckoned that is not paid saith Cajetan What if we say the speech is borrowed from the custome of Common life on this manner That the Lord should be imagined after the manner of men to keep his book of accounts wherein the records both the behaviours of men and the wages due unto them according to the same It s not much unlike that we fiud Mal. 3.16 Let us for the purpose imagine the Lord the great distributor of reward according to the double covenant of works and grace to have referred all men to two ranks viz. Workers and Believers to resolve with himself to crown both with a sentence of righteousness according as they bring to him either works such as the Law prescribes or
faith in Christ If a man have works his works are taken notice of and recorded and withall his reward is thus registred after the Covenant of the Law Righteousness of Debt If a man want works but have faith his faith is recorded and to him also is ascribed or imputed the same reward though out of another cause Righteousness by favour The thing we have in the word of God and perhaps it is Allegorically expressed by allusion to the customs of men This I am sure is truth in the Legal Covenant If a man do the Commandments he shall live in them and the doers of the Law shall be iustified This also is true in the Evangelicall Covenant He that believes shall be saved and if a man believes in Christ his faith shall be reckoned of to iustification The reward is all one that God intends to both they differ 1. In the condition 2. In the ground of payment Righteousness is ascribed to the Worker of Debt to the Believer of Grace God should do the worker wrong if he should not approve him as righteous that hath fulfilled the Laws But it s his mere grace that to a believer he will ascribe righteousness sith his righteousness is merely precaria performed by another and by him nothing brought but faith to receive it and tender it unto God and that faith also merely the work of God If I fail in expressing my self or explaining the Apostle yet let no man blame my desire of both but further my weakness with his help that the Apostle may be understood Sense The sense then is this as I conceive it To him that hath works such as the Law prescribes and brings them unto God righteousness is ascribed or set on his reckoning as wages belonging to him of debt and not of grace VERS 5. But to him that worketh not We must beware that we mistake not the Apoâ—â—e as if he promised righteousness to him that believes and neglected good works Jam. 2.26 For the Apostle James hath taught us that faith without works is dead and if a man say he hath faith and have no works can that faith save him And the Apostle describing faith justifying as it is in the justified man saith it worketh by love Gal. 5.6 What is then the sense To him that worketh not that is hath no such works to bring before God as for them to claim righteousness thereby or as Ambrose expounds Ambros ad loc Non operanti id est qui obnoxius est peccatis quia non operatur quod mandat Lex To him that hath no works because he is a transgressour of the Law But believeth in him See here say some how faith justifying is described To be rather an affiance in the Justifier then an assent to the Gospel Answ Rather see here affiance meeting with assent in the person of the believer they agree in the subject differ for all that in their nature In him that justifieth the ungodly Doth the Lord then justifie the wicked Answ Surely though he be God that forgiveth iniquity and sin yet will he in no case clear the wicked Exod. 34.7 and Prov. 17.15 He professeth that he is as abominable that justifieth the wicked as he that condemns the righteous Answ Hereto answers are diversely conceived according as the terms admit distinction First thus Wicked men are of two sorts some such as continue impenitently in their sinns some that by grace repent and believe in Christ Of the first sort its true God justifies them not that is acquits them not while they so continue and yet wicked men repenting and believing in Christ that is ceasing to be wicked God clears and holds innocent for to such he forgives iniquity transgression and sinne Paraeus ad loc Exod. 34.7 or thus Justifying of a wicked man is either against the orders of Justice without receiving sufficient satisfaction for the trespasse or else upon receit of sufficient satisfaction In the first sense God justifieth not the wicked in the second he mercifully justifieth us having received satisfaction in the death of his Son Lasâ—ly Justification hath divers significations sometimes it signifies to make just sometimes to declare just or to absolve In this last sense God justifies not the ungodly that is absolves him not whiles he so continues but yet he makes an ungodly man righteous Of the first kind of justification understand Moses of the second Paul His faith is counted for righteousness See explication ad vers 3. Observ The things out of this passage of Scripture observable are these First the direct opposition of Faith and Works in this Article of justification If it be by Faith it s not of Works If by Works not of Faith that howsoever it be true their concurrence is certain their agreement amiable in the life of the justified yet their contrariety irreconcileable in the procurement of justification Not to be long in the manifestation of it First the Apostles argument hath else no force in the case of Abraham except their opposition be such as is mentioned 2. Besides this view it in the contrary principles from which the two kinds of justification proceed The Worker is justified of debt the believer of grace that look what opposition there is betwixt favour and debt the same is betwixt justification by Works and justification by Faith Like see Rom. 11.6 Now were it not a point of acute Sophistry to teach us how to deny the Apostles argument and to tell him the consequence is not good because they are able to assigne a medium Witty I confesse but with such wit as S. James tells us to be * Jam. 3.15 devilish Such as it is let us hear it forsooth they point us to this medium of participation It is partly by Faith partly by Works I say not any man is so impudent as in plain terms to contradict the Apostle but surely this in the issue shall be found their answer howsoever with distinctions they colour the matter Let us hear them Justification by Faith and justification by Works indeed are opposite if ye understand in both the same justification but there is a first justification and a second the one is by Faith the other by Works Again works are of two sorts works of Nature works of Grace betwixt justification by works of Nature and that by Faith there is indeed an opposition not so in that by works of Grace For these distinctions and the vanity of them see suprà ad ver 2. Annotat. ad cap. 3. This once is evident out of this place that the Apostle imputes the justification of Abraham now regenerate unto his Faith and betwixt the justification that Abraham had being now in grace and that of works placeth the opposition Besides this what means the Apostle to befool the Galatians for expecting the perfection of this benefit by the Law which was begun by the Gospel Gal. 3.3 Would he not thereby teach us
against unbelieving ungodly ones is yet so exceeding ready to forgive even the ungodly believing in him so that we may say as David every one to his own soul faith once received Psal 43.5 Why art thou so cast down O my soul and why art thou so disquieted within me Trust in God and thou shalt find him full of mercy and compassion exceeding ready to forgive the sins that he hath enabled thee to repent Hast thou sinned in seculo saith Bernard Bernard in die Pet. Pauli Serm. 30. Not more then Paul In religion and state of grace Not more then Peter and yet they obtained mercy and as Paul speaks It is for ever a * 2. Tim. 1.16 Beza Piscator pattern of Gods pardoning mercy to all such as shall hereafter believe in him to everlasting life Neither impieties in seculo nor infirmities in grace are imputed to such as believe in him for behold he justifies the ungodly believing in him that though all sins be damnable in their own nature yet may it be said in a sense The onely damning sin is infidelity insomuch as if infidelity were not no sin should be imputed to condemnation But thus far of the first argument against justification by Works drawn from the example of Abraham The rest of this Verse hath been already explained ad vers 3. VERS 6 7 8. 6. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works 7. Saying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered 8. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sinne TO the example of Abraham taken from Moses is adjoyned the testimony of David amongst the Prophets And Theodorets reason of the choice is not to be contemned for Abraham lived before the Law and now he shews that David who lived under the Law gave Testimony to Faith The rendring differs Beza Piscator David describeth the blessedness of that man others had rather thus David saith Blessedness to be that mans unto whom c. In the issue is no great odds The summe of the argument is this If David say That blessednesse is that mans to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works Then is no man justified by works But David saith Blessedness is that mans to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works Ergò No man is justified by works The minor hath its proof ver 6 7 8. borrowed from Psalme 32. But may some say How follows the Proposition that if a man be blessed that hath righteousness without works imputed to him then no man is justified by works Answ Thus as I conceive prescribing to no man If blessedness be onely that mans that hath righteousness without works imputed then justification cannot be by works Inasmuch as blessedness is his onely that is justified justification being a part of blessedness If any Justiciary shall object That the exclusive particle onely is not extant in the Apostle and that though he be blessed that hath righteousness imputed without works yet may he be blessed also that hath righteousness purchased by works Let this suffice him for answer That there is one onely way of all mens justification for else how follows Pauls argument Abraham was not justified by Works but by Faith Ergò No other man After this conceit a man might mannerly deny the Apostles consequence and tell him that though Abraham were justified by Faith yet another man may be iustified by Works Now to make way to the particulars observable in this sixth verse It may be said that the words are no where extant in David and how then saith the Apostle that David saith The man is blessed to whom righteousness without works is imputed David indeed saith that he is blessed that hath not his sins imputed no where that righteousness without works is imputed Answ Though the words be no where extant in David yet the sense is and though he speak not in expresse words yet he speaks it in effect inasmuch as by iust and necessary consequence it may be deduced for he that saith A man is blessed that hath not his sins imputed saith in effect that he is blessed that hath righteousness without works imputed Observ Whence observe we that Gods Spirit in Scripture speaks as well what he implyeth as what he expresseth as well what by consequence is deduced as what in summe of words he uttereth Instances are frequent Iam. 4.5 Saith the Scripture in vain the spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth it after envy Now where finde we those words in all the Scripture By deduction we have them Num. 11.29 in express terms we no where finde them yet saith Iames the Scripture saith so Luk. 1.73 74. God sware to Abraham that we should be delivered out of the hands of our enemies that we might serve him without fear where finde we such an oath extant for words In no Scripture yet when God sware he would bless him Gen. 22.18 and that in his seed all nations should be blessed He sware in effect we should be delivered from our enemies and serve him without fear inasmuch as this blessedness stands in being delivered from our enemies and it s no small part thereof to serve God in holiness The Observation is of speciall use for maintaining the fulness of the Scripture and for helping us in sundry controversies Say Papists and Anabaptists where have we it taught that infants should be baptized in all the Scripture Answ Not in express terms but by just consequence we have it From the generall Mat. 28.19 From pâ—rity Gen. 17.12 From principles Act. 2.39 Where finde we that Christs Righteousness is imputed to us for justification saith Bellarmine Answ Bellarm. de justific l. 2. and lib. 1 cap. 16. In express terms we finde it not but virtually and by just consequence we have it 2 Cor. 5.21 In the equivalent we have it Rom. 5.17 18 19. The adversaries saith Bellarmine are wont to boast much of the express word of God and to reduce all their opinions to this one head But in the case of justification by faith only that help fails them For they were never yet able to shew in the Scripture that particle only where they intreate of justifiing faith Answ But we are taught that if we have it by consequence from the Scripture we have it in the Scripture The Scripture propounding but two means only of justification Faith and Works and denying all justifying vertue to works affords it us not the conclusion by consequence We are justified by faith only see Rom. 3.18 Again have we it not in the equivalent Gal. 2.16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the faith of Iesus Christ as much as if he had said by faith only In a word where we have the generall we have the particulars where principles and causes the effects where one equall there also the other By
31. but according to their opinion Remission so takes our sins ut nè vestigium quidem ullum maneat it dispels them as the sun doth clouds so that nothing of them remains washeth them away so as we become whiter then snow Well yet as clean as we are made from fault and sin yet some of the guilt may lie on our persons and the just God may inflict upon his innocent and purest servants punishments temporall yea the same for smart which the devils and damned in hel endure Out upon Popery it is Bilinguis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And of this second argument against Justification by Work thus far VERS 9 10 11 12. 9. Cometh this blessedness then upon the Circumcision onely or upon the uncircumcision also for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness 10. How was it then reckoned When he was in circumcision or in uncircumcision not in circumcision but in uncircumcision 11. And he received the signe of Circumcision a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised that he might be the father of all them that believe though they be not circumcised that righteousness might be imputed to them also 12. And the father of Circumcision to them who are not of the Circumcision onely but also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham which he had being yet uncircumcised THe scope and dependence of this passage is diversly conceived Some think the Apostle here propounds a new argument for justification by Faith against justification by Works and these also diversly collect it Some thus Abraham was justified before he was circumcised Ergò He was not justified by circumcision nor by consequent by any works of the Law The ground of which argument is this because if circumcision were cause of his justification then must he needs have been circumcised before he was justified for the effect cannot be without or before the cause Others thus Paraeus ad loc If Abraham were justified by faith then must all men whether circumcised or uncircumcised be so justified But Abraham was justified by faith Ergo. The consequence of the proposition they imagine to have this proof because Abraham is father of both people and they both his sonnes wherefore by good consequent they think it follows that as be was justified so others must be sith there is one reason of the father and children of the pattern and the imitatours of the head of the covenant and of those that in him are admitted into the covenant The scope But methinks weighing the words the scope seems no more but this To shew that the blessing of justification belongs indifferently to Jews and Gentiles believing A point touched before chap. 3. and here again resumed and more purposely proved because he had immediately before made mention of Abrahams justification and their guess is not without ground that think the Apostle now frames answer to that second quaere of Jews Rom. 301. What profit of Circumcision which to this place he hath purposely deferred because from Abrahams case it receives fittest answer Neither let it seem strange that the Apostle should thus digress from his principall conclusion sith we know it is frequent with him in his passage as well to clear doubt as to confirm his purpose And for the scope thus far See Rom. 3. Now the passage to this Conclusion is by way of Prolepsis Came this blessedness then c. Wherein we have 1. The doubt 2. The reason of it 3. The solution The doubt is whether this blessedness that is justification belongs to the circumcision that is to the Jews onely or to the uncircumcision also that is to the Gentiles yet uncircumcised Metonymia adjuncti frequens as Rom. 2.28 the supply of the Verb whether it be falleth as Theophylact or cometh as our English or is as others we have no cause to enquire of the sense being apparently such as we have shewn The reason of the doubt For we say that faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness as if he had said This is in confesso that Abrahams faith was reckoned to him to righteousness Now the question here is Whether sith it is apparent Abraham was circumcised this blessedness of justification or having faith imputed to righteousness belong to circumcision onely or also to the uncircumcised The solution follows carried artificially as this whole passage is in a Rhetoricall Dialogisme How was it then imputed c. as if he had said If this be the doubt see in what state Abraham was when he received this testimony of righteousness and you shall find it was long before he was circumcised For this imputation of faith to righteousness whereof we treat was whiles he yet had no child as appeareth Gen. 15.2 and the ordinance of circumcision began after this towards a fourteen years For after the promise made by God and the testimony of righteousness given to Abraham took he Hagar to wife and of her had Ishmael being 86 years old Gen. 16.16 and many years after was given him in charge the ordinance of circumcision and the execution thereof fell into the year 99 of Abraham and of Ishmael the 13. Gen. 17.24 25 so that by the history it is clear he was justified long before he was circumcised and this as the Apostle seems to intimate wanted not his mysterie the Lord thereby testifying that justification is not had to circumcision but that the uncircumcised believing may also be sharers with Abraham in that blessing Observ Thus far of the Context and sense of the first clause Now the things here observable are these First That very circumstances of Scripture stories afford often substantiall conclusions A weighty conclusion that justification belongs to Gentiles and that which was long controversed in the days of the Apostle See Act. 15. Gal. 5. And it is determined by a circumstance in the story Abraham was justified in time of uncircumcision therefore justification belongs not to the circumcised only A like case we have determined by like evidence Gal. 3.17 out of circumstances of story conferred the blessing must needs be ours by promise and not by the Law How is it proved because the Covenant was made with Abraham in Christ 430 years before the giving of the law in Sinai in Heb. 7.12 13 14. The Apostle proves this conclusion that perfection was not by the leviticall Priesthood What is his arguments because another Priest was to arise according to Davids prophecy not after the order of Aaron even Christ a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek And because it might be said that that other Priest though another yet might be of Aarons order nay saith the Apostle that appears false by this circumstance for our Lord Christ of whom David speaks was of another tribe even of the tribe of Judah unto which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning Priesthood I might be infinite in this kinde but a tast
life suprá Iâ—st judicium ut qui contemnunt Dei misericordem justitiam suam volunt constituere eidem suae justitiae relinquantur opprimendi magis quà m justificandi For us Let us learn to expect the inheritance by the means whereby God hath intended to give it What is that if not the Law the Apostle answers The Righteousness of Faith And what is that righteousness say Papists Cui fides est initium that is in short Bellarm. de Justif l. 1. c. 17. obedience which we in our own persons perform to the law after we have received to believe the word of God so great force is there in general faith to make works imperfect in themselves and therefore condemned by the law to be the mean of our inheritance and salvation But I wonder what made Paul now a believer having it in so exellent a measure yet to say he was not thereby justified 1 Cor. 4.4 Large discussing of the point I mean not on this occasion to enter into But this I am sure of the law to salvation requires perfection of obedience curses to hell even the least imperfections Gal. 3.10 and doth any man believing receive ability to perform it to the full I am sure it s Augustines and Hieromes resolution that howsoever perhaps such measure of grace may be obtained yet there never yet lived the man on earth nor should do to the end of the world so righteous that he did good and sinned not Eccles 7.20 Say others The righteousness of faith That is the righteousness which stands in faith so making faith the substance as it were of that righteousness whereby we are justified and saved against it are these reasons 1. That then our righteosness whereby we are just in Gods sight shall be a thing that is imperfect for hath any man at all times perfection of faith 2. Accordingly conscience shall never have solid peace neither in act nor in the cause 3. Righteousness of Justification shall be variable in the degrees according as faith is more or less in the same or divers subjects so that some shall be more some less justified in the sight of God and the same man according as his faith ebbs or flows shall be whiles perfectly whiles partially whiles not at all justified in the sight of God For the act of faith wherein according to this opinion our righteousness stands may by the consent of all be lost for a time The old way still is the good way by righteousness of faith that is by righteousness which faith apprehends in Christ see Rom. 5.17 By righteousness of Christ then apprehended by faith obtain we the promised inheritance Gal. 3.22 The Scripture hath concluded all under sin that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe and vers 9. They which be of faith are blessed with faithfull Abraham By faith they are made partakers of the Blessing Vse Exhortation in this point is more needfull then proof the whole Scripture almost running this way Be we exhorted therefore leaving all confidence in the Law for righteousness or salvation to cleave fast to the righteousness of faith It is a fearfull doom passed on the Jews by the Apostle Rom. 10.3 that going about to stablish their own righteousness they were not subject to the righteousness of God And was it for nothing think we that the Apostle counts all dung and dross for the excellent knowledge sake of Christ and desires to be found in him not having his own righteousness by the Law but that which is by the righteousness of faith Phil. 3.8.9 Surely if any had cause to trust therein the Apostle much more that from the time of his calling had lived in all good conscience before God and men Acts 23.1 and yet knowing that thereby he was not justified or saved he utterly disclaims confidence therein and rests onely in that which is by faith of Christ Whose example let us follow as we desire to have comfort in the day of judgement Bern. in tantic Ser. 30. S. Bernard elegantly comparing grace and the Law together in their effects saith Quà m dissimili vultu ad omnem conscientiam se offerunt suavitas hujus illius austeritas quis sanè ex aequo respiciat condemnantem consolantem reposcentem ignoscentem plectentem implectentem And surely they know little the terrour of the Judge and have had as little experience of the Laws arraignment in the conscience that trust to their own polluted righteousness and not to that absolute obedience of Christ the Mediatour Proceed we now in the Text. VERS 14 15. For if they which are of the Law be heirs faith is made void and the promise made of none effect Because the Law worketh wrath For where no Law is there is no transgression THe words tend to confirmation of the Apostles former argument for justification by faith the summe whereof was this That the promise of inheritance was not to be accomplished by the Law c. the proof of it is here laid down taken from a double inconvenience issuing from that manner of attaining the inheritance If they which are of the Law be heirs then is faith made void and the promise of none effect But neither is faith void nor the promise of none effect Ergò They which are of the Law be not heirs or which is equivalent the promise of inheritance is not obtained by the Law They which are of the Law That is saith Theodoret Qui ex Lege vitam instituerunt saith Cajetan Qui subditi sunt Legi Mosi Sasbout Qui Legis observatores sunt Many the like Expositions might be cited Thus I think rather They which are of the Law that is which by the works of the Law seek the inheritance as Gal. 3.9 10. The Apostle sorts them that seek righteousness and salvation into two kinds Some are of faith they are such as by faith seek the inheritance Theophylact. ad Gal. 3. Some again are of the works of the Law they are such as by the Law seek salvation or as Theophylact They are of faith Quirelictà Lege ad fidem se conferunt They of the Law which leaving faith betake themselves to the Law If these be heirs namely ex Lege as Ambrose interprets if they get the inheritance by the Law Then is faith void Whose faith Gods or Mans Gods saith Cajetan that is his fidelity in keeping promise impertinently rather Mans prescribed of God to be the means of inheritance Their faith is void or vain What is that whether frustrate in respect of fruit or unnecessary and needless in the prescript Calvin Instit lib. 3. c. 11. S. 11.13 3. or else as M. Calvin so shaken that it turns to distrust and degenerates towards desperation this latter is a truth as he explains it there being left no place for perswasion of justification if it depend upon condition of fulfilling the Law
life How many incredulous yea opposites to faith hath he by his word brought to the obedience of the faith His hand is not shortned it is ever true of him He can quicken the dead and still by his word give being to things that erst had no subsistence This may serve to direct us in use of these marvellous effects of Gods power for stablishing of faith And of the first member of this Chapter thus far The second followeth from the 18th verse to the 23. VERS 18. Who against hope believed in hope that he might become the father of many nations according to that which was spoken so shall thy seed be IN this verse and the four that follow the Apostle digresseth a little from his principall conclusion to a commendation of Abrahams faith The scope whereof seems this To prescribe us a form of Believing and to direct us a course for the establishing of our faith required of us to justification both which we may learn from the example of Abraham the father and pattern of Believers The specialties commendable in Abrahams faith expressed in this verse are two 1. His courage 2. His prudence in Believing His courage in that against hope he believed in hope Sense Against hope in hope How reconcile we Against hope which naturall course could afford In hope by meditation of Gods power and truth conceived He had promise to be father not of children onely but of whole nations the course of nature contradicted it His body dead and unfit for generation with Sarah besides her wonted barrenness it ceased to be after the manner of women so that in respect of means naturall causes there were many of despairing none of hope yet believed he the promise in the largest extent knowing that Gods power transcends nature Observ From whose example we learn in the midst of despair still to hope where we have Gods promise for our warrant Besides Abrahams example we have like practice in Job a mirrour not of patience onely but of faith Who would rest on him for life whom he feels wounding even to Death Yet Though he kill me saith Job I will trust in him Job 13.15 To their practice let us add the consideration of defects in this kind severely punished in Moses Num. 11.13 20 21 22. The incredulous Prince 2 King 7.1 2 17. Zachary Luke 1.18 20 22. In a word In Believing there are four degrees one more excellent then another 1. That which is exercised in sufficiency of means 2. Where the means are weak and improportionate to the promise 3. In the want of means 4. Where are means strongly opposing the accomplishment of the promise this the highest degree of faith so commendable in Abraham Vse Brethren we all profess our selves the sonnes and daughters of Abraham Gal. 3.29 His children we are if we walk in the steps of his faith Iohn 8.39 and labour therein to resemble Let us be exhorted not onely in believing but in the very measure of faith to hold correspondence above hope yea against hope to believe in hope above sense yea against sense to believe what the Lord hath promised There fall out times with Gods children when if we shall make sense or naturall causes the measure of faith a thousand to one but we are swallowed up of despair The Lord sometimes writes bitter things against us and makes us possess the sinnes of our youth seems to surcharge Conscience with imputation of those sinnes the pardon whereof he commands us to believe What shall a poor soul do in this case to keep it self to the task of faith Surely what thou feelest God to impute believe he will pardon to thy repentance for so runs the promise There are times when we may feel decayes of grace and declinings in obedience yet sith it is his promise to give perseverence without interruption believe thou shalt stand even while thou thinkest thou art falling c. Helps to stablish faith in this kind are these 1. To rest on the naked promise of God 2. Consideration of the transcendency of Gods power able to work without above yea against nature Ephes 3.20 to do as * Paul speaks exceeding abundantly above all that we can ask or think 3. Observation of the Lords dealing with others or our selves accomplishing his promises beyond all expectation The second commendable specialty in Abrahams faith here mentioned is his prudence in believing according to that which was spoken Observ Whence learn we That the rule and measure of a wise mans faith is the word of God so that all the Lord speaks must be believed onely what he speaks must be believed And in this generall we and Papists accord The rule and object of Christian faith is Veritas prima and the adaequatum objectum of faith is the Word of God But that word say they is of two sorts Scriptum Traditum Written and Traditionary Both these together make us a perfect rule of faith Scripture without Tradition is regula but partialis Bellarm. de verb. Dei non scripto lib. 4. cap. 12. That which is taught for Gods truth in our Church is this That the Scripture contains doctrine and direction all-sufficient for faith and practice necessary to salvation so that there is no more to be believed or done upon pain of damnation then what is contained in the written word of God For explanation the contents of Scripture we conceive to be not only what is here immediately and in express terms taught but all whatsoever may thence be diduced by just and necessary consequence out of generalls causes equalls c. Our arguments are these 2 Tim. 3.14.15 The Scriptures saith Paul to Timothy are able to make thee wise to salvation to make the man of God perfect throughly furnished unto every good work Afford they us wisdome sufficient to salvation Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 11. ubi supra therefore they contain doctrine sufficient for faith and practice And that there may be no place for that idle evasion of our adversaries limitting the sufficiency of written doctrine to what is necessary for Laiques Both Timothy was a Bishop and him they they were able to make wise to salvation and generally saith the Apostle they completely furnish the man of God that is the Minister to every good work of his calling Our Second argument is this The written rule of practice we are sure is perfect both for that the Lord gives so strait charge to add nothing thereto Deut. 4.2 Prov. 30.6 Rev. 22.18 and because there cannot the duty be named which the Law of God prescribeth not nor the sin thought of which it forbids not May we think to evade this testimony with that Nicety of Bellarmine add not by depraving the sense nay as appears by the Lords own often reproof of doctrins of men in matter of his worship Isai 29.13 and his heavy judgments on those that altered but circumstances of his prescripts Levit. 10. additions as well
by new prescripts as by false glosses are here forbidden May we think the rule of faith is left more at randome and uncertain How then doth Paul so resolutely denounce Anathema to him that shall teach any other thing then what they taught and the people received Gal. 1.8 Perhaps they will say under their doctrine of faith comes chiefly what they delivered in Preaching by word of mouth Irenaeus advers Haeres lib. 3. cap. 1. Answ Hear Iraenaeus Evangelium quidem tunc praeconiaverunt postea vero per dei voluntatem in in scripturis nobis tradiderunt fundamentum columnam fidei nostrae futurum yea and for their own rule of preaching it is Pauls protestation It was no other then the Scriptures of Moses and the Prophet Act. 26.22 Lastly If there be and have been ever so necessary use of tradition to direct us in matter of faith and practice I wonder much that our Saviour and his Apostles never in any point of faith aledg tradition but Scripture for evidence It is written in the Prophets Psalmes Moses c. I finde often It is come to us by tradition from Elders I finde never for allegation of Christ or his Apostles To these Reasons Let us add the consent of some Ancients Tertullian advers Hermogen Tertullian Adoro scripturae plenitudinem quae mihi factorem manifestat facta In Evangelio vero amplius Ministrum atque arbitrum rectoris invenio sermonem An autem de aliquâ subjacenti materiâ facta sint omnia nusquam adhuc legi Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina si non est scriptum timeat vae illud adjicientibus aut detrahentibus destinatum Augustinus Austust de Doctr. Christia lib. 2. cap. 9. Contra litem Petilian lib. 3. cap. 6. In his quae aperte in scripturis posita sunt inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque vivendi Idem sive de Christo sive de ejus Ecclesia sive de quacunque aliare quae pertinet ad fidem vitamque nostram non dicam si nos nequaquam comparandi ei qui dixit licet si nos sed omnio quod secutus adjecet Si Angelus de caelo vobis annuncianerit paeterquam quod in scripturis legalibus Evangelicis accepistis Anathema sit Heaps of such like testimonies of Fathers are every were occurrent amongst our Divines It were strange that in their own School this doctrine should be taught yet Scotus and those that follow him Scotus Nic. prolegom in sent q. 2. maintain this position That cognitio supernaturalis necessaria viatori tradita est sufficienter in sacra Scriptura Their Reasons Sacra scriptura tradit quid sit finis hominis puta visio fruitio dei determinat quae sunt necessaria ad illum finem consequendum scil Mandata declarat etiam proprietates substantiarum separatarum quantum est utile viatori nosse Igitur Dico illa omnia scripta esse ab Apostolis quae sunt omnibus necessaria Bellarm. de verbo dei non scripto lib. 4. cap. 11. Some chiefe of their arguments shall be propounded If Scriptures be sufficient either the whole Canon of Scriptures joyntly taken or the severall parts but neither the whole because some parts are lost nor the severall books Ergo. Answers are given to the minor that both the whole is sufficient and perfect according to perfection requisite for the whole and the parts also perfect according to perfection of parts That some parts of the Canon are lost they are not able to prove their instances being all either of writings not canonicall as some of Solomons Songs and Proverbs or else parts of Scripture extant though not under the names of those to whom they are assigned as those ascribed to Nathan Ahia Iddo For fuller answer Let us consider that the question is touching Scriptures now extant Whether the Scriptures we have be a sufficient rule of faith and practice How impertinent is it to tell us that part of the ancient Canon is lost which though it were yielded impeacheth nothing of the truth of what we hold concerning full perfection of Scripture now extant for the Church that now is and shall be to the end of the world Our conclusion is this Since the days of Moses there never was wanting to the Church a written Canon completely sufficient for the times of the Church sometimes it was more narrow sometimes more large ever perfect secundum tempus as Lumbard distinguisheth never defective in any necessary point of faith or practice Their Second argument is from induction of particulars necessary to be believed or done which yet are not contained in Scriptures as that there are some books of Divine inspiration that these now bearing that credit are they that they have such Authors as they pretend c. None whereof are taught in Scripture Answ For this last of the certainty of Penmen whose names they carry this that we answer First That many of them give testimony to their Authors Secondly That the ignorance of the Penmen impeacheth nothing of the fulness of necessary knowledg It sufficeth that we know they have God for their Author though his secretary or scribe be to us unknown As for their other particulars That we know not the Scriptures to have proceeded from God Scotus in Prolegom ad Magistum but only by tradition Hear their own Scotus and his followers convincing all that question of the Heavenly Author of them or any part of them by Scriptures themselves His arguments these 1. Propheticall prenunciations all verified by events 2. Perfect concord and consent of scriptures 3. Credit and candor of the penmen 4 The reasonableness of the things therein contained 5. The unreasonableness of errours and heresies in things wherein they oppose the doctrins of scripture 6. The stableness of the Church professing doctrine of Scriptures and punishments of those opposing it 7. Clarity of miracles c. These and the like hath Scotus as arguments in his judgment sufficient to stop the mouthes of any Atheist or Heretique that shall question their inspiration from God And I will boldly say The Scriptures carry as express characters of a divine author as the creatures of the power or wisdome of the Creator The Doctrine so holy so majesticall so divinely powerfull to humble to comfort to convert the soul that it is as absurdly questioned whether God be the inspirer of Scripture as he is the maker of Heaven and Earth There is no creature so high or low but carries this inscription Deus me fecit No Scripture nor sentence of it wherein a man not blind may not read this Title Deus me inspiravit It is vain to object that sundry have questioned this principle For so have many done Gods Creation of the world such quaere's arise out mens blindness to which the clearest things are questionable For other particulars they are either expressely or by implication taught in the
Scripture if necessary or else are such points of faith or practice as in the conclusion are inquireable For that of infants Baptism Scripture prescribes in Generalls Principles equivalent For that of the blessed Maries perpetuall Virginitie post partum a point that we piously believe according to some probabilities of Scripture No matter of such weight as that the doubting or deniall thereof should shut us up under condemnation To leave these men to their vain faith and conversation taught by their fathers traditions from which Christ with his bloud hath ransomed us 1 Pet. 1.18 Let us in matter of faith learn Abrahams prudence believe according to that we know the Lord hath spoken And this rule let us remember it is partiall infidelity to deny credence to any thing delivered in Scriptures Fancy not Faith to believe as Gods truth what he hath not in Scriptures revealed unto us And here I cannot but take notice of the folly of many amongst us Wise it may be in their generation wiser in their own conceit Their profession is this in the point of believing They had rather believe too much then too little and in that sottish resolution how many gross errours drink they in almost to the bane of their souls It cals to mind that fable should I call it or story rather of a woman in the dayes of Popish darkness accused to her Confessour for denying Christs carnall presence in the Sacrament that being charged by the Priest with that point of heresie made answer for her self That she never made question of any such matter And believest thou indeed saith her Confessour that Christ is there present Flesh Bloud and Bone as he was born of the Virgine Not He onely saith the woman but his blessed Mother also O woman replies this Seraphicall Doctour great is thy faith or rather O man great is thy impious folly to approve as points of faith such sottish dreams a just parallel for our men so superfluous and supererogatory in matter of believing But now proceed we in the Text. VERS 19 20 21. And being not weak in faith he considered not his own body now dead when he was about an hundred years old neither yet the deadness of Sarahs Wombe He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief but was strong in faith giving glory to God And being fully perswaded that what he had promised he was able also to perform THe next commendable property of Abrahams faith is the strength of it set out in an Antithesis and heap of words Not weak but strong and fully assured 2. By removing certain effects of weak faith from Abraham as 1. Consideration and looking down upon things that opposed the promise and might hinder faith 2. Doubting or debating of the promise 3. By the means supporting and strengthening faith the truth and power of the promiser This is the sum these the particulars of this passage Sense For sense of the words Sundry questions offer themselves to be discussed First was Abrahams faith so perfect that in it was no weakness no doubtfulness at all Answ So Origen so Papists often in question touching perfection of righteousness The truth is great things are here given to Abraham in this point of believing Now whether this strength of faith should be conceived comparatively or limited to the particular Article now in hand may be some question This once is evident in the story of Abraham that however firm his faith was touching this particular at some time yet in other things Cajetan ad loc he bewrayed some incredulity and at other times as Cajetane conjectures was not without some doubtfulness of this promise Now what when it is yielded Abrahams faith was at sometime perfect in respect of this particular promised The Law to justification requires an universall perfection of all virtues as well as of faith and in faith perfection not onely in respect of some particulars but of all truths revealed and that not at sometimes onely but perpetually without interruption Gal. 3.10 A second quaere How saith Paul Abraham considered not his body dead c. When as Moses bringeth him laughing at the promise Gen. 17.17 and enquiring as it should seem of the likelihood of it Shall a child be born to him that is an hundred years old and shall Sarah that is ninty years old bear Answ Cajetane answers That the quaeres of Abraham recorded by Moses were made whiles yet the Revelation was not so clear unto him and issued not so much from doubtfulness of the thing as from desire to be informed whether the words bear the sense that their sound purported Pauls speech is to be referred to the time when the Revelation was complete and the sense thereof distinctly understood conferre Gen. 17.17 18. What if we say Pauls meaning is this He considered not these impediments out of doubtfulness of the promise but as admiring the power and great grace of the Promiser intending him a favour that must be accomplished against the course of nature saith Augustine Riserat pater quando ei promissus est Augustin de Civ dei lib. 16. cap. 31. super Gen. qu. 36. admirans in gaudio riserat mater quando iterum promissus est dubitans in gaudio The same Augustine to like purpose enquires Why the Lord reproves Sarahs and not Abrahams laughter and thus answers Quia illius risus admirationis laetitiae fuit Sarae autem dubitationis So much force is there in the grounds of our actions to determine them either to good or evil The third quaere How saith Paul of Abrahams body it was dead that is destitute of generative vigour when as so many years after he had many children by Keturah Gen. 25.1 August qu. 35. super Gen. de Civ Dei lib. 16. c. 28. contra Iulian. Pelag. l. 3. c. 11 2. his second wife after Sarahs death Answ Augustine in many places propounds this doubt and assoyls it The summe of his solution is this First that it was dead in respect of Sarahs body decayed by age not so in respect of a younger woman alledging to that purpose the judgement of Physicians Emortuum corpus non ita intelligendum est ac si omnino nullam vim generandi habere posset si mulier juvenilis aetatis esset sed secundum hoc emortuum ut etiam de provectioris aetatis muliere non posset His second answer this That Abrahams bodie was dead until such time as the Lord was pleased to put new vigour into it as he did for the begetting of Isaac and that the same gift of generation continued after the death of Sarah for begetting of other children of Keturah we have both in summe Abrahams body was dead through age ut ex illius aetatis foeminâ gignere non valeret qui tamen ipse de adolescentula valeret sicut postea de Cethura valuit quamvìs illic dici possit foecunditatis munus in eodem
was fully assured 2. The matter subject of his perswasion or the Proposition to which Abraham thus fully assented That what God had promised he was able to perform where we may also conceive to be implyed the grounds of Abrahams so firm believing The promise and power of God Observ From the First we observe That faith in her strength Beza Paraeus ad loc Calvin Instit and perfection hath firmness yea fulness of assurance others otherwise conceive the note and thus collect That fulness of perswasion is of the nature and essence of Faith That none of Gods children erre to their discomfort thinking they have no truth of believing because they want fulness of perswasion thus much understand That in exact defining the custome is to consider virtues c. Abstractly from their subjects 2. In such abstraction to express their nature in terms importing their greatest excellency and perfection 3. Virtues morall and Theologicall they describe not as they are in our practice but as they ought to be by Gods prescript What now if faith in us be doubtfull yet in it self and according to its own nature it is a full perswasion What though in the disposition and beginnings it be wavering yet in the excellency and perfection it is of infallible certainty What if our practice of faith be weak yet God requires perfection of it and our striving must be to perfection prescribed Vse Thus let us use it As an occasion to humble our selves for our doubtings Augustin Epist 29. ad Hieron for that which Augustine saith of charity is as true of faith profectò illud quod minus est quà m debt ex vitio est yet thus much withall Let us not so far deject our selves as to think we have no truth of faith because we want perfection and fulness of assurance yet may faith be in truth where that measure is not attained See Annot. ad vers 20. as the truth of humane nature in an infant wanting the strength of grown men The matter of Abrahams perswasion followeth That what he had promised he was able also to perform The points observable are 1. That faith even justifying is an assent rather then affiance having for his object terminum complexum whereof see Annot. ad vers 3. 2. Take notice of two speciall grounds for faith to rest on the promise and power of God both joyntly considered establish faith sever either from other thou makest faith either phantasticall or wavering Hereof see Annot. ad ver 17. VERS 22. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness THe fruit of Abrahams faith is here expressed that is his justification The depravations of this Scripture by Adversaries are many Let us briefly take view of them The first is from the illation Therefore it was imputed c. Hence they collect that faith avails to justification virtuously and by way of merit Man is justified by faith not because it apprehends the promise but because it obteins remission of sinns suo quodam modo etiam mereatur how infer they the conclusion out of this Scripture The Apostle in this place saith Bellarmine Bellar. de just lib. 1. cap. 17. sets down the cause why Abrahams faith was reputed justice to wit because by believing he gave glory to God therefore for the merit of that faith he justified Abraham Where first let us weigh how they utterly crosse the intention of the Apostle in his whole discourse which is to exclude all merits of men from justification can we imagine he excludes the merit of other works to substitute the merit of faith 2. Besides that it is easily observable that the Apostle maintains a continuall opposition betwixt faith and merit as ver 4. To their argument thus we answer That the Apostles illation indeed implyes a sequel of justification upon the performance of faith yet none such as is caused by the merit and excellency of the gifs or work of faith above other works and this is that deceives them that they can conceive no connexion betwixt our offices and Gods benefits but what the worth and merit of our performances causeth Know we therefore 1. That there is an infallible connexion betwixt faith and justification so that every one believing is without faith justified But 2. If the reason of this connexion be demanded it is apparently Gods covenant and promise therefore shall every believer receive remission of sins because so runs the promise in the covenant of grace Believe and thy sins shall be forgiven August de verb. Apost Serm. 16. Augustines speech for the generall let be remembred Debitor factus est Deus non aliquid à nobis accipiendo sed quod ei placuit promittendo Abraham believed and was therefore justified the cause if we seek is the promise of God not the worth of his faith which 1. Is a duty 2. Gods gift 3. In us imperfect And if Abrahams faith were the meritorious cause of his justification I demand whether as faith or as such faith that is whether in respect that he believed or in respect that he believed in this full measure was he justified If in respect of his measure then methinks it will follow that only such measure of faith sufficeth to justification so the disciples of Christ so doubtfull and wavering in many main articles till after Christs ascension must be reputed for that time unjustified if faith simply in what measure soever then can it not be meritorious sith in the beginnings it is so ful of imperfection Thus I conclude Faith is an antecedent no cause properly of justification justification a consequent of believing no effect issuing out of the virtue and merit of faith Trelcat Instit de justific the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore notes not the cause of the consequent but of the sequel or consequence saith a learned Divine Their second collection is this Rhemens ad loc That faith justifying is a generall faith whereby we assent to the truth of Gods speeches in generall Bellarm. de justif lib. 1. cap. 11. and no such speciall faith or affiance as Protestants require to justification Their reason The faith whereby Abraham was justified was no other then this A general perswasion of Gods faithfulness and power at large Ergò Answ The question hath been largely handled ad vers 3. whither I refer the Reader To their argument thus I answer their antecedent is untrue Abrahams faith was not of Gods truth and power in generall onely but of both applyed to the particular promised From these generals he concluded the particular touching the seed in whom all nations should be blessed In his believing and the matter of it we must conceive something propounded and considered as a conclusion somthing as an argument or premisses inferring the conclusion to both which Abraham assented To the conclusion by virtue of the premisses The conclusion was particular I shall have a seed in whom all
sufficeth And it teacheth us in our study and search of Scripture not to let pass the smallest circumstance sith under it lye hid Doctrine so substantiall For wisdome we should search saith Solomon as men do for silver Prov. 2.4 turning up every clod and almost grain of dust wherein the least portion of pure metall may seem to lye hid In sacris liter is nihil est quod non ingentem thesaurum contineat modò scrutatorem habeat Ruizius reg 118. è Chrysostomo singuli sermones syllabae apices puncta in divinis Scripturis plena sunt sensibus Hieron ad Ephes. 3. Howbeit that we mistake not we must not forget that even the Scripture hath its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore it is not safe always to reason from order of narration except by other circumstances it be evident that the narration be to the order of times A Second collection of some Interpreters hence is this That the grace of justification is not tyed to Sacraments because it may be had without them And that was it as they think the Lord would teach us by the time of Abrahams circumcision and justification that look as the Lord furnishing the earth with hearbs and fruits before he made starrs by their heat or influence to give them vigour or raine to yeild them moysture would teach us that they are but Arbitrary Jnstruments which he useth ad Placitum So the the Lord giving Abraham Testimony of righteousnes before his circumcision would thereby teach us that his grace may be had without the Sacraments The question hath been already treated ad cap 2. Let us yet resume it that at least Our Judgement may be more manifest Necessity of Baptisme whereof the question chiefly is may be two ways conceived First Calvin justifi lib. 4. cap. 19. Serm. 26. Whether the receiving thereof be a necessary duty pressing the conscience by the law of God Whereto we answer with joynt consent it is necessary and so necessary that the wilfull contempt yea neglect of it where it may be had lays guilt of sin upon the conscience of the negligent or contempuous refuser Secondly It may be thus apprehended whether it be necessary as a mean of salvation In this also we consent that it is necessary as a mean of salvation Because 1. The observation thereof is a work of obedience and so part of that vita Regni 2. Because in the right use it serves to confirm faith and to nourish all graces that do accompany salvation What is then the question betwixt us and Papists It stands chiefly about the decree or manner of necessity namely whether it be absolutely necessary Vt perijsse protinùs existimetur cui ejus obtinendi ademta fucrit facultas Bellarm de Bapt. lib. 1. cap. 4. As Calvin explains it This measure of necessity of Baptisme we deny Papists affirm The question is saith Bellarmine whether Baptisme be necessary as a mean of salvation so that if any be not Baptised he perisheth etiamsi forte obignorantiam excusetur a praevaricatione praecepti that they affirm and if any demand what time it came to this height of necessity They answer Baptismus Christicaepit esse necessarius necessitate medii praecepti a die pentecostes As touching what we are to hold in this question I had rather utter in Bernards terms then in my own considering what adversaries we are are to deal with He therefore thus delivers his judgment Bernard Epist 77. That whosoever in men of years if any man since the publishing of that remedy for sin refuseth to be Baptized he adds to the generall contagion of nature the crime of pride and so carries with him a double cause of just damnation if he so dye yet if before death he repent and have a will and desire to be Baptized and cannot being prevented by death so be it he want not fides recta spes pia charitas sincera propitius sit mihi deus quia huic Ambrose de obitu valentiniani imperator ob solam quauam si defuerit nequaquam desperare possum omnino salutem nec vacuam credere fidem nec confundere spem nec excidere charitatem tantum si aquam non contempus sed sola prohibeat impossibilitas His reasons are First from authorities of Ambrose and Augustin Ambrose doubts not of the salvation of Valentinian for his faith only though he dyed unbaptized because he had a purpose S. Augustin de Bapt. lib. 4. cap. 22. and desire to be baptized Hear himself speak I hear saith Ambrose you are grieved because he received not the Sacrament of Baptisme Hear his reply Dicite mihi quid aliud nobis est nisi voluntas nisi petitio Atqui etiam dudum hoc voti habuit ut cúm in Italiam venisset initiaretur proximè baptizari se a me velle significabit c. Non habeat ergó gratiam quam desideravit Non habet quam poposeit Certe quia poposcit accepit mox quem eram regeneraturus amisi sed illi gratiam quam speraverat non amisit To Ambrose Saint Bernard adds S. Augustine determining that not only suffering for Christ but faith also and conversion of the heart doth supply the stead of Baptisme when not contempt of religion but point of necessity excludes the Sacrament of Baptisme 2. His next reason is collected out of Mark. 16.16 Our Saviour in likelihood when he said he that believes and his baptized shall be saved even for this so cautelously did not repeate he that is not baptized but onely he that believes not shall be damned intimating no doubt solam interdum sufficere fidem ad salutem sine ipsa sufficere nihil 3. His third Reason that which gives Martyrdom its value and causeth it to supply the stead of Baptisme shall it be thought so weak that what it gives to another thing it cannot alone by it self obtain we cannot think it Now faith gives Martyrdome this power that without any doubt it is reputed Baptisme For what is Martyrdome without it nisi poena It therefore alone may out of case of contempt suffice to salvation 4. Suppose the Lord see as great Faith in the heart of a man dying in Peace as in his that suffers martyrdome Surely God needs not outward evidences for discerning of faith and there may be in a man dying in peace a readiness to suffer death for the maintenance of faith suppose now this man to desire Baptisme but prevented by death to die without it damnabit fidelem suum Deus damnabit inquam hominem prose etiam paratum mori God forbid his peremptory conclusion is this Pro certo cùm non aliunde martyrium nisi ex Fidei merito illam obtinuerit praerogativam ut fingulariter vice Baptismi secure suscipiatur Non video cur non ipsa aeque sine Martyrio apud eum tantundem possit cùm sine Martyrii probamento proculdubio innotescit 5.
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