word Father then to the verb found And thus read Abraham our father concerning the flesh but methinks the trajection is too harsh and besides the conclusion shall want one principall term that best serves to express the things in hand and therefore I rather refer it to the verb and thus read Abraham found not by the flesh or as pertaining to the flesh According to the flesh That is saith Ambrose S. Ambrosius ad loc by his Circumcision fittingly to what we may suppose the Apostle to preoccupate and yet in as much as ye count Circumcision is a work he affirms it as well of morall works as of circumcision Say others as Cajetan by flesh that is Cajetan ad loc by righteousness which stands in works and are done by the flesh that is by the body Others as Theodoret by his own strength Theodoret ad loc Illyric in clavi Zanch. de tribus Elohim lib. 3. cap. 1. and good vvorks done thereby Generally I thus conceive it that Abraham obtained not righteousness by any work Ceremonicall Morall or whatsoever can be imagined to assail to righteousness except faith in Christ so finde I the use of the word in the same case Phil. 3.3 4 5 6 9. Where under this name of flesh comes circumcision our own righteousness which is by the Law or whatsoever is or may be opposed to that righteousness which is by the faith of Christ The whole explination amounts to this summe Abraham obtained not righteousness by any his own works See we the confirmation The argument is taken from an inconvenience issuing out of that supposition If Abraham were justified by works he hath whereof to glory But he hath not any thing whereof to glory at least with God Ergo he was not justified by works Let us see what our adversaries have to say against this full argument of the Apostle For ground of their answer they attempt an inversion of the Apostles syllogisme and thus conceive him to reason Sasbout ad loc If Abraham were justified by works then had he no glory or boasting with God he might indeed by that means procure the commendation of a man excellently righteous but with men only not with God but Abraham had cause of glorying and boasting with God Ergo was not justified by works This cross frame of the argument Augustin in prefat ad Psal 31. Ambros ad loc I could not without indignation read were it not that it hath great Authors to give it countenance for Reverence to them let us afford it tryall First then consider that the Apostle in this argument hath apparent respect to that ground laid down Rom. 3.27 That is that we are to be justified by such a mean as whereby boasting may be excluded according to which ground he here concludes That Abraham was not justified by works for if that were true then had he cause of boasting Is it not now too grosse blindness so to conceive the Apostle as if he would give Abraham cause of boasting Secondly besides this the proposition thus conceived is apparently false For if Abraham were justfied by works then sure he had cause of boasting even before God for what greater cause of glorying even before God then this That he hath wrought works to his justification and may therefore say he is not beholden to God for his greatest blessing justification as having purchased it by his own works of obedience see Rom. 3.27 Thirdly add hereunto that the assumption is apparently false for Abraham if the Apostle could judg had no cause of boasting with God his justification being as ours meerly of grace through faith in Christ Jesus leave we therefore that dream and see whether their other answers have more waight Say some Catholiques we must here understand observation of Legall Ceremonies as Circumcision Sabbaths New-Moons c. Not works of the Law Morall Answ To this idle exception see my Annotation in Rom. 3. But bring we this distinction into the Apostles argument and see whether boasting be excluded If Abraham were justified by works ceremoniall then had he cause of boasting belike not so if by works morall and how I wonder do works Ceremoniall give greater cause of boasting then works Morall is their dignity now greater then works of Morall obedience Fidem vestram Papistae Behold to obey is better then sacrifice and to hearken then the fat of rams 1 Sam. 15.22 I will have mercy and not sacrifice Hos 6.6 Mat. 9.13 sexcenta hujusmodi Bellarm. de Iustific lib. 1. cap. 19. blush at such idle evasions which your own Bellarmine willingly disclayms and confutes by Fathers Besides this according to this answer boasting is only in some part taken from Abraham namely in respect of his observance of Ceremonialls for Morall obedience is still left him for matter of boasting but boasting on any pretence is excluded in Pauls intention Ergo. Hear Hierome Ex operibus legis Hierom ad Ctesiphont Adv. Pelag. ultramed non justificabitur om nis Caro quod nè de Lege Moysis tantùm dictum putes non de omnibus mandatis quae uno legis nomine continentur idem Apostolus scribit dicens consentio Legi Dei c. iterum scimus quòd Lex spiritualis est c. We know saith Paul that the Law is spirituall Rom. 7.14 What Law I wonder if not that Morall Let us see yet whether other playsters will salve the sore Bellarm. qua supra works of Abraham are of two sorts some Praecedentia fidem going before faith some Facta per fidem done by faith the Apostle understands works done before faith and regeneration not those done in and by faith Let us bring this into the argument If Abraham were justified by works done without faith by the meer power of natural free will then had he cause of boasting not so if by works done in faith Answ And why not I marvail when works done by grace according to their opinion are done partly by strength-naturall of free-will so much then as free-will helped in the doing so much cause of boasting Abraham had of himself But Abraham had no cause of boasting c. 2. What if it be apparent that the Apostle speaks even of works done by Abraham now believing and regenerate then methinks these works must also be included in the Apostles intention Certainly if we consider the testimony alledged out of Gen. 15. in the next verse to prove that Abraham was not justified by works it will easily appear that Abraham was long before this regenerate and believing and had many works of faith whereas yet the testimony of righteousness is given him not for working but for believing It was a work of faith that Abraham did in following the Lords call out of his countrey Heb. 11.8 Other works of piety and love see Gen. 12.8 13.8 9. 14 16 20 c. Yet not these works done in faith but faith
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
inasmuch as no man can ever be assured that he hath fatisfied the Law nor indeed can by works fulfill it But the other Expositions seem more pertinent let us view them Faith is vain That is say some frustrate and fruitless though how they explain not perhaps they thus conceive it If they onely which fulfill the Law be heirs then faith is fruitless and can never attain the inheritance promised inasmuch as no man is able to fulfill the Law But I take it the Apostle hath eye rather to the prescription of faith on Gods part then to the fruit on ours So that the sense is this If they which seek the inheritance by the Law do by the Law obtain it needlesly and vainly was faith prescribed to be the means of inheritance To discern the consequence of this argument view we whereupon the necessity of substituting faith instead of works grew The Lord had made a covenant of life with man upon condition of fulfilling the Law so that if he kept the Law and continued in obedience thereof he should live see Rom. 10.5 Lev. 18.5 Man falling through disobedience lost the benefit of that Covenant and withall propagated to posterity a nature so not onely impotent to fulfill the Law but vitiously inclined to the breach thereof that there was no hope of salvation by the Law Howbeit the Lord out of his love to mankind and loath that the whole posterity should perish in his rich mercy was pleased to enter a new covenant of life and salvation establishing another means for our happiness which was faith of the Messiah by which through grace performed we might from Christ receive a better and more firm title to the inheritance This was one reason why faith was prescribed as is intimated Rom. 8. and Gal. 3. Now how needless had this been if by the Law we might inherit salvation To what end go we by faith out of our selves to seek righteousness and salvation in Christ if by the Law performed by our selves we might have obtained it The Consequence therefore we see to be firm Let us now consider what out of this argument may be collected viz. Observ The Doctrine of salvation by works frustrates faith and chargeth on God the crime of folly in ordeining it to be the onely mean of inheritance Much to this purpose speaks the Apostle Gal. 3 c. If righteousness be by the Law then Christ died in vain it had been needless for the Lord to send his Son to die for our sins thereby to procure unto us justification if by the Law we might have obtained the blessing and Rom. 8.3 he makes this his reason why the Lord sent his Son in the similitude of sinfull flesh because it was impossible for the Law weakned by the flesh to give us righteousness Whereto what say our adversaries Forsooth their old distinctions they obtrude for answer Works are of two sorts some done by strength of naturall free-will some by grace and faith works of naturall free-will indeed frustrate faith and grace and Christs death not so works done by grace in faith yea the Apostles consequence Gal. 3. is very firm if by them we will exclude works done through grace For it followes not that if we be justified by works following faith that then Christ dyed in vain Bellarm. de justif lib. 1. cap. 19. nay if Christ had not dyed we could not have been justified by faith or works issuing therefrom It being Gods grace in Christ that hath made our works so virtuous Answ Where first we desire to know for our learning where in all the Scripture we may finde that Christs death or our faith gives to our works justifying or saving virtue That our services are acceptable to God by Iesus Christ that our works done in faith are pleasing to him though in great weakness performed we finde that they are of value to countervail our sins or to purchase Heaven we finde not nay the contrary we finde in sundry Scriptures taught us 2. Yea the purgation of our sins we know Christ made by himself Heb. 1.3 and the way into the holy of holies to be opened by his flesh never by our righteousness Heb. 10.19 20. 3. Let the Reader observe how cleanly a gull they would put upon us in this distinction of works done by grace and those done by power of naturall free will For in these works of grace free-will is according to their principles the predominant 4. Doth the Law of God in any place allow us justification by works imperfect though done in grace search and see whether it damne not to hell the least blemises cleaving to our works and require not only that the principall manner and end be regular but that in every respect they be pure and free from blemish All which considered return us our conclusion firm and undoubtfull notwithstanding these cavills of popish Iustitiaries In our passage let us take notice of the intolerable pride of our merit-mongers chusing rather to robbe God of the glory of his wisdome then in humility to acknowledg the imperfection of their own obedience How much better were it with holy Iob 4â— 6 to abhor our selves in dust and ashes then thus to nullifie the wisdome of God in frustrating his prescripts hath God appointed faith the sole mean of inheritance and shall we by works seek to inherit the blessing I say not much but sure Gal. 4.30 if Ishmael may not be heir with the Son of promise no more shall Workres with believers The second inconvenience follows to be scanned The promise by this means becomes ineffectuall How if any demand Answ Because the inheritance promised shall never by this means be obtained For hangs it on condition of fulfilling the law And must those that desire to inherit by legall obedience obtain salvation Who then can be saved Seeing no man is able by any measure of grace in this life given to fill up the measure of legall righteousness This saving the judgment of more Learned I take to be the ground of the consequence the rather for the reasons objoyned Hence the inference is fluent That who so teacheth us to seek salvation by works frustrates Gods promise and deprives us of salvation Not but that good works are necessary but as duties not as merits for thankfulness not for righteousness as the way to the kingdome not as causes of salvation the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman Gal. 4.30 That is by Pauls intention not legall workers with Evangelicall believers Gal. 3.9 As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse so far is it that they should have any title to the blessing Such mischiefs bring pharisaicall Iustitiaries upon their sectaries Hear the Reasons They bind us by this means to a condition and means of Salvation impossible not onely to Nature but to Grace according to that portion God is pleased in this life to
you continue as upon your souls to prize and waite upon the holy and k Heb. 10.25 publick ordinances of God keep close to the l Gal. 6.16 Rule of Gods written word his m Rom. 12.2 Iob. 17.17 revealed Will Shun spirituall pride inordinate opinion of private gifts it opens the gap to n 2 Thess 2.11 Isai 29.9 10. delusions and the spirit of giddiness Remember who said there are o Rev. 2.24 depths of Satan who more mischiefeth well-meaning souls under the vizar of an p 2 Cor. 11.14 Angell of light then he doth under the shape of an open Dragon q 1 Cor. 16.13 stand fast in the setled received truth of Christ slight not the universall approved practice of Gods true Church be not r 2 Pet. 3.17 18. led away with the errour ſ Heb. 13.9 of the wicked have regard to the precepts as well as to the promises of the Gospel and a chiefe respect to the peace of the Church It is good t 1 Thess 5.23 that the heart be established with grace And now the very God of peace sanctifie you wholly and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the comming of our Lord Jesus Christ in whom I am Your affectionate Pastor to serve you William Sclater Collompton April 3. 1650. Errata PAge 3. line 25. for assail read avail and l. 3. r. explanation p. 8. l. ult after hath cause of boasting read thus now with him that hath noe such works but faith only in him that justifieth the ungodly it s otherwise p 9. l. 6. r. saving p. 13. l. 8. r. these p. 14. l. 19. for or r. of p. 15. l. 11. r. allmost p. 17. l. 2. r. allegations p. 18. l. 34. r. perhibet p. 20. l. 14. r. tenet p. 21. l. 11. r. an and l. 14. for in r. is p. 23. l. 13. r. oweth thee p. 26. l. ult r. work p. 27. l. 15. r. usually and l. 18. r. his lise p. 28. l. 27. r. due to thee p. 35. l. 1. r. oftner p. 36. l. 29. r. of him p. 38. l. 10. r. by inherence p. 42. l. 35. r. charity p. 50. l. 3. r. they and l. 5. for when r. what p. 51. l. 10. r. imputed p. 56. l. 20. r. destined p. 59. l. 6. for contractions r. contradictions and l. 10. r. temporal and l. 30. r. with p. 67. l. 19. for had r. tyed p. 68. l. 13. r. lyeth and l. 34. r. rain p. 69. l. 18. r. viaregni and l. 22. for decree r. degree p. 70. l. 1. r. Howsoever l. 12. r. contemptus and l. 22. r. significat and l. 24. r. ille p. 75. l. 9. r. into p. 76. l. 4. for where r. whence p 77. l. 20. r. considered p. 78. l. 22. r. weakness and l. 29. for said r. say I p. 80. l. 30. r. propound p. 84. l. ult r. Two p. 92. l. 32. for free r. see p. 95. in margin r. Basil in Hexamer p. 102. l. 13. r. whether as a condition p. 106. l. 23. r expediency p. 110. l. ult r. amplectentem p. 115. l. 14. r. subjoyned p. 117. l. 17. r. this effect p. 120. l. 10. r. infalibly p. 121. l. 9. r. anathema p. 125. l. 16. 19. for bis r. eis p. 136. l. 25. r. of inheritance p. 137. l. ult r. further p. 141. l. 32. for it r. is p. 153. l. 9. r. out of mens blindness p. 159. l. 29. for tempted r. tempered p. 160. l. 13. r. comfortable p. 161. l. 2. for the r. and p. 167. l. 23. r. reputed p. 170. l. 18. r. fructus p. 171. l. 9. r. though and l. 26. r. sequele p. 174. l. 13. r. propounded p. 182. l. 19. for loving r. losing p. 183. l. 1. r. scarce and l. 18. r. conceive p. 184. l. 1. for mediate r. meditate AN EXPOSITION WITH Notes on the fourth Chapter to the ROMANES CHAP. IIII. VERS 1 2. What shall we say then that Abraham our Father as pertaining to the flesh hath found For if Abraham were justified by works he hath whereof to glory but not before God THE Apostles purpose in this Chapter is by farther proofs to confirm his principall conclusion viz. That a man is justified by Faith without the works of the Law The chief Parts of the Chapter are three First A Confirmation of the conclusion Secondly A Laudatory declaration of Abrahams Faith Thirdly An applying of Abrahams example to us even as many as walk in the steps of Abrahams faith The Reasons brought for confirmation are 1. From Abraham's example 2. From Davids testimony 3. From time and use of circumcision 4. From meanes of conveyance of the inheritance to Abraham 5. From ends of justification The passage to Abraham's example is by most conceived thus The Apostle is imagined to prevent what Iewes might object against the conclusion of justification by faith without works If this be so what got Abraham our father according to the flesh as if they had said it seems there is no prerogative of Abraham by all that righteousness wherein he lived And the Apostle is supposed to grant their inference and to subjoyn Reasons thereof But methinks weighing the words the connexion may rather be conceived to be by way of inference out of the doctrine of the former Chapter as if it had been said if this be so that boasting must be excluded and that all that are justified must be justified by faith What shall we say then that Abraham our father found as concerning the flesh c. In no case Thus then but that I love not novelty I would read the text What shall we say then that Abraham found by the flesh And so methinks the reasons more fluently are applyed to the Negative conclusion The connexion we see The conclusion principall is here proved by the example of Abraham If Abraham obtained not righteousness by works but by faith then no man is or can be justified by works but by faith but Abraham obtained not righteousness by works c. Ergo no man is justified by works The proposition is not expressed but easily collected out of the text The assumption is Vers 1. laid down in way of inference delivered interrogatively where the interrogation implyes a negative The conclusion is Chap. 3. vers 28. The assumption is proved by an argument from inconvenience If Abraham were justified by works he had whereof to boast but not with God that is he had no cause to boast with God Ergo he was not justified by works Sence For the sence of the words Found That is obtained as Gen. 26.12 Isaac sowed in the land and found that is received or obtained in that year an hundred fold Hos 12.8 I have found substance that is gotten 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As pertaining to the flesh This particle some Ancients as well as later Expositors both Popish and Protestant refer rather to the
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
niti pro viribus oporteret Object 3. By this means we shall be denominated just of a Justice without us as if a man should be wise by wisdome of another Answ Though that in Physicks and morall Philosophy be absurd yet in Divinitie it is no absurditie Object 4. Then shall we be as just as Christ Ans That follows not for Christ besides the Justice he had by obedience to the Law had also Divine justice as second Person of the Trinity 2. Yea even in Legal Justice a preheminence there is left unto Christ because he had it by his own performance we have it onely by imputation And what great absurdity is it to say save onely that the comparison is somewhat odious that we have not lesse Legal justice then Christ had whiles it is acknowledged we have it not as Christ had it by our own performance but by imputation and as I may say aestimativè because it is given us to be ours Obiect 5. Justification stands in restoring what in Adam we lost Now in Adam we lost not imputed righteousness Ergò Answ To let pass that description of Justification Ad minorem We lost righteousness though not the impatation thereof quà Justice though not quà imputata and he doth ill confound the thing with the manner of applying and hear a like reason Justification stands in restoring what we lost in Adam now in Adam we lost not remission of sins Ergò Hear Bernard Si unus pro omnibus mortuus est ergò Bernard Epist ad Innocent 190. omnes mortui funt ut videlicet satisfactio unius omnibus imputetur sicut omnium peccata Vnus ille portavit mox Justum me dixerim sed illius justisiâ quaenam ipsa Finis Legis Christus adjustitiam omni credenti Denique qui factus est nobis inquit iustitia à Deo Patre quae ergò mihi iustitia facta est mea non est Si mea traducta culpa cur non mea indulta iustitia sanè mihi tutior donata quà m innata c. Bellarmine himself thus Dicitur Christus iustitia nostra quoniam satis fecit Patri pro nobis eam satisfactionem ità nobis donat communicat cùm nos iustificat ut nostra satisfactio iustitia dici possit Nam etiamsi per iustitiam nobis inhaerentem verè insti nominemur simus tamen non per eam satisfacimus Deo proculpis nostris poenâ aeternâ c. Et hoc modo non esset absurdum si quis diceret nobis imputari Christi iustitiam merita cùm nobis donentur applicentur ac si nos ipsi Deo satisfecissemus c. VERS 7 8. There followeth in these verses proof of the Minor in the former syllogisme David appropriates blessedness to the man that hath righteousness imputed without works for he appropriates it to him whose sinns are remitted Cajetane Paraeus Piscator How follows the argument Some thus conceive it The Apostle say they thus collects the argument from David because in this speech of David there is no mention made of any of our works but onely of Gods actions in remitting covering not imputing sinne some gather it from equipollence of the phrases for it is all one not to impute sin and to impute righteousness because that he that by not imputation of sin is made non peccator is thereby made iustus there being no medium betwixt a non-sinner and a righteous man betwixt absence of all sin and having of righteousness Against that opinion I mean not to dispute yet I would have the Reader remember that betwixt imputation of Christs righteousness and remitting of sins a difference there must needs be such I mean as is betwixt the cause and the effect the thing destinied to the end and the end it self for remission of sins presupposeth imputation of righteousness and he that hath his sins remitted hath first Christs righteousness imputed that he may have sins forgiven May I have leave to interpose my sentence What if the consecution stand thus The iustified man by Davids opinion hath quá talis remission of sins therefore he hath imputation of righteousness without works forasmuch as where sins are remitted there can be no iustice but imputative every transgression of the Law depriving of that iustice which stands in works forasmuch as the Law to righteousness requires observance of every particular duty therein prescribed abstinence from every particular sin therein forbidden sith therefore Whosoever is iustified hath sinnes remitted it follows that his blessedness ariseth from imputation of righteousness without works Judicent Docti The coherence we see Let us now view the sense of the words What difference may some say betwixt remitting covering and not imputing sinn Answ Cajetane thus conceives a difference In sinne we are to consider three things 1. The offence and displeasure of God 2. The turpitude it leaves either in the action or person 3. The punishment Now sin is in respect of the offence remitted in respect of the turpitude covered in respect of the punishment not imputed such like niceties many I could recite out of interpreters But it may be it is true that Ambrose hath Remittere tegere non imputare Ambrose ad loc una ratio unus est sensus and again Vnius significationis surt verba quia cùm tegit remittit cùm remittit non imputat And the heap of words serves onely to amplifie the grace of God in this blessing yet Cajetane errs not much in his explanation The things here to be treated are First Rimission of sins wherein it consisteth What this remission of sins is which David so much magnifies as that he pronounceth him blessed that is partaker of it To this Papists make this answer True remission of sins is not only the removall of Gods displeasure and the absolving of us from the guilt and punishment of them but an utter abolishment of them in respect of being Consil Trident seff 5. Bellarm. de sacrament baptism lib. 1. cap. 3. de justific lib. 2. cap. 7. and 9. Bellarm. in Psal 32. In Baptismate tollitur totum id quod veram propriam rationem peccati habet As Bellarmine speaking of the communicating of this blessing in Baptisme likewise defines Baptismo reipsâ tolli omnia peccata it a ut non solum non imputetur sed nec sit quod imputari posset ad culpam And generally thus hold they of remission of sins that it is the abolishment of them in respect of being And what is it to have sins covered Dicuntur peccata tegi hoc loco non quod sint non videantur sed quòd abolita sint eorum loco justitia successerit What the not imputing peccatum non imputari non significat peccatum manere sed non puniri sed significat nihil esse in homine justificato quod in peccatum reputari possit That we
the guilt and punishment thereof c. is onely removed the thing it self remaining still in us Manet pccatum sed jam non dominatur c. Bern. in Psal Qui habitat Serm. 10. evulsum quodammodo nondum tamen expulsum dejectum sed non prorsus ejectum saith Bernard of men regenerate A second question here usually discussed is Whether whole justification stands in remission of sins I shall not need to shew how fitly this place affords the question it is shewn plentifully by others In this question my purpose is not to deal at all against Papists but to handle it as it is now controverted among our own Divines The answer thereto by those that think iustification in this question to signifie nothing but acquitall and discharge from sin must needs be this That it stands onely in remission of sinns for what is it to acquit from sin but to remit sins And this seems strange to me that men urging that signification of the word to be proper to this question can seek for any other thing to make up the entirety of Justification Is it nothing to be justified but to be acquit from sin then sure to be justified implies no more but to have sins remitted Either therefore we must grant that to justifie in this question signifies somewhat more or else that whole justification stands in remission of sins And let that be the first argument Justification in Scripture signifies onely a quittal Ergò To this answer must be made if any be to purpose that to iustifie hath some other signification so some labour to shew That it signifies sometimes to make just as Rom. 4.5 sometimes to account or pronounce just or to give testimony of righteousness Luke 7.29 sometimes to give reward of righteousness 1. Kings 8.32 c. Whether these satisfie or no I had rather others judge then I determine Their second reason is from this place but diversly collected some thus David gives no where a full description of justification Ergò Whole justification is absolved in remission of sins Answ It cannot be shewed that either David or Paul intended here to describe much lesse perfectly to define justification For what though the Apostle doth purposely dispute of the means of justificatior must he needs therefore alledge this testimony of David to expresse the nature of it He proves by this testimony that justification is not by works because the justified man hath sins forgiven in his justification and so the argument follows well though justification be not here perfectly defined see suprà in Exposition nay consider that by this means his argument is as nothing for if remission of sins be whole justification will it follow thence that we are justified without works Excipiat quispiam Let justification stand in remission of sins that may yet be procured by works Others thus gather it To pronounce Blessed to impute righteousness to remit sins are all one with the Apostle Ergò Justification stands onely in remission of sins Answ The Antecedent is untrue Their third argument is that testimony Acts 13.39 and 2. Cor. 5.21 Paul in the first place tells us That by remission of sins he means justification from those things by which by Moses Law we could not be justified c. And in the other he shews we are reconciled by not having sins imputed Answ To the first the adverse part would answer that there is shewed Justification stands in remission of sins ex parte that being our part of justification but an other part there is and that is making us righteous with the righteousness of the Law which we have by imputation from Christ To the second the answer would be made that our reconciliation stands partly in not imputing sinne and it is usuall to declare the whole by some part as whole redemption by remission of sins Eph. 1. yet may we not say that redemption stands onely in remission of sinns Their chief reason is this for that justification is ascribed onely to the bloud of Christ now that bloud of Christ procured us nothing but remission of sins Answ It is answered that the bloud of Christ is there put synecdochicè for the whole obedience of Christ The other opinion is this That justification hath two parts 1. Our discharge from our sinns 2. Our furnishing with the righteousness of the Law Their reasons are these First for that we are said to be made righteous by the actuall obedience of Christ Rom. 5.19 as well as in other places to have remission of sins by his bloud Ob. By obedience may be understood his obedience in suffering 2. That the Law since the fall requires to justification not onely satisfaction for breaches by punishment but also that the obedience therein prescribed be performed else still the curse lies on us Answ It is answered 1. That we are not under the Law but under grace 2. That by remission of sins we have the righteousness of the Law for all sins as well of omission as of commission are cleared in the bloud of Christ 3. Because God in his word hath prescribed no other way to life but perfect obedience to the Law It is answered that in the Gospel another way is prescribed Believe and thou shalt be saved Acts 16. Mar. 16.4 Dan. 9.24 The Messiah is promised not onely to expiate sin but also to bring everlasting righteousness Answ What if that may be understood of that we perform in the studie of Sanctification Well whatever become of that controversie this conclusion we have evidently hence That in Justification we have perfect remission of sin See Acts 13.39 Papists themselves herein consent with us as we have seen before And will it not hence follow that therefore we are delivered from the whole guilt and punishment of our sins Here now they-begin to mince it for stablishing their doctrine of satisfaction to be made to Gods justice Sasbout ad loc Bellarm. ad Psal 31. and our release is they say onely from guilt of eternall punishment The question hath been largely discuffed ad cap. 3. Here onely I would have them reconcile their two opinions First that when sins are remitted they are utterly extinct and abolished so that there is nothing left that can be reputed sinne Secondly that there remains unto him that hath his sins thus remitted part of the guilt to be expiated by his own satisfaction Hear a subtile shift Remission of sins is either totall or partiall Totall when it is remitted quoad omnem poenam Partiall when it is remitted onely quoad culpam poenam aeternam Now where the remission is totall there is no reservation of any punishment where partiall onely in respect of eternal punishment there remaineth still reatus poenae temporalis Contra. But I demand whereon is that guilt founded Me thinks it must needs be on something that hath veram propriam rationem peccati Bellarm. de Justific l. 2. c. 7. ad Psal
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
ignorance to denie the truth of the History understood according to the letter and to fansie all things after the course of Allegories From my experience and knowledge something I can speak An id to once falling on a Fryer Allegorizing after their fashion The History of David and Goliah grew stiff in the opinion that there never was such a monster as Goliah He would have added nor such a Saint as David His reason For Goliah signifieth the Devil David Christ the stone wherewith he was slain the Word of God and what I wonder the scrip and sling But such mischiefs draw wrested Allegories frequently with them But affords not Scripture often such Allegories Answ No question Yes but it is good for us to be sure we have Gods spirit directing us in their accommodation before we propound them as things intended by the inspirer of Scripture least we belie the Holy Ghost in fathering on him a sense that he never intended Hieron praesat decem vision Esaiae Saint Hierome speaking of Origen the Father of Allegories though himself be faulty enough in that kind Yet casts on him this aspersion Origines saith he liberis Allegoriae spatiis evagatur ingenium suum facit Ecclesiae sacramenta Would God not many of our Ministers also And other ancients though bold enough this way Yet set limits to us in this kind Basil in Hieron Hieron in Zech. 4. Gal. 4. 1. Ever preferring the sense literall 2. Prohibiting Allegories to be attempted in praeceptis quae ad vitam pertinent in his quae perspicua manifesta sunt Later Divines have straighter bonds as 1. That it be done Parcè 2. For illustration rather then proof except where Gods spirit points at the Allegorie 3. Let this be added that as similitudes such things may be used so be it we be not too peremptory in fathering that sense upon the Spirit of God For example it is said of Moses He brought the Israelites to the skirts of Canaan but Joshua gave them possession of it perhaps in that was this mystery That the Law prepares to Gods kingdome but it is the Gospel that brings thereinto howbeit it were too much audaciousness in any to say any such thing was taught thereby though by way of similitude it may be so applyed Of this observation thus farre 2. Whereas Abraham is said to be the Father of all that believe in uncircumcision Note we That the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham reached by Gods intention from the beginning even to the Gentiles believing And this appears Gen. 17. inasmuch as to strangers and those bought with money Circumcision must be administred And long after when the greatest enclosure of Grace to Jews seemed to be if strangers sojourning amongst them would consent to be circumcised they might eat the Passover there was one Law for the home-born and for the stranger sojourning amongst them Exod. 12.48 49. And if any ask Why Paul saith of them They were strangers from the common-wealth of Israel Aliens from the Covenants of Promise Ephes 2.12 Answ In respect of the dispensation of the Covenant the body of the Gentiles were Aliens because God had not yet so generally manifested his Grace to them by calling Ephes 3. Yet in respect of Right it belonged to as many of them as walked in the steps of Abrahams faith or otherwise thus The Covenant from the beginning was intended to Gentiles Howsoever the Visible admission of them into the Covenant was not till the dayes of the new Testament so that who can blame the Lord of hard dealing towards Gentiles even before Christs coming that even in Israel gave place unto as many of them as would submit to the conditions of the Covenant will any say the Lord should have called them as he did the Jews Answ Who hath given him first and it shall be recompensed him Rom. 11.35 And his church was conspicuous and eminent in the eyes of the whole world that who so had hearts might thereto joyn themselves and share in the priviledges thereof And father of circumcision That is of Jews circumcised To them c. that is to as many as unto circumcision added imitation of Abrahams faith So then circumcision alone while it stood in force as a Sacrament made no man a child of Abraham they must as well imitate his faith as admit circumcision that would be indeed and truth of that seed of Abraham to whom the Covenant belonged Children of Abraham were of three sorts some such by propagation onely so Israelites yea Ishmaelites are all his children some by imitation onely as Gentiles that descended not out of his loyns some both by propagation and imitation as believing Jews Now here let it be observed that faith is the predominant and that that hath chief virtue in making children of Abraham such I mean as to whom the Covenant belonged insomuch that faith severed from circumcision made children of Abraham circumcision severed from faith not so The Jews saith Theophylact wanting faith Theophyl ad loc vaunting of circumcision are as they that make shew of a sealed bag emptie of money such Jews saith he marsupium gestiunt circumcisionis signo munitum c. And why may we not so say of Baptisme the Sacrament of the New Testament Hath it more virtue to bring us into the Covenant then had Circumcision He that believes and is baptized shall be saved Mar. 16.16 he that believes not shall be damned yea though he be baptized Why then do Papists obtrude upon us the work done of our Sacraments as if it had such virtue to make us sharers in the Covenant of grace they will never be able to prove unto us a disparity in this kind betwixt old and new Sacraments Indeed saith Peter Baptisme saves but it is not the element but the interrogation of a good conscience 1. Pet. 3.21 And let me here once again advise our people to adde to that they call their Christendome faith unfeigned as they desire to become Christians indeed and to share with Christ in his benefits conveyed unto us in the Covenant of grace They erre dangerously to their souls peril that think the naked Sacrament makes them Gods confederates To us indeed the baptized are such till they discover hypocrisie to God none else but hearty believers Now in describing the circumcised sons of Abraham that are such not by propagation onely or participation of the Sacrament but by imitation the phrase of the Apostle is to be observed They are said to walk in the steps of his faith A Metaphor expressing the exactest kind of imitation Not much unlike is that that Job hath expressing his precise and accurate obedienee Job 23.11 My foot hath held his steps So accurate would the Lord have us in imitating the virtuous examples of his Saints But of this point of imitation with the cautions and limits thereof more hereafter on another occasion Here it shall suffice to observe that
point at all the dreams and devices of the enemies of Gods grace with their cunning shifts in that no less then Sacrilegious diverting the more part of the glory of mans salvation from Gods grace to our selves Fitter occasion will hereafter offer it self only I say as Augustine Augustin tract in Ioh. 3. seeing God gives freely let us love freely quia gratis dedit gratis ama noli ad praemium diligere deum The Second point followes That it may be of grace it must be of faith This way of justification and no other preserves the glory of Gods grace entire Let us see how say some because grace is promised and given only to the believer Paraeus ad loc that is a truth But the Apostles purpose in this argument is not to shew the necessity of faith to the obtaining of grace but rather to the maintaining of the glory of Gods grace in the matter of our righteousness and salvation Let us enquire therefore how this means of justification by faith stablisheth grace and how that other by works either overthrows or empairs it May we say as some of late because faith is a free gift of God in us The like may be said of charity But take faith correlatively thou shalt see easily how this means of justification alone and no other makes grace glorious For if all our title to righteousness and salvation accrew to us only for the obedience sake of Christ apprehended by faith who sees not how entirely the glory of all belongs to the grace of God But I wonder how Papists with all their skill can uphold the concurrence of works in procuring our title to righteousness and salvation and not overthrow or clip at the least the glory of Gods grace Perhaps because our works proceed of grace but Dic sodes are they meerly of grace or partly of the power of nature Their common consent is that though grace be a principall yet naturall abilities have their partnership in every good work So much as they ascribe to nature so much they derogate from the grace of God See Annotat. ad cap. 3. vers 27. S. Bern Ser. 67. in Cantic 28. Deest gratiae quicquid meritis deputas as S. Bernard The Second argument followes That the promise may be sure and that to all the seed Whether we make this a second argument or a confirmation of the minor in the former is not much materiall If a new argument thus is the frame If the promise must be sure then must the inheritance be of faith But the promise must be sure Ergo. Take it the other way It is of grace Why Because else the promise cannot be sure I rather conceive it as a second argument though linked thus artificially with the former In it we have also two points First That the promise is sure Secondly That except the inheritance be of faith the promise cannot be sure Sure Whether in it self in respect of certain accomplishment or to us in respect of our apprehension and undoubtfull perswasion This later some insist on and thus give the sense If the inheritance depend on any thing except faith and grace we can never have any assurance to obtain the promise but must needs be filled with uncomfortable doubtings and uncertain waverings And that is a truth but not here directly taught The Apostle speaking of the certainty of the promise rather in it self then to our apprehension and perswasion though by Consequence this follows from the former Observ The Point is That the promise of inheritance is firm and shall have certain accomplishment Read for this Heb. 8.6 where the Apostle compares the two covenants together and shews that of grace to be preferred especially in respect of the certainty of it and of our attainment of the blessings therein conveyed And view 1. The Mediatour Christ in whose bloud it is ratified Heb. 10.2 The removall of impediments by mercifull pardon of sinnes and imperfections Heb. 8.3 The certain donation of graces necessary to attainment and our confirmation therein ibidem the certainty of accomplishment is easily discerned The more solid is our Hope and the more firm should be our faith and confidence as the Apostle inferres Heb. 10.23 So that neither violence of afflictions nor prevailing of heresies nor conscience of our own weaknesses and imperfections to which pardon is promised Heb. 8. nor any doubt of perseverance in state of grace should make us waver 2 Tim. 2.19 For he is faithfull that hath promised not onely salvation but pardon of sinnes donation of spirit perseverance and perfecting the work of grace to the day of the Lord Jesus Christ It is true there are duties required of us to the obtaining of the promises as faith and perseverance in faith obedience and perseverance in obedience but that God that requires them hath covenanted to work them Jer. 31. and 32.40 The next point is The necessity of faith and the property it hath peculiar to it self in making firm after a sort the promise the truth of this point will the better appear if we shall consider a little the consent and difference of the two Covenants Their agreement is this in both is promised Salvation and Blessedness of the Law it is said That if a man do it he shall live thereby as of faith he that believeth shall be saved Their difference stands 1. In the condition the Law requiring perfect obedience to be performed in our own persons threatning a curse to every transgression Gal. 3.10 The other Covenant requiring faith of the Messiah and sincere endeavour of obedience A second difference the Law requires perfect obedience promiseth neither ability to perform it nor pardon to any imperfection The Gospel so requires faith that it promiseth to work it so new obedience that withall the Lord covenanteth to make us walk in his statutes Ezek. 36. Yea and to pard on imperfections Jer. 31. Heb. 8. And besides delivers all these promises as ratified unto us in the bloud of Christ These things thus briefly laid together shew how faith onely makes the promise sure because to the believer promise is made 1. To remove impediments by pardon and sanctification 2. To enable to do and to persevere in doing whatsoever the Lord in the Covenant of grace requires to salvation Who can shew like promises made to the Worker that not without cause said the Apostle It must be of faith that the promise may be sure it being impossible by the Law to obtain the promises The third Argument from the extent of the promise both in the making and accomplishment It is made and must be sure to all the seed not onely to that of the Law but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham therefore it must be of faith and not of the Law The minor hath its proof in the latter end of the verse and is also further confirmed and illustrated vers 17. Abraham is the father of all
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
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
nature I would easily infer Pelagius his conclusion That by the power of nature it were possible to fulfill the Law But 1. The Hypothesis is improbable there being no true merits of any meer creature 2. Yield there were some works of some men perfect yet so will not the conclusion follow in respect of that frequent intervenience of sins destroying the value of other works saith Hilary truly Spes in misericordia Dei in seculum Hillar ennarr in Psal 51. in seculum seculi est Non enim ipsa illa justitiae opera sufficient ad perfectae Beatitudinis meritum nisi misericordia Dei etiam in hac justitiae voluntate humanarum demutationum motuum vitia non reputet Let us see their other limitation so that pride in such confidence be avoided There is then belike an humble kind of confidence in our own works as if we should say an humble pride There be some saith Bernard Bernard de Quadrages serm 5. that seek life eternal Non in humilitate sed tanquam in fiducia suorum meritorum In his opinion very confidence in our works is a shrewd spice of pride But let us see what that pride is that in such confidence they prescribe to be avoided It is this When a man thinks he hath his merits of himself not of Gods grace In case then a man thankfully acknowledge his good works to proceed from Gods grace it is lawfull to put confidence in them Hear Bernard Bern. in Annunciat Ser. 3. Si quis gratus est si quis devotus si quis solicitus si quis spiritu fervens caveat sibi nè suis fidat meritis nè suis operibus innitatur alioquin nec hujusmodi quidem animum intrat gratia I thank God saith the Pharisee I am not as others to Gods grace he ascribes his righteousness and yet returns emptie of justification To come briefly to the point our conclusion is this No confidence at all for righteousness or salvation ought to be placed in any our works be they never so good or seemingly perfect Our first reason is for that we find the most eminent amongst Gods Saints renouncing all their own works not onely naturall but gracious also and relying themselves onely on Gods mercy in Christ see Psal 143. Phil. 3.9 10. Dan. 9.18 We do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousness but for thy great mercies Shall we say as they he speaks as one conceiving it as a matter of best safety Bellarm. de justif lib. 5. cap. 7. not of necessity What then means that so plentifull and humble confession of sins in the former part of the prayer In any reasonable construction he speaks as a man pressed with conscience of sin so far as that he acknowledgeth confusion to be their onely due portion if mercy succour and relieve him not To this we add these reasons weighty for the purpose howsoever sleightly passed over by Adversaries as 1. That our best works are defiled by our concupiscence Gal. 5.17 2. Are defective and imperfect according to the rule of the Law of God 3. Lose their worth through interruption and the frequent intercurrence of sins of ignorance and weakness would God not too often by some falls almost presumptuous Hereto we adjoyn the consent of Fathers August manual c. 22. Tota spes mea saith Augustine est in monte Domini mei mors ejus meritum meum refugium meum saelus vita resurrectio mea meritum meum miseratio Domini non sum meriti inops quamdiu ille miserationum Dominus non defuerit si misericordiae Domini multae multus ego sum in meritis Shall we say he remits of his right and speaks onely out of humility or as one choosing the sole mercie of God for his safest refuge Hear him in another place Vae etiam laudabili vitae hominum August Confes l. 9. c. 13. si remotâ misericordiâ discutias eam Non est quod jam quaeras quibus meritis speremus bona praesertim cùm audies apud Prophetam Non propter vos Bern. in Cant. Ser. 67 68. sed propter me ego faciam dicit Dominus sufficit ad meritum scire quòd non sufficiant merita Idem Deest gratiae quicquid meritis deputas nolo meritum quod gratiam excludat Horreo quicquid de meo est ut sim meus c. The same Bernard noting the faults that sometimes insinuate themselves into our prayers Bern. de Quadrages Serm. 5. ad calcem in those that are made for eternall life pride sometimes useth to creep upon us Vitam aeternam fortassis aliqui non in humilitate quaerunt sed tanquam in fiducia suorum meritorum Nec hoc dico quin accepta gratia fiduciam donet orandi sed non oportet ut in ea constituat quisquam fiduciam impetrandi Hoc solum conferunt haec praemissa dona ut ab ea misericordia quae tribuit haec sperentur etiam ampliora Sit ergo oratio quae fit pro aeterna vita in omni humilitate praesumens de sola ut dignum est miseratione divina Propter incertitudinem propriae justitiae periculum amittendae aeternae gloriae tutissimum est Bellarm. qua supra fiduciam totam in sola Dei misericordia benignitate reponere Thus rather Propter imperfectionem propriae justitiae periculum amittendae aeternae gloriae necessarium est fiduciam totam in sola Dei misericordia benignitate reponere Let us briefly view the reasons they alledge for their purpose They produce Nehemiah praying remembrance of his good deeds Neh. 13.22 Ezekias also alledging his sincerity Isa 38.3 David promising himself retribution because he had kept Gods wayes Psal 18.20 21. Many the like might have been heaped up but how follows the conclusion Therefore they put confidence in their works Nay see Nehemiah in the same place praying to be spared according to the greatness of Gods mercy think we he puts confidence in his works as true causes of salvation that prayes pardon of his imperfections Thus briefly let us conceive that the Saints of God alledging their righteousness in prayers respect not their works as matter of their confidence see Dan. 9.18 but as inferiour helps of their hope quatenus they are evidences of their being in the Covenant and partakers of the promises That they put confidence in is Gods mercy and truth in his promise the reason of that confidence is their obedience in respect of presence not of efficiency Take one inftance for many Neh. 1.8 the servant of God prayes for restoring the people out of captivity what layes he for ground of his prayer The word that he spake by Moses If they turn unto me I will gather them Now Lord saith Nehemiah we desire to fear thy Name therefore gather us Can any think the holy man alledgeth their fear of God as matter of confidence See how diminutively he
speaks of it it is rather a desire to fear then actuall fearing and therefore needs mercy to accept it hath no merit to procure so great a blessing from God August de verb. Apost Ser. 16. To like purpose Augustine In his quae jam habemus landemus Deum largitorem in his quae nondum habemus tenemus debitorem Debitor enim factus est non aliquid à nobis accipiendo sed quod ei placuit promittendo Illo ergò modo possumus exigere Dominum nostrum ut dicamus Redde quod promifisti quia fecimus quod jussisti hoc tu fecisti quia laborantes juvisti Their second argument because our works are vera salutis causa we may put confidence in any true cause which is known fit to bring us to the end wished and hoped for such are our works Ergo. To this argument the answers are divers amongst our Divines The Apologie of the Augustane confession seems not to deny that there is some virtue in the works of the faithfull procuring unto us eternall life But that virtue they imagine to be extrinsecall issuing from the merit of Christ imputed to us whereby it comes to pass that the blemishes of our obedience are covered and our works presented as pure and without spot before God And sundry others eminent in the Church of God think it no heresie to say that our good works tincta sanguine Christi make us worthy of eternal life In which and many the like speeches I must needs profesâ—e I see nothing derogatory to the glory of Gods grace or Christs Mediation nor worthy the tragicall exclamations of many if they be duely considered Our Sacrifices saith Peter are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ 1. Pet. 2.5 See Reynolds contra Hart. cap. 8. pure and clean saith Malachy though not by inherence yet by acceptation and by that tincture they receive from Christs bloud and intercession Rev. 8. But will it not hence follow that they are true causes of salvation Answ In no wise as Papists conceive it namely that ex propria dignitate and because they satisfie the Law of God such dignity we acknowledge none inherent in them nor such perfection as satisfies the Law The worth they have is from their die and tincture in Christs bloud and that is it alone that makes them capable of reward so that the term of our confidence is Christs bloud not our works into which the whole causality as I may term it of salvation in respect of us is to be resolved Others there are that choose simply and without distinction to deny the assumption least peradventure the proud heart of man should swell with opinion of its own conferring any thing to its own salvation They are via regni saith Bernard non causa regnandi Causes if ye will sine quibus non necessary antecedents to salvation no virtuall efficients or procurers thereof unto us most truly and fitliest to the Popish opinion according whereto they are made so exactly answerable to the justice of the Law that they need no mercy to cover their defects no imputation of Christs merits to hide their blemishes from Gods justice yea have a worth in them proportionall to the transcendent weight of glorie The Apostle otherwise Rom. 8.18 The sufferings of this life are not worthy of the glory that shall be revealed Non si unus omnes sustineat saith Bernard Totis licèt animae Bern. de Annun Ser. 1. Euseb Emess Hom l. 3. ad Monach corporis laboribus desudemus totis licèt obedientiae viribus exerceamur nihil tamen condignum merito pro coelestibus bonis compensare offerre valebimus saith Eusebius Emissenus We conclude therefore That no confidence may be placed in our works of righteousness The whole must relie upon the mercy and truth of the promiser and on his Christ in whom the promises have their accomplishment 2. Cor. 1.20 And of the dutie and object thereof thus far His Periphrasis followeth Sense Who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead For the sense of the words It may be enquired how the resurrection of Christ is ascribed to the Father whereas it is said The Sonne hath power to lay down his life and to take it up again Joh. 2.19 and 10.18 Answ The answer rests in that old rule of Augustine The externall works of the Trinity are undivided in them all the whole three persons work joyntly in regard that the same divine virtue is equally residing in all If it be yet demanded why most usually the resurrection of Christ is assigned to the Father Answ Thus we may conceive that Christ in state of humiliation emptyed himself Phil. 2.7 Not as loving his glory but as forbearing for the time the ordinary manifestation of his Divine power inasmuch that howsoever there was no work of the father wherein he did not equally communicate quod ad substantiam operis yet so little shew thereof was there in the infirmity of his flesh that they might seem to be wholly from the father without any concurrence of Christ incarnate Again It may be demanded What the reason is that the Apostle singles out this effect of raising Christ from the dead to describe the father by Answ Some think to maintain the proportion betwixt the faith of Abraham and the faith of his seed that as he respected the power of God raising the dead in like sort should ours This is somewhat but if I be not deceived there is some farther aym of the Apostle he speaks methinks as if he thought there were some speciall reason and ground for confidence in God for justification in this act of God raising Jesus from the dead And weigh it well we shall finde there is scace any thing more fit to stablish faith in perswasion of justification then this For when the Lord losed the sorrowes of death and delivered our surety from bond age thereunto doth he not give evidence that his justice is fully satisfied for our sins he fully reconciled unto us Had not our surety Christ Jesus paid the utmost farthing due for our sins he had yet continued under the dominion of death the wages of our sins Hence saith Peter 1 Pet. 1.3 that the Lord hath begotten us to a lively hope by the resurrection of Christ from the dead there being no greater or more effectuall means to perswade us of pardon of sins reconciliation with God acceptation to life eternal then that Christ our surety and undertaker is risen from the dead There is a kinde of wisdome and prudence in believing the Apostle seems here to give us an hint for the nature and use of it thus conceives it It is when a man fits the consideration of the attributes and actions of God to the particulars most necessary and fit for faith to respect according to severall occasions as here The Apostle prescribing confidence in God for justification fits us with a description of him by