word Father then to the verb found And thus read Abraham our father concerning the flesh but methinks the trajection is too harsh and besides the conclusion shall want one principall term that best serves to express the things in hand and therefore I rather refer it to the verb and thus read Abraham found not by the flesh or as pertaining to the flesh According to the flesh That is saith Ambrose S. Ambrosius ad loc by his Circumcision fittingly to what we may suppose the Apostle to preoccupate and yet in as much as ye count Circumcision is a work he affirms it as well of morall works as of circumcision Say others as Cajetan by flesh that is Cajetan ad loc by righteousness which stands in works and are done by the flesh that is by the body Others as Theodoret by his own strength Theodoret ad loc Illyric in clavi Zanch. de tribus Elohim lib. 3. cap. 1. and good vvorks done thereby Generally I thus conceive it that Abraham obtained not righteousness by any work Ceremonicall Morall or whatsoever can be imagined to assail to righteousness except faith in Christ so finde I the use of the word in the same case Phil. 3.3 4 5 6 9. Where under this name of flesh comes circumcision our own righteousness which is by the Law or whatsoever is or may be opposed to that righteousness which is by the faith of Christ The whole explination amounts to this summe Abraham obtained not righteousness by any his own works See we the confirmation The argument is taken from an inconvenience issuing out of that supposition If Abraham were justified by works he hath whereof to glory But he hath not any thing whereof to glory at least with God Ergo he was not justified by works Let us see what our adversaries have to say against this full argument of the Apostle For ground of their answer they attempt an inversion of the Apostles syllogisme and thus conceive him to reason Sasbout ad loc If Abraham were justified by works then had he no glory or boasting with God he might indeed by that means procure the commendation of a man excellently righteous but with men only not with God but Abraham had cause of glorying and boasting with God Ergo was not justified by works This cross frame of the argument Augustin in prefat ad Psal 31. Ambros ad loc I could not without indignation read were it not that it hath great Authors to give it countenance for Reverence to them let us afford it tryall First then consider that the Apostle in this argument hath apparent respect to that ground laid down Rom. 3.27 That is that we are to be justified by such a mean as whereby boasting may be excluded according to which ground he here concludes That Abraham was not justified by works for if that were true then had he cause of boasting Is it not now too grosse blindness so to conceive the Apostle as if he would give Abraham cause of boasting Secondly besides this the proposition thus conceived is apparently false For if Abraham were justfied by works then sure he had cause of boasting even before God for what greater cause of glorying even before God then this That he hath wrought works to his justification and may therefore say he is not beholden to God for his greatest blessing justification as having purchased it by his own works of obedience see Rom. 3.27 Thirdly add hereunto that the assumption is apparently false for Abraham if the Apostle could judg had no cause of boasting with God his justification being as ours meerly of grace through faith in Christ Jesus leave we therefore that dream and see whether their other answers have more waight Say some Catholiques we must here understand observation of Legall Ceremonies as Circumcision Sabbaths New-Moons c. Not works of the Law Morall Answ To this idle exception see my Annotation in Rom. 3. But bring we this distinction into the Apostles argument and see whether boasting be excluded If Abraham were justified by works ceremoniall then had he cause of boasting belike not so if by works morall and how I wonder do works Ceremoniall give greater cause of boasting then works Morall is their dignity now greater then works of Morall obedience Fidem vestram Papistae Behold to obey is better then sacrifice and to hearken then the fat of rams 1 Sam. 15.22 I will have mercy and not sacrifice Hos 6.6 Mat. 9.13 sexcenta hujusmodi Bellarm. de Iustific lib. 1. cap. 19. blush at such idle evasions which your own Bellarmine willingly disclayms and confutes by Fathers Besides this according to this answer boasting is only in some part taken from Abraham namely in respect of his observance of Ceremonialls for Morall obedience is still left him for matter of boasting but boasting on any pretence is excluded in Pauls intention Ergo. Hear Hierome Ex operibus legis Hierom ad Ctesiphont Adv. Pelag. ultramed non justificabitur om nis Caro quod nè de Lege Moysis tantùm dictum putes non de omnibus mandatis quae uno legis nomine continentur idem Apostolus scribit dicens consentio Legi Dei c. iterum scimus quòd Lex spiritualis est c. We know saith Paul that the Law is spirituall Rom. 7.14 What Law I wonder if not that Morall Let us see yet whether other playsters will salve the sore Bellarm. qua supra works of Abraham are of two sorts some Praecedentia fidem going before faith some Facta per fidem done by faith the Apostle understands works done before faith and regeneration not those done in and by faith Let us bring this into the argument If Abraham were justified by works done without faith by the meer power of natural free will then had he cause of boasting not so if by works done in faith Answ And why not I marvail when works done by grace according to their opinion are done partly by strength-naturall of free-will so much then as free-will helped in the doing so much cause of boasting Abraham had of himself But Abraham had no cause of boasting c. 2. What if it be apparent that the Apostle speaks even of works done by Abraham now believing and regenerate then methinks these works must also be included in the Apostles intention Certainly if we consider the testimony alledged out of Gen. 15. in the next verse to prove that Abraham was not justified by works it will easily appear that Abraham was long before this regenerate and believing and had many works of faith whereas yet the testimony of righteousness is given him not for working but for believing It was a work of faith that Abraham did in following the Lords call out of his countrey Heb. 11.8 Other works of piety and love see Gen. 12.8 13.8 9. 14 16 20 c. Yet not these works done in faith but faith
was imputed to righteousness True saith Bellarmine Abraham was now regenerate and had done many good works of faith and yet the Apostle when he saith he was justified by faith and not by works rejects not his works done in faith from power of justifing but those only which he might have done not of faith For even they who have faith work sometimes not of faith as when they sin or do works meerly Morall without relation to God In a word the Apostle speaketh conditionally and according to their opinion which ascribed righteousness to their own strength Answ Now what is to be willfully blind if this be not was it ever heard of that a man should be justified by works not which he had done but which he might have done or think we the Saints of God to whom he wrought or the Iews that perhaps disturbed them were ever so shameless as to ascribe justice to works finfull or meerly Morall such as heathens performed It s apparent that the Apostle fits answer to Iewish objections who urged works of law written for matter of justification yea in likelihood works done in grace for whereto else comes in the example of Abraham so worthy a Saint of God Certes if of works meerly naturall there had been question example of Abimelech or Socrates or Aristides had been as pertinent to the purpose Lastly say others the Apostle speaks not de justificatione Pii but Impii not of that justification whereby a man of a righteous man is made more righteous but he speaks of justifiing a wicked man which is done by faith Answ Concerning this distinction see Annotat. in Chap. 3. But it is their opinion that he speaks of the first justification only surely Sasbout confesseth that the testimony out of Genesis treats only De augmento Iustitiae non de justificatione Impii And that is apparent to every confiderate Reader This mist of cavills thus dispelled let us now resume the Apostles conclusion and lay it for a ground that Abraham was not justified by any works of any law in any state by him performed Use Hear this now yee justitiaries that dare obtrude your menstruous merits to Godsjustice and for them claim righteousness at his judgment seat Behold Abraham that mirrout of good works as well as of faith yet stript of all right and claim to righteousness by any his obedience and dare any of his children challenge more at God hands then Abraham the pattern of justification Bring to the ballance your voluntary poverty building of temples pilgrimage vvorks of mercy or if there be any vvork that you think more glorious and see if they be not found lighter then vanity it self to those of Abraham that one vvork of obedience in offering his Son Isaac upon the altar vvhich of the sons of men can parallel I spare amplifications because they are extant in the Apostle and particularized in Ambrose De Abrah Patriarch lib. 1. Cap. 8. VER 3 4 5. For what saith the Scripture Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace but of debt but to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justfieth the ungodly his faith is counted for righteousness VVHether the words be conceived as proof of the Minor or of the principall conclusion it is not much materiall the issue being all one The argument proving it is taken from the manner or meanes of Abrahams justification which was meerly gracious the Scripture affirms that Abrahams believing was counted to him for righteousness Gen. 15.6 Ergo he had no cause of boasting because that not to the worker but to the believer only faith is imputed unto righteousness The consequence of this Enthymeme hath its proof from the place of unlikes That the force of the proofe may be better conceived let us view a little the terms of the comparison The persons compared are he that worketh and he that worketh not but believeth The things wherein they are compared as unlike is the manner or means whereby these severally obtain righteousness The worker that is he that hath works to be justified by he hath righteousness reckoned to him as wages not granted out of favour but paid as of debt He that hath no works but believes hath righteousness counted to him not of debt but of favour as if he had said that yee may see how Abrahams having faith counted righteousness left him no cause of boasting observe this difference betwixt the worker and believer viz. He that hath works to bring before God hath righteousness ascribed unto him of debt not of grace because that by his works he hath purchased righteousness as wages and so by consequence hath cause of boasting him that justifieth the ungodly it s otherwise this faith is of grace imputed to righteousness Abraham therefore being of this latter sort not a worker but a believer and by consequence hath faith of grace counted to him for righteousness surely had no cause of boasting for this matter of justification This having the better judgment of the learned I take to be the naturall resolution of the text Let us now turn back to the words and enquire their sense and what instructions they afford for our use In verse the third are two things 1. The Judg whom Paul appeales unto 2. The sentence of the judg For what saith the Scripture Holy Apostle thou forgottest thy self that didst appeal to Scripture to give sentence in a matter of dobut For we are taught by men of unerring spirits the Scripture is Mutus Index a dumbe judg not able to utter what may resolue us in matter of doubt Now how much better were it that these men were dumb then to use their tongues in manner so blaspheously derogatory to him that inspires the Scripture For be it that in property of speech the Scripture is speechless yet contains it not directions sufficient to determine doubts or needs it any more then mans minde to conceive and his tongue to publish what it contains Or hath the Church any other authority about the Scripture save only to declare what Gods Spirit therein speaks Must the sense needs be locked up in the Popes breast and the Scripture taught to mean only what he determines 2. Is it so strange and abhorrent from common language that the Scripture should be said to speak In common assemblies what more usuall How saith your record What saith the Law 3. How ever I hope Gods Spirit may be said in Scripto speak to his Church without any great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inasmuch as he doth therein utter what his meaning is And writing doth the office of speech thus far that it serves to express the conception of our minde As David said of his tongue it was the pen of a ready writer Psal 45.1 So may we say of the pens that the Lords holy scribes used they were the tongues of a ready speaker
unto them and taken notice of so far as that he was for it esteemed righteous We shall best understand the meaning by comparing the self-same phrase as it it is extant Psal 106.31 Phineas his executing judgment was counted to him for righteousness to all generations for evermore that is he for that fact or by means thereof had the esteem of a righteous man amongst men unto all posterity So Abrahams faith was counted to him for righteousness before God that is he for believing or by means of faith was esteemed or reckoned righteous before God This as far as I conceive is the proper meaning of the phrase If that hypallage seem harsh thus conceive it His believing was reckoned unto him to righteousness that is came into reckoning so far with God on his behalf or for his benefit that thereby he obtained righteousness Faith then is of that reckoning with God as that to Abraham yea to every man endued thrrewith he allowes the esteem of a righteous man understand faith as it s before described For the better understanding of this conclusion let us see a little how faith obtains this blessing of righteousness at Gods hands or what is the reason of the connexion of righteousness with believing Bellarm. de just if lib. 1. cap. 17. Divers are the explanations Papists impute it sometimes to the merit and worth of the very habit or act of faith as if it deserved at Gods hands justification and had the force of a proper efficient cause meritoriously to procure it Against it are these Reasons First Bernard Ser. 1. de Annunciat Hereof we may say as Bernard of other good works or as he terms them merits that it s not such as as that for it righteousness should be due to the believer of right or as though God should do us wrong except he gave to us believing righteousness for this as all other good qualities or actions is the gift of God and therefore man is rather a debtor to God for it then God to man Secondly Besides this how holds the difference assigned by the Apostle betwixt the worker and the believer in the manner of obtaining righteousness if righteousness belong to the believer as a reward of debt If righteousness belong to the believer of debt as a reward of believing then vainly doth the Apostle alledg this as a difference betwixt the believer and the worker that the one hath righteousness paid as of debt the other given as of grace but the difference is sure authenticall Ergo. Their arguments will be fitlyest answered when we come to set down the opinions of our own Divines Sometimes they thus conceive it that faith is the beginning of righteousness Bellarm. qua supra and the inchoate formall cause of righteousness that is part of that righteousness whereby we are made formally righteous and that they would prove out of this text because to him that believeth in him that justifyeth the ungodly his faith is counted to righteousness But they would deceive us with a false glosse for that is not the meaning that faith is counted our righteousness but that its taken notice of so far as that to the believer righteousness is imputed A mean therefore it is of obtaining righteousness not righteousness it self except by righteousness they will understand that of sanctification 1 Ioh. 3. Wherefore we acknowledg it to be a part but what is that to the righteousness of justification whereof the question is 2. After their own glosse its righteousness only aestimativè not therefore formally Sometimes again they make righteousness depend on faith as a preparation thereto in part necessary to dispose the subject to receive justification that is as they term it the infusion of charity and other graces whereby we are made formally righteous Versipelles Where may we finde you Is it the form of righteousness and yet but a preparation to righteousness Ob. The form inchoate not compleat Answ But I demand Is it before the other graces of God in time Or are they togethes with it infused If so how then make you yet a preparation only to righteousness when as together with it other gifts which make up righteousness compleate are infused Let us leave them and come to explications of our own Divines Some thus Righteousness or justification hath its connexion with faith by an order that God hath been pleased to set down in the Covenant of grace which is this that whosoever shall believe in Christ shall be justified and saved This condition now performed on our parts justification is ours and we are as righteous in Gods esteem as if we had all the righteousness of the Law performed by our selves Now this is an evident and clear truth that in the Evangelical Covenant faith is the condition of justification But first if faith justifies us as a condition performed by us fain I would know how we may maintain that doctrine of our Churches concerning sole faith and its being the only thing in us that avails to the attainment of justification for if we view the tenour of the Covenant of grace faith is not the only condition required of us to justification and remission of sins for repentance also is a condition required in that covenant to the same end Mar. 1.15 Repent and believe the Gospel Act. 2.38 Repent and be baptized for remission of sins but faith must so justifie that in that work no other thing may share with it no not repentance it self Ergo Besides this if the act of faith qua actus be that for which we are justified how doth the Apostle describe our righteousness to be without works vers 6. How sets he the worker and believer in direct opposition in the articles of justification Perhaps it will be said that works of the law only are excluded not this which is a worker of the Gospel Answ It should seem that not only works of the law but universally all works are excluded because whatsoever may occasion boasting in man is exclnded Rom. 3.27 Now as great occasion of boasting is left to man in the act of faith as in any work of the law whatsoever Nay may some mansay for faith is the gift of God and the exercise of faith meerly his work Answ The same may as truly be said of love patience c. These being also gifts infused of God and their actions even every act of them meerly his works in us even as meerly as the act of faith It remains then that we enquire whether in the other explanations of our Divines more likelihood may be found Usully it s thus conceived to justifie namely as it is an instrument to apprehend that righteousness for which we are justified even the * 1. Cor. 1.30 righteousness of Christ whether of this life or death or both it is not pertinent to this place to enquire but in this respect righteousness is ascribed unto it And here we are asked whether we
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
proportion to us that is the fulfilling of the whole Law Gal. 5.3 our Saviour to such a boaster asking What he must do to inherit salvation suits answer to his proud humour Thou knowest the Commandments if doing be the means thou seekest to inherit by Keep the Commandments this do if thou wilt needs be doing and thou shalt live fail in the least apex the Curse is upon thee Gal 3.10 Now dares any arrogate power of fulfilling the Law it is strange yet what will not Popish pride assume Anathema to them saith the Trent Council whosoever shall say Dei praecepta homini etiam justificato sub gratia constituto esse ad observandum impossibilia of that question hereafter 2. Add unto this that other reason of the Apostle Christ becomes of no effect to such as by the Law seek to be justified or saved Gal. 5.4 3. They are fallen from Grace not which they had but which they might have had had they not renounced it by cleaving to their works Shal I need now to exhort in the Apostles terms Gal. 1.6 to hold Anathema all such as teach us by works to seek salvation they deprive us of the promised salvation exclude from fellowship in Christs merits the sole pillar of hope deprive us of Gods grace which alone is made the fountain of salvation I say not but other errors in the foundation obstinately holden deprive of salvation I say not but all heresies in their kind are so many blasphemies against God Neither blame I the rigour of Magistrates that with extraordinary severity labour to bring Hereticks and their heresies into ashes But surely an errour more pernicious to the souls of Gods people more derogatory to the glory of Gods grace and the validity of Christs merits I know none then this of Justitiaries and can but wonder How the severity of Laws against Popish Seminaries hath gotten relaxation that it should now no longer be holden Capitall so dangerously to seduce Gods people to evacuate the virtue of Christs death and to plunge so many souls bought with the precious bloud of Christ into eternal perdition Amongst Jews no recompense might be taken for bloud but the bloud of the slayer the bloud of souls how cries it lowder then the bloud of Abel And yet the Murtherer hath benefit of sanctuary More I add not save this onely He loves not his own salvation that hates not the enemies of the grace of God VERS 15. Proceed we in the Text Because the law worketh wratht for where no Law is there is no transgression The Scope THis verse tends to confirmation of the Apostles Consequence If they which are of the Law be Heirs then is the promise of none effect that is salvation promised can never be obtained How follows the argument The Apostle shews us by sending us to consider the effect or work of the Law such as it hath in all men since the fall The Law causeth wrath Ergò it frustrates the promise to all that cleave thereto for justification And this Antecedent hath proof from another effect of the Law betwixt which and wrath the connexion is inseparable to wit transgression it causeth transgression Ergò wrath This the context Sense For the sense view we a little the particulars they are principally two 1. The effect of the Law 2. The manner how it produceth his effect The effect of the Law is wrath whether Gods or mans Man 's saith Sasbout alledging to that purpose the judgement of Augustin neither dissent some of our own Divines Illyricus And if any ask How They answer by urging things upon the conscience as duties from which our vitious nature is most abhorrent as also by shewing how odious all a mans best actions yea his whole nature is and adjudging him to hel for his sins against those acts of the Law how doth mans vitious and proud nature storm that not without cause have learned interpreters thus expounded But fitlier to the Apostles purpose it is expounded of the wrath of God that is of the punishments which for transgression God is in his wrath ready to execute Now if any demand How the Law should have this effect Not of it self as if it were originally destined to subject man to punishment but by accident and occasionally onely in respect of our disobedience which sith it is by means of corrupt nature inevitable as inevitably doth the Law adjudge us to punishment as our vitious nature forceth us to rebellion This is the sense of the first clause It also hath its proof The Law causeth wrath for it causeth trangression betwixt which and Gods wrath the connexion is inseparable How we shall hear by and by if we shall first view the manner of the Apostles reasoning It is thus as most conceive A contrario sensu Where is no Law there is no transgression therefore where the Law is there is transgression But what if we conceive the Apostle to reason à signis Where is no Law there is no transgression an apparent signe that is that by means of the Law transgression followeth take away the Law there is no transgression therefore apparent that by putting the Law we put transgression See we how how comes it that the Law draws with it so unavoidably transgression sith it forbids and threatens disobedience enjoyns and crowns obedience Answ Not of it self but by accident through the corruption of nature ut suprâ In man corrupted the Law hath a double advantage to further transgression 1. Because by it corruption is provoked to be the more sinfull as in men unregenerate Rom. 7.5 13. 2. Through impotencie and weakness that remains in nature even reformed to perform that obedience which the Law requires in that manner it requires it Rom. 8.3 Some other explanations might be annexed as this Every sin is therefore sin because it violates some Law take away all Law thou takest away all sin for sin essentially presupposeth some prescription of Law violated Had not God by his Commandment forbidden Adam the eating of the fruit it had been no sin in him to eat it This is a truth but not all tâ—â— Apostle here intends whose purpose is to shew not sâ— much the necessity of a Law to the being of sin as the necessary sequel and exsistence of sin in man since the fall by occasion of the Law Observ The point then observable is this That the law is so far from restoring us to Gods favour that it occasioneth his wrath so far from justifying that it condemns so far from being means of righteousness that it occasioneth transgression Hence called the Ministry of condemnation and death 2 Cor. 3.7 and the very strength and vigour of sin 1 Cor. 15 56. That not without cause said Luther though therefore traduced by Papists the law alwayes accuseth terrifieth condemneth The severall branches will be evident if we shall clear the last only and shew how inevitably it draws after it transgression in
you continue as upon your souls to prize and waite upon the holy and k Heb. 10.25 publick ordinances of God keep close to the l Gal. 6.16 Rule of Gods written word his m Rom. 12.2 Iob. 17.17 revealed Will Shun spirituall pride inordinate opinion of private gifts it opens the gap to n 2 Thess 2.11 Isai 29.9 10. delusions and the spirit of giddiness Remember who said there are o Rev. 2.24 depths of Satan who more mischiefeth well-meaning souls under the vizar of an p 2 Cor. 11.14 Angell of light then he doth under the shape of an open Dragon q 1 Cor. 16.13 stand fast in the setled received truth of Christ slight not the universall approved practice of Gods true Church be not r 2 Pet. 3.17 18. led away with the errour ſ Heb. 13.9 of the wicked have regard to the precepts as well as to the promises of the Gospel and a chiefe respect to the peace of the Church It is good t 1 Thess 5.23 that the heart be established with grace And now the very God of peace sanctifie you wholly and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the comming of our Lord Jesus Christ in whom I am Your affectionate Pastor to serve you William Sclater Collompton April 3. 1650. Errata PAge 3. line 25. for assail read avail and l. 3. r. explanation p. 8. l. ult after hath cause of boasting read thus now with him that hath noe such works but faith only in him that justifieth the ungodly it s otherwise p 9. l. 6. r. saving p. 13. l. 8. r. these p. 14. l. 19. for or r. of p. 15. l. 11. r. allmost p. 17. l. 2. r. allegations p. 18. l. 34. r. perhibet p. 20. l. 14. r. tenet p. 21. l. 11. r. an and l. 14. for in r. is p. 23. l. 13. r. oweth thee p. 26. l. ult r. work p. 27. l. 15. r. usually and l. 18. r. his lise p. 28. l. 27. r. due to thee p. 35. l. 1. r. oftner p. 36. l. 29. r. of him p. 38. l. 10. r. by inherence p. 42. l. 35. r. charity p. 50. l. 3. r. they and l. 5. for when r. what p. 51. l. 10. r. imputed p. 56. l. 20. r. destined p. 59. l. 6. for contractions r. contradictions and l. 10. r. temporal and l. 30. r. with p. 67. l. 19. for had r. tyed p. 68. l. 13. r. lyeth and l. 34. r. rain p. 69. l. 18. r. viaregni and l. 22. for decree r. degree p. 70. l. 1. r. Howsoever l. 12. r. contemptus and l. 22. r. significat and l. 24. r. ille p. 75. l. 9. r. into p. 76. l. 4. for where r. whence p 77. l. 20. r. considered p. 78. l. 22. r. weakness and l. 29. for said r. say I p. 80. l. 30. r. propound p. 84. l. ult r. Two p. 92. l. 32. for free r. see p. 95. in margin r. Basil in Hexamer p. 102. l. 13. r. whether as a condition p. 106. l. 23. r expediency p. 110. l. ult r. amplectentem p. 115. l. 14. r. subjoyned p. 117. l. 17. r. this effect p. 120. l. 10. r. infalibly p. 121. l. 9. r. anathema p. 125. l. 16. 19. for bis r. eis p. 136. l. 25. r. of inheritance p. 137. l. ult r. further p. 141. l. 32. for it r. is p. 153. l. 9. r. out of mens blindness p. 159. l. 29. for tempted r. tempered p. 160. l. 13. r. comfortable p. 161. l. 2. for the r. and p. 167. l. 23. r. reputed p. 170. l. 18. r. fructus p. 171. l. 9. r. though and l. 26. r. sequele p. 174. l. 13. r. propounded p. 182. l. 19. for loving r. losing p. 183. l. 1. r. scarce and l. 18. r. conceive p. 184. l. 1. for mediate r. meditate AN EXPOSITION WITH Notes on the fourth Chapter to the ROMANES CHAP. IIII. VERS 1 2. What shall we say then that Abraham our Father as pertaining to the flesh hath found For if Abraham were justified by works he hath whereof to glory but not before God THE Apostles purpose in this Chapter is by farther proofs to confirm his principall conclusion viz. That a man is justified by Faith without the works of the Law The chief Parts of the Chapter are three First A Confirmation of the conclusion Secondly A Laudatory declaration of Abrahams Faith Thirdly An applying of Abrahams example to us even as many as walk in the steps of Abrahams faith The Reasons brought for confirmation are 1. From Abraham's example 2. From Davids testimony 3. From time and use of circumcision 4. From meanes of conveyance of the inheritance to Abraham 5. From ends of justification The passage to Abraham's example is by most conceived thus The Apostle is imagined to prevent what Iewes might object against the conclusion of justification by faith without works If this be so what got Abraham our father according to the flesh as if they had said it seems there is no prerogative of Abraham by all that righteousness wherein he lived And the Apostle is supposed to grant their inference and to subjoyn Reasons thereof But methinks weighing the words the connexion may rather be conceived to be by way of inference out of the doctrine of the former Chapter as if it had been said if this be so that boasting must be excluded and that all that are justified must be justified by faith What shall we say then that Abraham our father found as concerning the flesh c. In no case Thus then but that I love not novelty I would read the text What shall we say then that Abraham found by the flesh And so methinks the reasons more fluently are applyed to the Negative conclusion The connexion we see The conclusion principall is here proved by the example of Abraham If Abraham obtained not righteousness by works but by faith then no man is or can be justified by works but by faith but Abraham obtained not righteousness by works c. Ergo no man is justified by works The proposition is not expressed but easily collected out of the text The assumption is Vers 1. laid down in way of inference delivered interrogatively where the interrogation implyes a negative The conclusion is Chap. 3. vers 28. The assumption is proved by an argument from inconvenience If Abraham were justified by works he had whereof to boast but not with God that is he had no cause to boast with God Ergo he was not justified by works Sence For the sence of the words Found That is obtained as Gen. 26.12 Isaac sowed in the land and found that is received or obtained in that year an hundred fold Hos 12.8 I have found substance that is gotten 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As pertaining to the flesh This particle some Ancients as well as later Expositors both Popish and Protestant refer rather to the
finde faith to have any such act or office as to apprehend and receive Christ and his righteousness Answ Amongst other places that is pregnant Rom. 5.17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est oblatam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fidei videlicet manu Beza Where believers are deseribed to be such as receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness that receive to wit by faith as by a hand the gift of righteousness that is the righteousnes of Christ given unto us After this sentence we see how faith alone justifieth namely because faith only hath fitness to receive the gift of righteousness This laid also for a ground boasting is excluded in every respect which after all other explanations is left in some respect unto men Thus also is the comfort of conscience left provided for when Gods children shall be taught out of the word of God that the righteousness whereby they are justified before God is so absolute and every way perfect as is that of Christ and that it sufficeth them to justification that they receive it whether by strong or weak Faith the virtue of Righteousness being stil the same when it is received in what measure soever it be received As the alms given is of the same benefit whether the hand that receives it be steady or shaking so it be received The summe of all is this sith Faith is accepted to Justification neither in respect of the Worth of it to procure it nor yet as being the Form of righteousness nor as a Preparation nor as a Condition It remains that it justifieth Instrumentally onely or because it apprehends that for which we are justified namely the merit and Righteousness of Christ For Use of this point let it be this It affords Comfort to every weary soul groaning under the burthen of sinne and pressed with the Terrours of the Almighty and affrighted with the Curse of the Law due to Transgressions If thou believe in the Lord Jesus and hast received this grace by faith to receive his righteousness offered in the Gospel thy sins are forgiven and shall never be imputed to Condemnation Thou standest as just in Gods sight as if thou hadst in thine own person performed exactly the whole obedience that the Law requires And let no man say it is true if they could firmly believe as Abraham but their faith is so weak and wavering that even for it Condemnation is due them Answ For this Consider that it is not the strength of Faith that justifies not Faith as an Act wherein our Righteousness stands but it is that which Faith apprehends that justifies even the obedience and righteousness of Christ That apprehended truly in what measure soever covers all defects not onely of Legall obedience but even of Faith it self A second thing here observable is this That whereas to Abraham that had now long time been Regenerate and in state of grace had done many works of Piety and obedience Yet Faith is still counted to Righteousness it follows well that whole justification is absolved in Faith and that Faith is not onely the beginning of Righteousness but the very complement thereof And Bellarm. qua supra it is to be observed against that errour of Romanists that to evade the direct testimonies of Scripture against Justification by works and for that by Faith alone have devised a distinction of Justification It is say they Concil Trident Sess 6. of two sorts The First whereby a man of unjust is made just and that stands in two things 1. Remission of sins 2. Infusion of gracious habits whereby the heart of man is disposed and inclined to actuall justice The Second is that whereby a man of Righteous becomes more righteous encreasing the habits infused by exercise of them in doing good works The First of these is ascribed to Faith The Second to good works Now To omit that in this Doctrine they confound things to be distinguished namely Justification and Sanctification There is no ground for this distinction of justification in Scriptures nay grounds many against it For 1. If good works have this force to make us more justified in the sight of God how comes it to pass that Abrahams Iustification is still ascribed to faith For that the place Gen. 15.6 is to be understood de secunda justificatione Sasbout confesseth Sasbout ad locum Besides this the Apostle Phil. 3.9 apertly declares his whole justification both in his first Conversion Kemnit in Exam. in that time wherein he wrote yea at the day of Resurrection to be wholly and meerly absolved in Faith And surely if there were such virtue in the exercise of Good works as to make us more justified in the sight of God Saint Paul did fondly count so basely of them as to call them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dung and loss Add hereunto that the Apostle 1 Cor. 4.4 speaking of the righteousness wherein he lived after his Conversion yet plainly disclaims opinion of justification thereby he was privy to himself of no insincerity in his calling having since his calling lived in all good conscience yet saith he I am not hereby justified What shall we say he speaks of his first justification as if it could possibly be thought that the works not yet extant could be the means of that justification which he had before he had works More I adde not We will now proceed to that which followeth VERS 4. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace but of debt The applying of these verses to the Apostles purpose see in the Analysis Sense To him that worketh That is say some that presumes of his works others that deservs by his works Thus rather To him that hath or brings works to God The wages or reward What is the wages here mentioned Paraeus Some take the Apostle to reason out of a principle in Civil life by similtude applyed to this purpose but the Antithesis bears it not Wages here understand Synecdechicè put for estimation of righteousness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is say some is not imputed but the Catachresis is too hard and abhorrent from all custome of speech Cajetan Is notreckoned that is not paid saith Cajetan What if we say the speech is borrowed from the custome of Common life on this manner That the Lord should be imagined after the manner of men to keep his book of accounts wherein the records both the behaviours of men and the wages due unto them according to the same It s not much unlike that we fiud Mal. 3.16 Let us for the purpose imagine the Lord the great distributor of reward according to the double covenant of works and grace to have referred all men to two ranks viz. Workers and Believers to resolve with himself to crown both with a sentence of righteousness according as they bring to him either works such as the Law prescribes or
faith in Christ If a man have works his works are taken notice of and recorded and withall his reward is thus registred after the Covenant of the Law Righteousness of Debt If a man want works but have faith his faith is recorded and to him also is ascribed or imputed the same reward though out of another cause Righteousness by favour The thing we have in the word of God and perhaps it is Allegorically expressed by allusion to the customs of men This I am sure is truth in the Legal Covenant If a man do the Commandments he shall live in them and the doers of the Law shall be iustified This also is true in the Evangelicall Covenant He that believes shall be saved and if a man believes in Christ his faith shall be reckoned of to iustification The reward is all one that God intends to both they differ 1. In the condition 2. In the ground of payment Righteousness is ascribed to the Worker of Debt to the Believer of Grace God should do the worker wrong if he should not approve him as righteous that hath fulfilled the Laws But it s his mere grace that to a believer he will ascribe righteousness sith his righteousness is merely precaria performed by another and by him nothing brought but faith to receive it and tender it unto God and that faith also merely the work of God If I fail in expressing my self or explaining the Apostle yet let no man blame my desire of both but further my weakness with his help that the Apostle may be understood Sense The sense then is this as I conceive it To him that hath works such as the Law prescribes and brings them unto God righteousness is ascribed or set on his reckoning as wages belonging to him of debt and not of grace VERS 5. But to him that worketh not We must beware that we mistake not the Apoâ—â—e as if he promised righteousness to him that believes and neglected good works Jam. 2.26 For the Apostle James hath taught us that faith without works is dead and if a man say he hath faith and have no works can that faith save him And the Apostle describing faith justifying as it is in the justified man saith it worketh by love Gal. 5.6 What is then the sense To him that worketh not that is hath no such works to bring before God as for them to claim righteousness thereby or as Ambrose expounds Ambros ad loc Non operanti id est qui obnoxius est peccatis quia non operatur quod mandat Lex To him that hath no works because he is a transgressour of the Law But believeth in him See here say some how faith justifying is described To be rather an affiance in the Justifier then an assent to the Gospel Answ Rather see here affiance meeting with assent in the person of the believer they agree in the subject differ for all that in their nature In him that justifieth the ungodly Doth the Lord then justifie the wicked Answ Surely though he be God that forgiveth iniquity and sin yet will he in no case clear the wicked Exod. 34.7 and Prov. 17.15 He professeth that he is as abominable that justifieth the wicked as he that condemns the righteous Answ Hereto answers are diversely conceived according as the terms admit distinction First thus Wicked men are of two sorts some such as continue impenitently in their sinns some that by grace repent and believe in Christ Of the first sort its true God justifies them not that is acquits them not while they so continue and yet wicked men repenting and believing in Christ that is ceasing to be wicked God clears and holds innocent for to such he forgives iniquity transgression and sinne Paraeus ad loc Exod. 34.7 or thus Justifying of a wicked man is either against the orders of Justice without receiving sufficient satisfaction for the trespasse or else upon receit of sufficient satisfaction In the first sense God justifieth not the wicked in the second he mercifully justifieth us having received satisfaction in the death of his Son Lasâ—ly Justification hath divers significations sometimes it signifies to make just sometimes to declare just or to absolve In this last sense God justifies not the ungodly that is absolves him not whiles he so continues but yet he makes an ungodly man righteous Of the first kind of justification understand Moses of the second Paul His faith is counted for righteousness See explication ad vers 3. Observ The things out of this passage of Scripture observable are these First the direct opposition of Faith and Works in this Article of justification If it be by Faith it s not of Works If by Works not of Faith that howsoever it be true their concurrence is certain their agreement amiable in the life of the justified yet their contrariety irreconcileable in the procurement of justification Not to be long in the manifestation of it First the Apostles argument hath else no force in the case of Abraham except their opposition be such as is mentioned 2. Besides this view it in the contrary principles from which the two kinds of justification proceed The Worker is justified of debt the believer of grace that look what opposition there is betwixt favour and debt the same is betwixt justification by Works and justification by Faith Like see Rom. 11.6 Now were it not a point of acute Sophistry to teach us how to deny the Apostles argument and to tell him the consequence is not good because they are able to assigne a medium Witty I confesse but with such wit as S. James tells us to be * Jam. 3.15 devilish Such as it is let us hear it forsooth they point us to this medium of participation It is partly by Faith partly by Works I say not any man is so impudent as in plain terms to contradict the Apostle but surely this in the issue shall be found their answer howsoever with distinctions they colour the matter Let us hear them Justification by Faith and justification by Works indeed are opposite if ye understand in both the same justification but there is a first justification and a second the one is by Faith the other by Works Again works are of two sorts works of Nature works of Grace betwixt justification by works of Nature and that by Faith there is indeed an opposition not so in that by works of Grace For these distinctions and the vanity of them see suprà ad ver 2. Annotat. ad cap. 3. This once is evident out of this place that the Apostle imputes the justification of Abraham now regenerate unto his Faith and betwixt the justification that Abraham had being now in grace and that of works placeth the opposition Besides this what means the Apostle to befool the Galatians for expecting the perfection of this benefit by the Law which was begun by the Gospel Gal. 3.3 Would he not thereby teach us
Hierome S. Hieron epist ad Ctesiph Hoc testimonium sub nomine pietatis novâ argumentatione deludunt aiunt enim ad comparationem Dei nullum esse Perfectum Perfectly righteous they might be according to that required in the Law not so in comparison to the Essentiall righteousness of God Hear Hieroms answer quasi hoc scriptura dixerit as who say this Scripture affirmed so much No saith Hierom but when it saith None shall be justified in thy sight hoc intelligi vult quòd etiam qui hominibus sancti videntur Dei scientiae atque notitiae nequaquam Sancti sunt Homo enim videt in facie Deus autem in corde That is This is the meaning That even they that seem to men Holy to Gods knowledge are not so For man looks on the face God on the heart One reason more I propound against their conclusion and so proceed The Righteousness whereby a man stands just before God according to the Law must be for the matter Right for the measure Pure for continuance Firm The terms are Bernards It must be Recta according to Rule Pura Bernard de verb. Esa ser 4. free from stain Firma without wavering or interruption He seems in fit terms to express the Apostle citing that testimony of Moses Gal. 3.10 and certainly if our Righteousness fail in any of these by sentence of the Law we are under the Curse The assumption let us hear out of Bernard Nostra si qua est humilis justitia recta forsitan est sed non pura nisi forte meliores nos esse credimus quà m patres nostros qui non minùs veraciter quà m humiliter aiebant omnis justitia nostrae tanquam pannus menstruatae mulieris quomodo enim pura justitia ubi adhuc non potest culpa deesse Ours 1. no better then our Fathers 2. Not free from fault therefore not pure or perfect And I wonder much how Papists sticking so close to their distinction of first and second justification can maintain the perfection of inherent righteousness For is there a second justification whereby we are made more righteous it is apparent therefore that inherent righteousness is never perfected in this life Perfectio viae Patriae It is idle when they distinguish perfection into that of the Way and the other of the Countrey For if by it we are justified in via according to the Law we must by it also be perfected in via inasmuch as no righteousness but perfect is approved by the Law I conclude therefore That the righteousness whereby we stand just according to the Law is not inherent righteousness Lastly If the righteousness whereby we are thus just stand in the habits of faith hope charity patience meekness c. How is it that the Lord when he justifies an ungodly man believing is said to count his faith to righteousness vers 3 4. perhaps because that is our righteousness Ex parte Apage Then when Paul concludes Abraham not to have been justified by works because he was justified by faith his meaning is this Abraham was justified by faith in some part ergò by works in no part How easie were it to denie his consequence Thus though in part of Faith yet he must be in part also of Works and so the Argument follows not And again The state of the question so largely disputed in this Epistle betwixt faith and works must be this Whether we be justified in part of Faith But these are absurd 2. If therefore faith be counted our righteousness because it is so In part Why I wonder Faith more then Chariey or Hope c. Why saith the Apostle so oft Faith is counted to Righteousness never so of Charitie perhaps Denominatio fit ex parte potiori Apage I dare say by their notes 1 Cor. 13. they will never abase Charity so farre as to give Faith the preheminence in this point of justification Perhaps now it will be exspected that I should answer their objections in this point but that hath been already in a great part done ad cap. 3. and besides the grounds now laid afford answer sufficient Proceed we therefore to the next explication God justifies the ungodly that is makes him righteous by imputing righteousness and if the question be What righteousness The Righteousness of Christ whether of his life or death it is not so pertinent here to enquire For we are now onely to dispute whether imputation be the means whereby we are made just in the sight of God and this also will fitliest be handled in the next verse thither therefore I refer it Onely it shall not be amiss to see upon what reason our Divines thus interpret the word of justifying by making righteous That acception of the word in Scripture being so rare that scarce in any other place it is found Their reason is this because the word when it is taken to acquit can in no wise fit this place because the Lord professeth so often He will not justifie the wicked in this sense so as to acquit him or hold him righteous whiles he continues wicked It should seem therefore that when Paul saith he justifieth the ungodly his meaning is He makes him righteous that he may acquit him But what if that sentence of Moses be understood with the exception of the Gospel Except he repent and believe the Gospel Surely though the Lord profess He will not clear the the wicked Exod. 34.7 that are impenitently such yet we know he testifieth in the same place that he will forgive transgression iniquity and sinne to the penitent and believing The last thus God justifieth the ungodly Cajetan by remitting his sins or in that that he forgiveth him his sinnes But Is this true doth God forgive the sins of the ungodly Answ Though not to an ungodly man continuing in his ungod liness yet to an ungodly man that ceaseth to be ungodly Isa 1.18 c. as they all do that believe in Christ for faith purifieth the heart not onely from the guilt but also from the power and practice of ungodliness Act. 15.9 Obiect But so doing God iustifies not the ungodly but the righteous Answ Distingue tempora concordabunt Scripturae No man saith that in the instant of iustification a man is in that sense ungodly but yet inasmuch as before faith he was ungodly it s no absurd speech to say That in remitting the sins of a believer he forgives the sins of the ungodly or thus He iustifieth him that is ungodly by Nature though when he iustifieth him he be altered by Grace Matthew the Apostle is called Matthew the Publican Matth. 10.3 not for that he was so then but because he had been a Publican Why not then the believer ungodly especially when as there are reliques of ungodliness sticking even after justisication Vse Now brethren how sweet is the comfort of this meditation that God who in his wrath is a * Hebr. 12.29 consuming fire
against unbelieving ungodly ones is yet so exceeding ready to forgive even the ungodly believing in him so that we may say as David every one to his own soul faith once received Psal 43.5 Why art thou so cast down O my soul and why art thou so disquieted within me Trust in God and thou shalt find him full of mercy and compassion exceeding ready to forgive the sins that he hath enabled thee to repent Hast thou sinned in seculo saith Bernard Bernard in die Pet. Pauli Serm. 30. Not more then Paul In religion and state of grace Not more then Peter and yet they obtained mercy and as Paul speaks It is for ever a * 2. Tim. 1.16 Beza Piscator pattern of Gods pardoning mercy to all such as shall hereafter believe in him to everlasting life Neither impieties in seculo nor infirmities in grace are imputed to such as believe in him for behold he justifies the ungodly believing in him that though all sins be damnable in their own nature yet may it be said in a sense The onely damning sin is infidelity insomuch as if infidelity were not no sin should be imputed to condemnation But thus far of the first argument against justification by Works drawn from the example of Abraham The rest of this Verse hath been already explained ad vers 3. VERS 6 7 8. 6. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works 7. Saying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered 8. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sinne TO the example of Abraham taken from Moses is adjoyned the testimony of David amongst the Prophets And Theodorets reason of the choice is not to be contemned for Abraham lived before the Law and now he shews that David who lived under the Law gave Testimony to Faith The rendring differs Beza Piscator David describeth the blessedness of that man others had rather thus David saith Blessedness to be that mans unto whom c. In the issue is no great odds The summe of the argument is this If David say That blessednesse is that mans to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works Then is no man justified by works But David saith Blessedness is that mans to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works Ergò No man is justified by works The minor hath its proof ver 6 7 8. borrowed from Psalme 32. But may some say How follows the Proposition that if a man be blessed that hath righteousness without works imputed to him then no man is justified by works Answ Thus as I conceive prescribing to no man If blessedness be onely that mans that hath righteousness without works imputed then justification cannot be by works Inasmuch as blessedness is his onely that is justified justification being a part of blessedness If any Justiciary shall object That the exclusive particle onely is not extant in the Apostle and that though he be blessed that hath righteousness imputed without works yet may he be blessed also that hath righteousness purchased by works Let this suffice him for answer That there is one onely way of all mens justification for else how follows Pauls argument Abraham was not justified by Works but by Faith Ergò No other man After this conceit a man might mannerly deny the Apostles consequence and tell him that though Abraham were justified by Faith yet another man may be iustified by Works Now to make way to the particulars observable in this sixth verse It may be said that the words are no where extant in David and how then saith the Apostle that David saith The man is blessed to whom righteousness without works is imputed David indeed saith that he is blessed that hath not his sins imputed no where that righteousness without works is imputed Answ Though the words be no where extant in David yet the sense is and though he speak not in expresse words yet he speaks it in effect inasmuch as by iust and necessary consequence it may be deduced for he that saith A man is blessed that hath not his sins imputed saith in effect that he is blessed that hath righteousness without works imputed Observ Whence observe we that Gods Spirit in Scripture speaks as well what he implyeth as what he expresseth as well what by consequence is deduced as what in summe of words he uttereth Instances are frequent Iam. 4.5 Saith the Scripture in vain the spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth it after envy Now where finde we those words in all the Scripture By deduction we have them Num. 11.29 in express terms we no where finde them yet saith Iames the Scripture saith so Luk. 1.73 74. God sware to Abraham that we should be delivered out of the hands of our enemies that we might serve him without fear where finde we such an oath extant for words In no Scripture yet when God sware he would bless him Gen. 22.18 and that in his seed all nations should be blessed He sware in effect we should be delivered from our enemies and serve him without fear inasmuch as this blessedness stands in being delivered from our enemies and it s no small part thereof to serve God in holiness The Observation is of speciall use for maintaining the fulness of the Scripture and for helping us in sundry controversies Say Papists and Anabaptists where have we it taught that infants should be baptized in all the Scripture Answ Not in express terms but by just consequence we have it From the generall Mat. 28.19 From pâ—rity Gen. 17.12 From principles Act. 2.39 Where finde we that Christs Righteousness is imputed to us for justification saith Bellarmine Answ Bellarm. de justific l. 2. and lib. 1 cap. 16. In express terms we finde it not but virtually and by just consequence we have it 2 Cor. 5.21 In the equivalent we have it Rom. 5.17 18 19. The adversaries saith Bellarmine are wont to boast much of the express word of God and to reduce all their opinions to this one head But in the case of justification by faith only that help fails them For they were never yet able to shew in the Scripture that particle only where they intreate of justifiing faith Answ But we are taught that if we have it by consequence from the Scripture we have it in the Scripture The Scripture propounding but two means only of justification Faith and Works and denying all justifying vertue to works affords it us not the conclusion by consequence We are justified by faith only see Rom. 3.18 Again have we it not in the equivalent Gal. 2.16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but by the faith of Iesus Christ as much as if he had said by faith only In a word where we have the generall we have the particulars where principles and causes the effects where one equall there also the other By
the 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
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
to the course of the Covenant Now the defect of the verb is diversly supplyed Cajetan some thus adimplenda fuit others thus contingit or contigit and these by the promise understand the thing promised I would rather thus facta est as Gal. 3.16 By the Law That is works or righteousness of the law but of what law that given in Sinai or that of nature Paraeus Answ Vnderstand either or both and that some think is intimated by abscence of the article as a condition or a means we shall anon resolve I have now propounded the severall judgments of Interpreters touching the sence Whether shall we resolve of for my own part I will peremptorily prescribe to no man My judgment only I will propound The conclusion I think is this That justification belongs to believers all and only in respect not of works but of faith The Reasons proving it is taken partly from the form or manner of conveiance in the promise partly from parity In this form If the promise of inheritance to Abraham and his seed was to be accomplished not by legall obedience but by righteousness of faith then it followes that we are justified by faith and not by works But the promise of the inheritance to Abraham was to be accomplished not by the law but by the righteousness of faith Ergo. The consequence of the proposition hath this ground because that justification must be by such means as the inheritance may be obtained and that is obtained so as it is promised it is promised to be obtained by the righteousness of faith as a mean or disposition thereto tending Ergo. Justification is by faith and not by the law Hitherto the Connexion The particulars of this verse are these First The ground of Abrahams and our title to the blessing and that is the promise Secondly The matter of the promise To be the heir of the world Thirdly The means whereby we partake the promise set out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not by the law but by the righteousness of faith Observ Out of the first this is the collection That the title we have to the blessings of God that concerne life and godliness is the promise of God And our whole claim to them is sub titulo promissionis compare Gal 3.18 For this cause I think it is that the blessings of God which we partake are so often called promises and the Children of God the heires of the promise see Heb. 9.12 17. and 10.36 because by virtue of the promise accrewes our claim title and possession of the blessing Hence Peter Act. 2.39 reasons for the blessing and seal thereof in respect of the humbled Iews the promises are made to you and to your seed And to assure us of enjoying them Gods Spirit usually sends us to consideration of the Lords fidelity 1 Cor. 1.9 and 10 13. 1 Thess 5.24 2 Thess 3.3 Heb. 10.23 c. And it is not to be omitted that Budaeus observes that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a promise meerly voluntary and gratuitous without respect to any worth in the party to whom it is made In which respect it seems to be opposed to the law Gal. 3.18 From whence it well follows in Pauls Divinity that it is not founded on the worth of any our works Gal. 3.18 neither may we claim them as due to us for the merit of our obedience And howsoever obedience be required as a qualification of our persons to make us capable thereof yet the cause moving God to bestow them is not our righteousness but Gods promise Memorable is that caveat Moses gives to Israel being now at the skirts of Canaan say not in thy heart c. for my righteousness Deut. 9.4.5 the Lord hath brought me in to possesse this land c. Not for thy righteousness or for the uprightness of thy heart doest thou go in but for the wickedness of these nations c. and that the Lord may porform the word Which the Lord sware unto thy fathers Abraham Isaac and Iacob his reason is vers 16. Thou art a stiff-necked people which self-reason hath place in us all whatever our righteousness be by grace Rebellion alas Rom. 7.23 how much is still in our nature Hence it is that the Saints of God in their prayers to God usually acknowledg their own unworthiness and the blessings they crave and lay claim to they claim by promise read Neh. 1.8 9. And if ever we read in any of them allegation of righteousness as Isai 38.3 It is not intended as cause of the blessing but as a disposition in the person fitting it to receive the blessings made ours by promise In the next place consider we the matter of the promise That he should be the heir of the world The Heir that is saith Mr. Beza out of Vlpian Lord or owner agreeably to that Gal. 4.1 Howbeit something else is withall signified that this possession descends upon him freely as an inheritance not as by way of purchase Of the world That is say some of believers of all nations whereof supra say others of the Kingdome of Heaven others of whole heaven and earth and all the creatures therein with whatsoever heaven or earth can afford to make him blessed in token and pledg whereof Canaan was given him by promise as being the most fertile and pleasant part of the world and withall a type of Heaven and as Heb. 4 and 12. the rest pleasantness and glory thereof This I think the best interpretation for reasons above assigned Observ Whereout observe we That by covenant and promise Gods Children have title to the whole world All things are yours saith the Apostle whether Paul or Cephas or the world c. or things present or things to come all are yours 1 Cor. 3.21 22. And again godliness hath promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come And if any shall say that in experience we see Gods Children none of the greatest sharers in the things of this life Answ The lack of use hinders not our title and property in them The heir is Lord of all in title though in this nonage he differs nothing from a servant Gal. 4.1.2 That little they enjoy they enjoy comfortably as their own without usurpation Tit. 1.15 1 Tim. 4.4 5. 3. A recompence they have in graces equivalent here Mar. 10.29 30. by an happy commutation 4. And in the life to come full fruition of that happiness which passeth all the felicity earth can afford unto them 5. Besides there is in the best something that turns many of these earthly blessings into poyson as Agur intimates Prov. 30.8 9. And experience daily teacheth In that case therefore if the Lord keep us short to prevent our mischief shall we say his promises is not made good 6. Finally our wants in this kinde are usually chastisements of particular disobedience c. From whence followes as a just consectary this
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
obedience except thou mayest thereby be justified Is not that love of God in sending his Son to dye for thy sins that he might make thee zealous of good works enforcement sufficient to all obedience except thou mayest part stakes with Christ in the glory of thy salvation Hear Paul The love of Christ constraineth me to all faithfulness in my calling 2 Cor. 5.14 2. And is it nothing that by this means we make our calling and Election sure 2 Pet. 1.10 3. Nothing that others by seeing their spotless conversation are occasioned to glorifie God Mat. 5.16 In a word that nothing might be wanting to quicken our dulness the Lord hath been pleased by promise to binde himself to recompence even of slenderest duties tendred to him in sincerity Mat. 10.41 A reward thou shalt have accrewing not from worth of thy works but from grace of the promiser Will not that satisfie Not at all except they may merit Heaven as if they should say they had rather have no salvation then be beholden to Gods bounty for the bestowing The Apostle methinks thunders against such meritmongers They are fallen from grace and Christ shall profit them nothing Gal. 5.4 Lastly Hence learn to detest as greatest enemies to thy salvation all such as teach to seek it by the law of such saith Paul let them be Anathema Aut utinam exscindantur Gal. 5.12 Of all Hereticall and false Teachers this last age hath afforded I know none more pernicious then these two 1. Libertines that teach to neglect obedience as in every respect unnecessary 2. Justitiaries that press obedience as available to justification The first sort are odious to all except Epicures The latter by how much the more strictly they urge obedience and that so fittingly to the humor of nature by so much the more pernicious As much excludes from Heaven the intention of meritting by performing as the neglect of the Lawgivers authority in omitting obedience These are enemies to the Dominion The other professed adversaries to the grace of God VERS 16 17. Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed not to that only which is of the Law but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham who is the father of us all Vers 17. As it is written I have made thee a Father of many nations c. HItherto hath been shewen that justification is not by works Followes now farther confirmation of the affirmitive part that it is by faith The arguments here laid down are from the ends and scope which the Lord propounds to himself in our justification and salvation First The glory of his grace Secondly Our comfort Thirdly And both these are intended to all the seed All these severall arguments are artifically linked together by the Apostle and as it were entwyned one in another by mutuall dependance Let us view them severally It must be by faith that it may be by grace If the inheritance be ours by grace and not by debt then must it be by faith but it is ours by grace Ergo. The force of the consequence we will shew after we have a little explaned the text The verb suppositum are both wanting It is by faith What must be by faith Either the promise or the inheritance the inheritance rather see vers 13.14 What is the verb to be supplyed whether it is promised or it is attained whether we will the sense no whit varied by either The parcells here to be considered are two First That the inheritance is attained by grace Secondly That except it be attained by faith it cannot be ours by grace It were impertinent perhaps on this occasion to run out into that question Whether by grace we are here to understand the gifts of grace in us or the favour of God towards us The best Interpreters amongst the adversaries oppose it to debitum and expound it liberality Cajetan Sasbout By grace then understand we Gods free and undeserved favour without any of our works or debt accrewing from God to us by merit see vers 4 and Rom. 11.6 Observ The point is that our righteousness and salvation is of Gods free favour Hereto after a sort agree our adversaries but yet latet anguis Whether meerly of grace or mixtly of grace and merit Who so is conversant in their writings shall finde them so sharing the matter betwixt grace and merit that he would think the spirit of Pelagius to be revived in them He seeing how odious his barefaced heresie was teaching that a man without help of Gods grace might live without sin began to colour it with equivocating and in terms to joyn with orthodox teachers and to give place to the necessity of grace assisting in the fulfilling of the Law whereupon said Austin finding but the term of grace and mercy by cunning concession inserted by Pelagius Augustine de natur grat cap. 11. Laetitiâ repente perfusus sum quòd Dei gratiam non negaret per quam solam homo justificari potest But what was this grace of God admitted by Pelagians Nothing else but freewill which our nature receives from God without any precedent merits and the law or doctrine of God Augustin de Haeres Haer. 88. whereby we are taught what we should do and in doing hope for With like cunning deal our adversaries Justification and salvation they are of grace But what is grace the gift of charity in us How of grace because not without it but prinbipally and originally from it Let us enquire whether this can be the sense of the Apostle in ascribing the inheritance unto Gods grace or whether his purpose be only to make grace a sharer with our merits and not rather so to give all to grace that he excludes all debitum that may accrew to us in respect of our works See Annotat. ad cap. 3.24 Freely by grace that is meerly by grace and vers 27. So that all boasting in our selves may be excluded In a word See 1. Our state before calling it is such as wherein no merits except for the truth of the point merita mala as Austin terms them Augustin de grat lib Arbitr cap. 5. can have place whence is that of Paul so often repeated not of works of righteousness Tit. 3.5.2 Tim. 1.9 2. After calling works imperfect Rom. 7.3 The good that is in them meerly the work of Gods grace whence that of Austin Si donasunt bona merita tua non deus coronat merita tua tanquam merita tua sed tanquam dona sua Augustin de grat lib. Arbitr cap. 78. And again Si vita bona nostra nihil aliud est quam dei gratia Sine dubio vita aeterna quae bonae vitae redditur Dei gratia est ipsa enim gratis datur quia gratis data est illi cui datur The labour would be long and endless almost to
was fully assured 2. The matter subject of his perswasion or the Proposition to which Abraham thus fully assented That what God had promised he was able to perform where we may also conceive to be implyed the grounds of Abrahams so firm believing The promise and power of God Observ From the First we observe That faith in her strength Beza Paraeus ad loc Calvin Instit and perfection hath firmness yea fulness of assurance others otherwise conceive the note and thus collect That fulness of perswasion is of the nature and essence of Faith That none of Gods children erre to their discomfort thinking they have no truth of believing because they want fulness of perswasion thus much understand That in exact defining the custome is to consider virtues c. Abstractly from their subjects 2. In such abstraction to express their nature in terms importing their greatest excellency and perfection 3. Virtues morall and Theologicall they describe not as they are in our practice but as they ought to be by Gods prescript What now if faith in us be doubtfull yet in it self and according to its own nature it is a full perswasion What though in the disposition and beginnings it be wavering yet in the excellency and perfection it is of infallible certainty What if our practice of faith be weak yet God requires perfection of it and our striving must be to perfection prescribed Vse Thus let us use it As an occasion to humble our selves for our doubtings Augustin Epist 29. ad Hieron for that which Augustine saith of charity is as true of faith profectò illud quod minus est quà m debt ex vitio est yet thus much withall Let us not so far deject our selves as to think we have no truth of faith because we want perfection and fulness of assurance yet may faith be in truth where that measure is not attained See Annot. ad vers 20. as the truth of humane nature in an infant wanting the strength of grown men The matter of Abrahams perswasion followeth That what he had promised he was able also to perform The points observable are 1. That faith even justifying is an assent rather then affiance having for his object terminum complexum whereof see Annot. ad vers 3. 2. Take notice of two speciall grounds for faith to rest on the promise and power of God both joyntly considered establish faith sever either from other thou makest faith either phantasticall or wavering Hereof see Annot. ad ver 17. VERS 22. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness THe fruit of Abrahams faith is here expressed that is his justification The depravations of this Scripture by Adversaries are many Let us briefly take view of them The first is from the illation Therefore it was imputed c. Hence they collect that faith avails to justification virtuously and by way of merit Man is justified by faith not because it apprehends the promise but because it obteins remission of sinns suo quodam modo etiam mereatur how infer they the conclusion out of this Scripture The Apostle in this place saith Bellarmine Bellar. de just lib. 1. cap. 17. sets down the cause why Abrahams faith was reputed justice to wit because by believing he gave glory to God therefore for the merit of that faith he justified Abraham Where first let us weigh how they utterly crosse the intention of the Apostle in his whole discourse which is to exclude all merits of men from justification can we imagine he excludes the merit of other works to substitute the merit of faith 2. Besides that it is easily observable that the Apostle maintains a continuall opposition betwixt faith and merit as ver 4. To their argument thus we answer That the Apostles illation indeed implyes a sequel of justification upon the performance of faith yet none such as is caused by the merit and excellency of the gifs or work of faith above other works and this is that deceives them that they can conceive no connexion betwixt our offices and Gods benefits but what the worth and merit of our performances causeth Know we therefore 1. That there is an infallible connexion betwixt faith and justification so that every one believing is without faith justified But 2. If the reason of this connexion be demanded it is apparently Gods covenant and promise therefore shall every believer receive remission of sins because so runs the promise in the covenant of grace Believe and thy sins shall be forgiven August de verb. Apost Serm. 16. Augustines speech for the generall let be remembred Debitor factus est Deus non aliquid à nobis accipiendo sed quod ei placuit promittendo Abraham believed and was therefore justified the cause if we seek is the promise of God not the worth of his faith which 1. Is a duty 2. Gods gift 3. In us imperfect And if Abrahams faith were the meritorious cause of his justification I demand whether as faith or as such faith that is whether in respect that he believed or in respect that he believed in this full measure was he justified If in respect of his measure then methinks it will follow that only such measure of faith sufficeth to justification so the disciples of Christ so doubtfull and wavering in many main articles till after Christs ascension must be reputed for that time unjustified if faith simply in what measure soever then can it not be meritorious sith in the beginnings it is so ful of imperfection Thus I conclude Faith is an antecedent no cause properly of justification justification a consequent of believing no effect issuing out of the virtue and merit of faith Trelcat Instit de justific the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 therefore notes not the cause of the consequent but of the sequel or consequence saith a learned Divine Their second collection is this Rhemens ad loc That faith justifying is a generall faith whereby we assent to the truth of Gods speeches in generall Bellarm. de justif lib. 1. cap. 11. and no such speciall faith or affiance as Protestants require to justification Their reason The faith whereby Abraham was justified was no other then this A general perswasion of Gods faithfulness and power at large Ergò Answ The question hath been largely handled ad vers 3. whither I refer the Reader To their argument thus I answer their antecedent is untrue Abrahams faith was not of Gods truth and power in generall onely but of both applyed to the particular promised From these generals he concluded the particular touching the seed in whom all nations should be blessed In his believing and the matter of it we must conceive something propounded and considered as a conclusion somthing as an argument or premisses inferring the conclusion to both which Abraham assented To the conclusion by virtue of the premisses The conclusion was particular I shall have a seed in whom all