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.
• [Page 2]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.

[Page 3] 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 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; [Page 4] 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.

[Page 5] 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 [Page 6]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. Its apparent, [Page 7]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.

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: [Page 9]him that justifieth the ungodly, its 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 [Page 10]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.

Sitacet Christus, quid sibi volunt haec Evangelia? quid sibi volunt voces Apostolicae? quid cantica Psalmorum? quid eloquia Prophetarum? in his enim omnibus Christus non tacet: S. Augustin. In Johan. tractat. 4.

The Scripture?] Fitly doth Paul consult with Scrip­ture, as the only Competent Iudg in-questions of his nature; without which, if we search for resolution in matters of this quality, we run into a Labyrinth: The advise that Constantine gave to the fathers in the Nicene Councell, should have place with us; sumamus ex dictis divini spiri­tûs explicationes quaestionum; Mark his reason; Evangelici enim, Thedoret. Hist. lib. 1. cap. 7. & Apostolici li [...]ri, nec non Antiquorum Prophetarum oracula, planè instruunt nos sensu Numinis: And truth is, howsoever in matters of Morality, there be to be found some good directious in nature; yet in this, and like matters touching reconciliation with God, and means of justifi­cation before him; how utterly not only blind, but oppo­site to what truth teacheth, is nature: yea, it may not be de­nied that the Fathers them selves, have some of them too na­turall conceits in this business; and, if my judgment and ob­servation in their writings be any thing, (as it is not much,) the attentive Reader shall finde much of the popish plot of justification, to be framed out of the errours and misprisi­ons of some Ancients; here therefore especially let it have place, that the Prophet adviseth, to the Law, and to the Testimony, Isai. 8.20.

See we now the sentence of this Judg; What saith the Scripture? This, Abraham believed God, and it was impu­ted to him for righteousness.

In which sentence, we have two particulars observable.

First Abrahams act, with the object, he believed God.

[Page 11] Secondly, The fruit, or benefit thereof; It was counted to him for righteousness.

Touching the first, Abrahams act, he believed God: Let us here a little largely, enquire what is the nature of justifying faith; so much the rather, The nature of justifying faith explained. because the controver­sie is famous, betwixt us and our adversaries.

Concerning it, two questions shall be handled:

First, whether it be an [assent] to the promise; Or, an [Affiance] rather, and trusting in the promise: Or, in plainer terms; whether this [to believe] in this question, signifie, to give Credence to God speaking; or else, to put confidence in God.

The opinions both of them have great Authors, both Popish, and Protestant: For our better understanding, it shall not be amiss to fetch the consideration somewhat higher; even from the generall notion of these two habits, as they are conceived by Philosophers and others, accor­ding to reason.

Faith therefore or beliefe, hath this generall description: It is an habit of the understanding, inclining us to a firm, and undoubtfull assent to something as truth, for the authority and credit of the speaker, or witness. I call it first an ha­bit of the understanding, because, the proper object there­of is truth, and the act thereof an assent to truth; or, a perswasion and acknowledgment of the truth propounded: The difference stands, partly in the measure of assenting, partly in the cause moving to assent: for as touching abso­lute doubtfulness, when the minde hangs in aequilibrio, gi­ving no assent either way, its quite opposite to the nature of faith.

Now, the assent of the minde hath three degrees:

The first is, when the minde hath some, though weak, inclination, and hath a propension to assent to a thing pro­pounded, perhaps moved by some slight sign, or by appre­hension of possible truth; some call this suspition, more fit­ly perhaps, conjecture.

[Page 12] The Second is, when the assent is more stable, and reso­lute; yet not without fear, that the contrary may be true: this called opinion.

The Third and highest, is a perfect and peremptory ac­knowledgment, that the thing propounded is of infalli­ble and certain truth; of this last sort, is the assent that faith yields.

Now, this certain and perfect assent is of four sorts, according to a fourfold means swaying the minde: The first is, that which is caused by sense; as when the minde ac­knowledgeth a thing for truth, because it hath received per­fect intelligence from the sight, hearing, &c. or, other senses not hindered or deceived: The second is, that which is caused out of the clear light and evidence of the thing, without arguments of any kinde to perswade it; as in prin­ciples clear of themselves, and that need no demonstration or evidence, but their own light to convince; as that, omne totum majus est suâ parte: The third is, that which is caused by certain discourse, and demonstrative arguments, which they call science: The last is, that which is procured by the authority and credit of him, that propounds a thing to be received for truth; which authority (being without excep­tion,) breeds perswasion as firm, as any can be raised by ar­gument, sense, or if there be any other means more forcible with the minde to perswade: And of this last sort is faith.

Now Fiducia, confidence or affiance, is that habit, or act of the will, whereby we hopefully repose our selves upon the power, truth, and goodness of the promiser, for recei­ving of some good thing promised.

It differs from belief. 1. In the proper seat; belief being in the understanding, affiance in the will. 2. In the object which its carried unto, which is bonum, not verum. 3. As the effect from the cause; this reposing of our selves on, arising from a perswasion of the power, truth, goodness of him we trust in: And of the general notion of these two qualities thus far.

[Page 13] Their difference we shall better yet see, if we consider the divers phrases of speech, wherein the Scripture expresseth their actions, fittingly to that usuall distinction received from Austin, putting difference betwixt these two acts of; S. Aug. Trict. in Ioh. 29. and Serm. 61, de verb. Domini. Credere deo, & Credere in deum: The first being the act of beliefe, properly so called; the other expressing the act of that other habit which we call fiduciam.

To apply this Praemissa to the purpose; the question is, of whether sort that faith which we call justifying is; whether a giving credit to God promising us remission of sins in Christ; or a relying on his mercy, and the merits of Christ, for pardon of sins and life everlasting.

The severall opinions shall be propounded and examined, that the truth may the better appear.

Papists, well nigh all that I have seen, Resolve of the former, and thus determine; Bellarm. de Iustif. lib. 1. cap, 5. & 9. See Kemnit. Exam. lib. 1. cap. de Fide justific. That Faith justifying is no such Affiance, or Confidence in Gods mercy, as Pro­testants teach; but a general assent to all things contai­ned in the Word of God, and a perswasion of their Truth.

Of our own Divines, some not of lowest rank, judg, that it is meerly an assent to the truth of the Gospell, or Evangelicall promise made to us in Christ, And they would thus be understood; not that it excludes beliefe of the rest of Gods word, but that (as it justifies,) it respects only the Gospel: And further, this assent they make of two sorts; one generall, whereby we believe the Gospel to be true; another speciall, whereby we believe it to be true to (us.)

A third sort there are, that make it meerly an affiance or confidence in God, and his Christ for pardon of sins, and salvation.

The last is of them, that make it partly an assent particu­lar, partly affiance; of these, let us enquire which comes nearest unto the truth.

As touching that of Papists, making it only a generall [Page 14]assent to the truth of the whole word of God, without any particularlizing either of the object, or of the assent:

The reasons are forcible against it.

First, For that by this means, justification is extended to sundry reprobates, yea, after a sort, to divells; for if this be the faith that justifyeth, namely, whereby men assent to the truth of the word of God; Iam. 2.19. then must all in whom such faith is, be partakers of justification: but only the Rom. 8.30. pre­destinate are justified; reprobates and divells not so; Ergo.

Secondly, Our next reason is, from the effects of faith justifying; one speciall whereof is, that it makes our ser­vice all Heb. 11.6. acceptable to God, through Iesus Christ: Now, how a generall assent to the truth of Gods word, without a particular perswasion of his love to us in Christ, should thus sweeten our services; I would have them explain, sith none pleaseth, 1 Ioh. 4.19. but what issues from love of God; and that again flowes from our perswasion of Gods love to us in Christ.

Add unto this, those other gracious effects or faith justi­fying; as, that it breeds peace of conscience, Rom. 5.1. Pa­tience, yea joy in afflictions, under hope certain of glory; bold­ness of appearing before God in prayers, &c. yea in the day of judgment: Can these be imagined to flow from ge­nerall faith? These, and many the like reasons, sufficiently overthrow that dream of generall faith.

Let us examine these Reasons; the summe of them I will briefly propound.

The First lyes thus; the faith described by the Apostle, Heb. 11. is not a speciall perswasion of Gods speciall mer­cy, or an affiance therein; but only a generall assent, to the truth of the whole word of God. But the faith there descri­bed is justifying faith: Ergò, Justifying faith is not a per­swasion of Gods speciall mercie, or a confidence therein but a general assent to the truth of the whole word of God?

Answ. To the minor I thus answer; that its easily con­fessed, that the Apostle in that whole Chapter, describes [Page 15]that faith that justifies: But, whether he intend an exact definition of the nature of it, (as it justifieth) or rather a setting out, and commendation thereof, by the effects and properties, is the question: And its apparent, that the A­postles purpose, is not so much to give us an exact definition of the nature of it; as to exhort to continue therein, by ar­guments drawn from the properties, and wonderfull effects that were wrought by it in the Saints that have gone before us, as appears there; and in Hebr. 10. and 12.1.2. For, first, think we the Apostle so ill an Artist, as to compose his definition of Terms amost all figurative as, ver. 1. if he de­sired exactly to set down the nature of it to our understand­ing? Besides, that some of the effects ascribed there to faith, are particular, and almost personally belonging to the Saints there mentioned, and which we cannot but foolishly expect to be wrought by our faith: Now had the Apostle there intended to describe that faith that justifieth, so as to shew us the nature thereof, (as it justifieth) impertinently, had those works as miraculous, and of personall obedience been there inserted.

To the Major, it is denied: Even the faith there descri­bed, is a speciall perswasion of Gods speciall mercy, and an affiance therein: For what though there be no mention made of any such specialty, either of the perswasion or of the object, or of the affiance; cannot it therefore be such, because its there described by effects and properties? The Apostle, 1. Cor. 13, describes unto us at large true Christian charity, by Necessity, Effects, perpetuall endurance: shall we now say, that Charity is no benevolous, or wel-wishing affection towards our neighbour; because there is no express mention made thereof, where it is purposely described? Adde unto this, That this speciall perswasion of Gods love in Christ, and affiance in his mercy, is there necessarily inclu­ded; it being impossible, that any of these works of obedi­ence could have been, either so couragiously undertaken, or so acceptably performed, had they not had even such faith as we now enquire of.

[Page 16] Their second reason lies thus: The faith which Christ re­quired, commended, exhorted unto, approved with mira­cles, was onely a generall assent to the truth of the word of God; as Matth. 9. and 16. Luke 7. Ioh. 1. &c. But that faith which Christ so required and commended, &c. was faith justifying; Ergò, Justifying faith is onely a generall assent to the truth of the word of God; or, as Bellarmine himself inferrs the conclusion, Kemnit. qua suprà. it hath for the object some­thing else besides Gods speciall Mercy. Answ. If that be the conclusion, it was never denied by our Divines, but that the faith that justifieth, hath for the object, not speciall mercy onely, but the whole word of God: If that there­fore be the conclusion, the Adversary proves what is not de­nied: For we grant (if they will needs have it) that its the same faith which believes both the History in generall, and which receives, and rests on the speciall mercie of God for justification.

But the questions be, 1. Whether generall faith alone suf­fice to justification? 2. Whether the object of faith justi­fying (as it is justifying) be the promises of the Gospel, as they concern us? The first of these we deny; the second we avow, and prove, ut suprà: there is none of us, that ever denied, but that its the same faith, which assents to the truth of the word of God, in generall, and which justifieth us in the sight of God: But if we speak of faith (as its justify­ing) so we say, it respects particularly the promise of the Gospel. I illustrate what I mean by this similitude: Its the same soul, whereby a man lives, moves, exerciseth sense, and useth reason; but yet, if the question be, What it is in the soul that forms a man to his particular nature: We say, its the soul, not as it gives life, motion or sense; but as it useth reason: Even so, &c. Now to the proofs of the ad­verse part, I answer that the Major is untrue; The faith which Christ required, was not onely, a generall assent to the truth of the word of God, concerning his person, pow­er, offices &c. but principally, it was particular assent, and [Page 17]affiance also in him, as the Messiah promised: as by view of some of the principall obligations will appear: For, think we the acknowledgment of this proposition in generall; [That Jesus Christ is the Son of God] is that, See Joh. 20. and 1 Ioh. 5. that justifieth and saveth: Then how fail Divells of justi­fication? yea, and of eternall life, that sensibly acknow­ledg him to be Jesus, the Son of the living God, Mark 2. Besides, what means our Saviour so often to invite us unto him; and propounding the condition of eternall life, to utter it in a phrase importing affiance? as, Ioh. 6.40. yea, particular acknowledgment of him to be a Saviour unto us.

Lastly, Thus I reason, A Pari; other parts and conclu­sions of Scripture propounded generally are to be believed, not only as they concern the generall, but particularly as having their truth in us: Why not then, these, that pro­pound remission of sins, righteousness and salvation, to be obtained by Christ? For instance, when the Scrip­ture teacheth, that every one is accursed that keeps not the Law; that the wages of sin is death. &c. Binds it not me also to believe, that I also for (my) sins, am by nature subject to the curse? that the proper wages for (my) sins, is death. When it propounds promises of temporall bles­sings as it doth to them that seeks Gods Kingdome, and his righteousness: ought not I to acknowledg this promise to belong to (me,) and to place confidence in God for the performance? Why then, when the promise of remission of sins is made to believers, binds it no (me,) and every be­liever, to assume that (my) sins are pardoned? when it teacheth Christ to be the Saviour of the world, and Au­thor of Righteousness to those that obey him; should I not say, that Christ requiring generall faith, intends also a particular applying of this generall to my self, for my comfort and salvation? More I add not in this kinde.

Two paradoxes only of Bellarmine, Bellarm. l. 1. de justific. cap. 8. I will briefly pro­pound and so leave them:

[Page 18] The first is, that faith is justifying, though it have no respect to Gods speciall mercy.

The Second, That it is not justifying, if perhaps it have respect thereto.

The proofes have in them the quintessence of Iesuitical acumen: The Leprous mans faith, Mark 1. was a justify­ing faith; and yet had no respect to speciall mercy. Ergò, Faith not respecting speciall mercy is justifying. Answ. The proposition needs proof; inasmuch as many had faith for obtaining Miracles, that had none at all, touching the per­son of the Messiah, Luk. 17. 2. How proves he, that he had no speciall faith, concerning remission of sins by Christ? What, because he doubts of his will, for his cure! As who say, there may not be speciall faith, touching par­don of sins, even where there is doubt of obtaining some remporall blessing: the one having a promise for Gods children to rest on; the other not so, but with limitation to expediency.

But will you see how he proves, that faith is not justi­fying, if it have respect to speciall mercy: The Pharisee having it, even because he had it, was not justified? Ergò, Answ. And, was the Pharisees affiance in Gods speciall mercy, the Reason, why he was not justified? Nay, ra­ther the vain boasting of his own righteousness; as appears by the drift of the parable expressed, Luk. 18.9. Vacuus proindè rediit, Bernard. de Annuc. Ser. 3. ad calcem. quia plenitudinem simulavit, as S. Bernard: and therefore failed he of justification; not because he trust­ed on Gods speciall mercy to obtain it, but for that he trusted in himself that he had it.

Some Ancients let us hear in this point, Bernard de Annuc. Serm. 1. saith Bernard: Si credis pecoata tua non posse deleri, nisi ab eo cui soli pec­câsti, & in quem peccatum non cadit, benè facis: Sed adde adhuc, ut & hoc credas, quia per ipsum (Tibi) peccata donan­tur; hoc est, Testimonium, quod perhibit in corde nostro spi­ritus sanctus, dicens; dimissa sunt tibi Poccata Tua.

The Second opinion, touching the nature of saith justi­fying, [Page 19](as it is justifying) is this, that justifying faith is an assent not so much to the truth of the whole word of God, as to the promises of the Gospell, and that, as having their truth in (us.) The difference betwixt this and the Popish opinion, stands in two things.

First in the object, which they make the whole word of God; these only the Doctrine of the Gospel.

Secondly, In the manner of assenting, which they make generall, without any particular applying to our selves these particulars: They consent in this, that it is an act of the understanding, rather then of the will; perswasion ra­ther then considence; assent, rather then affiance: And for this they have these Reasons.

First, For that the faith that justifieth, is so often ex­pressed in a phrase importing assent, or giving credit, as in this Scripture; Abraham believed God; that is, gave cre­dit to God promising to be his reward, &c. Similia vide, Mark 1.15.

Their Second Reason is, because the object thereof, is usually made the propositions of the Gospel, and that which they call Terminum complexum; or, as Thomas speaks, something propounded; per modum enuntiabilis: or, to speak more plainly, and agreeably to the phrase of Scripture; a testimony which God gives in the word, and in the heart; See Rom. 8.16 Gal. 2.20.

A Third Reason, Because it seems strange, that faith justifying should have divers seats, or subjects; The under­standing as an assent; the will as an affiance: From hence and the like reasons, it is concluded, that faith justifying is an assent, rather then affiance.

Now, that it hath not for the proper object, the whole word of God; but rather, only the doctrine of the gospel, (as it is justifying) these Reasons evince.

First, For that our Saviour prescribing the act, limits out also the object, and makes it the Gospel, rather then any other part of the Scripture, Mark 1.15.

[Page 20] Secondly, Kemn it. in Exam. part 1. de Fide justi­sic. For that in other parts of the word of God; faith findes not what it may lay hold on, for reconciliation, remission of sins, and justification but only in the Gospel; that is, the word of reconciliation; there is Christ the Me­diatour propounded, there remission of sins promised.

For the Third branch, that its a particular assent; parti­cular I mean, not only in respect of the Subject, but of the Object, Examples prove, Gal. 2.20. Christ loved (me,) gave himself for (me:) The generalls of the Gospel thus particularized, are that which faith justifying (as it is justi­fying) respects; by this faith Paul lived.

Secondly, In point of believing, there can else be no difference betwixt faith of Reprobates and that of the Elect; betwixt faith of Divells, and of justified men: For, its an idle tenant of theirs, that they make charity the form of faith; a gift disparate from it not in act and office only, but in the very subject and seat where it resides: More see to this purpose, Suprà.

The Third opinion is of them, that make it only an affi­ance and resting on God, and his Christ, as propounded in the gospel for justification, and remission of sins. And for this opinion these Reasons are brought.

First, For that the phrase wherein usually it is expressed, imports rather confidence and affiance, then assent or per­swasion, as Ioh. 12. & alibi: But finde we it not, as often expressed in a phrase, that signifies assenting?

Secondly, Because, they cannot else finde a difference be­twixt faith justifying, and that which may be in hypocrites and divells: What say they to that particularity of assen­ting, Gal. 2.20. and appropriating the generals to our selves; a thing as impossible for hypocrites or divels to perform, as that other of affiance; and what to that, Eph. 3.12. that makes this confidence a fruit of faith justi­fying.

The last tenant is of those, that make it partly an assent particular; partly an affiance; and, for that opinion are these Reasons.

[Page 21] First, For that the phrases of speech wherein it is ex­pressed, seem to import both.

Secondly, They are both required as necessary to justifica­tion; not only as dispositions, but after a sort as ingredi­ents; not only as qualifications of the person, but our means of justifications.

Thirdly, Because they concur in every person justified, as he is justified.

Now, Of these three last, which is the truth, I dare not peremptorily determine: For my part, I profess my self to think with them, that make faith justifying and assent, ra­ther then affiance; especially for that place Eph. 3.12. Howbeit, I may not deny but that the affiance spoken of, in an inseparable companion of that assent; perhaps also, as conferring something to justification: yet this I am well assured of. First, Faith properly so called, hath its seat in the understanding. Secondly, According to Etymo­logy, imports a perswasion. Thirdly, In use of Scripture, most frequently signifieth giving credit, rather then put­ting confidence. Fourthly, And, if there be any truth in that our Divines affirm, concerning the office of faith, [in applying Christ to our selves,] most likely it should be an assent, rather then affiance; applying or appropriating of Christ to us, being no more but this; an acknowledg­ment that Christ is such to us, as the Scripture describes him, a Redeemer, a Saviour, a Mediatour of reconcilement, and Author of righteouiness and salvation; which acknowledg­ment is an act of the understanding, not of the will. Fiftly Besides this, the opposites or defects of faith, are apparent­ly in the understanding, and import defect of assenting, as doubting. Sixtly, The perfection and [...] (as I may term it) of this grace, is [...], fulness of assent and perswasi­on; the grace it self for substance, therefore, is of the same nature.

Let us view a little how the Apostle in this Chapter, expresseth that faith of Abraham, which to him was impu­ted [Page 22]to righteousness: In this verse its thus enunciated, Abraham believed God; that is, gave credit and assent, to what the Lord promised touching a seed; and vers. 22. He was fully assured, or perswaded, that he which had promi­sed, was able to perform: and this perswasion was impu­ted to him for righteousness: All which laid together sway my judgment to theirs, that teach faith justifying to be such an assent, as in the third opinion is expressed, rather then affiance; and of the nature of faith justifying, thus far. There remains yet one thing, before we proceed to the fruit of Abrahams faith, expressed in the next member: And that is, to enquire how fitly this testimony is alledged, to the purpose of justification; the promise being in shew only of a temporall blessing; namely, a numerous seed, and no mention made of Christ the Mediator, whom faith justifing (as it is such) respects. Answ. Answers here are diversly conceived; the likeliest I will propound.

First Its thus answered, that Abrahams faith whereby he believed the promises, both touching the reward, vers. 2. and touching the seed, cannot be imagined to have been, without respect to Christ the Mediator; inasmuch as all the the promises of God, are yea, and Amen in Christ, 2 Cor. 1.20. That is, have their accomplishment and ratification in, and for Christ.

Secondly, That the seed mentioned in the promise, is rather to be understood of the spirituall seed, then of the carnall posterity of Adam; and the head thereof is Christ, as the Apostle interprets, Gal. 3.16.

The fruit of Abrahams faith follows: [It was counted to him for righteousness.]

The difference in the reading out of the Hebrew origi­nall, is little or nothing: Hebrew thus; he imputed, or counted it for righteousness: out of the septuagint, its ren­dred positively, it was counted for righteousness.

For the sense of the words, if it be enquired, What was it, that was counted righteousness? Its answered, faith; [Page 23]as appears both by the text, Gen. 15.6. as also, vers. 5.

Was counted unto him for righteousness] For better un­derstanding the text, let us consider the word; first seve­rally and alone, according to the native signification, and use of Scripture. 2. Conjunctly, according as thereof sundry phrases are raised,

The word, [...], or, [...], it signifies usually two things: First, To repute or esteem, and make reckoning of. Secondly to impute or ascribe: In the first sense, Psal. 8.4. What is man, that thou reputest, or esteemest him? Christ was reckoned amongst the wicked; that is, esteemed as they, Isai. 53.12. In the second sense, the use is also frequent; Philem. vers. 18. If he hath wronged thee, or oweth the ought; impute, that is, ascribe it to mee, and set it as it were upon my score: the speech being borrowed from Mer­chants.

The phrases of speech, arising from conjunction of this word with others, are divers in Scripture.

In this Chapter, faith is said to be imputed to righteous­ness, or, reckoned for righteousness; wages is said to be reckoned, or imputed; righteousness to be imputed to a man; sins to be imputed, or not imputed to the com­mitter.

The First phrase is, of all the rest, of most difficult expli­cation: Conjectures of others, that have any probability, I will propound: some thus; Faith was (counted) for righteousness; that is, instead of righteousness; as if it supplyed the stead of the righteousness of the Law, in this point of justification: and this exposition they would ap­prove, by likeness of phrase in other things, as they conceive it; As Rom. 2.26. Uncircumcision is (counted) for circum­cision, that is, instead of circumcision, Rom. 9.8. The Children of the promise are (counted) for the seed, that is, instead of the seed: But, why not thus rather? they are (counted) the seed: for so they are apparently, not recko­ned iustead of the seed, but counted or esteemed the leed; [Page 24]they being the seed, with which the Covenant is made.

Others thus; Faith is (imputed) to righteousness; that is, ascribed 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 its 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 its 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 [Page 25]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 [Page 26]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? [Page 27] 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, its 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 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 [Page 28]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 [Page 29]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.

1 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.

2 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; [Page 30]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.

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. Its 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 [Page 31]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 its 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.

[Page 32] VERS. 5. But to him that worketh not] We must beware that we mistake not the Apo [...]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 [Page 33]the wicked; in the second he mercifully justifieth us, having received satisfaction in the death of his Son.

Las [...]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, its 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; [Page 34]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, that whole justification is perfected in Faith? And for works of grace, though (as hath been said) they agree with faith well in the heart of a Christian; yet justification, even by these works, is opposite to that of Faith, Phil. 3.9. More I adde not; onely I advise them that labour to mingle Moses and Christ, Faith and Works, in this point of justification, to remember what Paul hath pronounced, Gal. 5.4. with a solemn protestati­on; That as many as look for justification by works, whether in whole or in part, are fallen from grace, and Christ shall nothing profit them.

This opposition also is to be remembred against all such, as teach us to expect justification by faith, as it is a work: the opposition is none, that I can conceive, betwixt the ju­stification by the work of faith, and the work of love.

The next thing here offered to our notice, is a distinction of rewards; and it lies thus; There is a reward paid, as Debt; there is another given of Favour.

And it is of some use in that grand question betwixt us and our Adversaries, touching the merit of good works; [Page 35]which from no ground they ofter infer, then from this, Be­cause they shall be rewarded. To this the answer is, Not every work that hath a reward, is by and by meritorious; except the reward be paid as debt to the work: Now the reward that is given to our obedience, is given of favour, not paid of debt: and that we prove thus: First, because the same that is called the reward of obedience, is said with­all to be [...], a free gift of God: A reward, and yet a free gift? How, if paid of Debt, not given of grace? be­sides, saith Bernard, Mans merits, or good works, are of no such quality or worth, as that eternall life should be due to us for them of right; or as if the Lord should do us wrong, except he gave it us. Nam ut taceam, Bern. Serm. 1. ce Annunc. quòd merita omnia Dei dona sunt; & ità homo magìs propter ipsa Deo debitor est, quàm Deus homini; quid sunt merita omnia ad tantam gloriam? as S. Bernard. His reasons are these; Man is debtor to God for his good works, because they are his gifts; not God to man. 2. The reward exceeds by many degrees the worth of the work; Therefore is not a reward of debt, but of favour. If they shall reply, and say; God should wrong us, except he thus rewarded us: I answer, Not us, but him­self; the debt not growing from the worth of our works, but from the grace and truth of the Promiser: Debitor fa­ctus est Deus, non aliquid a nobis accipiendo, sed quòd ei pla­cuit promittendo, S. August. De verb. Apost. Serm. 16.

To him that worketh not but believeth] The sense, see supra. So then, God hath not left sinfull man, Observ without a means of justification, though he want works, such as the law required to righteousness; for, what through want of works we fail of, he hath provided by faith shall be obtai­ned, even righteousness, such as may stead us at the barr of Gods justice.

A point worthy of our attentive consideration, for the magnifying of Gods mercy, and furtherance of our com­fort. It was grace enough in God, that he was pleased to create us in so excellent a condition, only through desire to [Page 36]communicate himself unto us; and for it, he might justly claim obedience to any his commandements, especially pro­portioned to our abilities, even without any promise of farther recompence: but loe, that nothing should be wan­ting to our encouragement, when he propounds a law to be obeyed, he also covenants with him, to crown his obe­dience with immortality; This do, and thou shalt live. Lev. 18.15. Rom. 10.5. But, see mans great unthankfulness to God, and unmercifulness to himself; not contented with the happiness presently enjoyed, nor with the hope of im­mortality promised; he affects not to be (like) God as he was, but to be (equall) unto him in knowledg, Gen. 3.5. He throws off the yoak of obedience, and thereby deprives himself justly of all the happiness he had, or could hope for; plunges himself into misery endless, easeless, and remediless; except God in mercy provide an escape. Now, behold the unsearchable riches of the mercy, and love of God toward man; loath that he should perish, he enters another course for his recovery; sends his own Son out of his bosome, in the similitude of sinfull flesh, by obedience unto death to satis­fie justice, that there might yet be a way for his mercy to overflow in the salvation of his chosen; and in him enters a new league with man, for restoring righteousness, and sal­vation, under a condition so reasonable, as none more could be devised; believe only in him that justifieth the ungodly, thy sins are pardoned; righteousness restored, salvation recovered.

Lord what is man (saith David,) considering a blessing far inferior, that thou so reckonest on him? or the son of man, that thou so visitest him, Psal. 8.4. Our hearts must needs be dull, and dead, if these things work not in us, more then acknowledgment, even admiration, of Gods endless mercy: Well, this was Gods mercy towards us.

Ʋse 1 Now sure, I doubt not, but those that have felt in any degree, the misery to which the Law hath sentenced them; and withall, how impossible it is for the law to restore [Page 37]them, inasmuch as its weak through the flesh; can willingly say Amen, to that thinksgiving of the Apostle; Thanks be to God, for his unspeakable gift, 2 Cor. 9.15.

That our hearts may be yet more inflamed to this duty; consider we, I beseech you the preferment and property God hath given man, in this mercy, even above Angels, creatures by naturall condition, more excellent then he: Heb. 2.16. Angels sinned, God sent them no Mediator; they fell, by not obeying; God hath made them no promise of rising, by believing: Man sinned, God sent his Son to propitiate; man fell by disobedience hath promise of restoring by be­lieving: Let them perish everlastingly with hellish An­gells, that acknowledg not this mercy; or, that renouncing the righteousness of faith, seek to establish their own in works of the Law.

Ʋse 2 Now as this serves for the magnifying of Gods mercy; so, no less for the multiplying of our comfort and nourish­ing our hope of righteousness, yea, though we have no works, such as the law prescribes to justification; for be­hold another mean of righteousness provided for sinners, even faith in him that justifies the ungodly: And there­fore, what do we vexing and breaking our hearts, for sins once committed now repented? A mustard seed of faith commands a mountain of sin to the bottome of the sea: What if Moses be so strict, that none but exact justice will serve to justification? One greater then Moses is here, that tels us faith is available to righteousness.

And to the end the conscience of sins, after faith recei­ved, might not overthrow hope of righteousness, mark the description of him, to whom faith is carried, as to her pro­per object: He is such an one, as justifies the ungodly; and from whom sinners, great sinners believing, (in believing) may expect justification.

For, God justifieth the ungodly] How? may some men say: by infusing righteousness, saith Bellarmine: by impu­ting righteousness, say some of our Divines: by remitting [Page 38]sins, faith Cajetane; and of our own Interpreters, not a few. Let us see whether hath more truth.

The two former have their agreements, and their diffe­rence: they agree in this; First, That to justifie in this place, signifies to make righteous: They differ in the man­ner, how we are made righteous in this sense, that the Apo­stle seems to mean; whether by infusion, or by imputation: Papists, especially Bellarmine will have it to be done, only by infusing the habits of righteousness; as faith, charity, &c. whereby we are made formally, and by inheritance righteous.

Now, in handling this question, we must remember that its not denyed of us, that God doth make us just, by infu­sing righteousness; For, we confess, God by his spirit doth sanctifie us throughout, and infuse the habits of inherent righteousness, as they call it, whereby we are fitted to exer­cise morall justice, 1 Ioh. 3. Neither deny we, but that in the time when he justifieth us, by imputation, as some speak; he also sanctifieth us, and works a begun conformity to the law.

But this is that we enquire of, whether this infused righteousness be that, whereby we are made just; so, as ac­cording to the course and sentence of the law, we stand just at the day of Gods justice. This they affirm; we all, with one consent, deny, and that upon these grounds. First, For that Apostle, 1 Cor. 4.4. that had his share herein, as far as most; yet professeth he had not, nor expected justificati­on thereby: What is his meaning, that he did not thereby stand just before God according to the sentence of the law? In form thus; Pauls righteousness inherent made not him stand just before God according to the tenour of the law. Ergo, No man is made so just by inherent righteousness, as to stand just thereby before God, according to the law. Psal. 143.2. David, excellently endued with this righteous­ness, yet deprecates tryall by judgment, acording to the law, upon this reason, In Gods sight no man shall be justi­fied. [Page 39]The arguments are two. First, If David fear the tryall of Gods judgment by the law, that had so great a measure of righteousness; then, is not that the righteous­ness whereby we stand just before God, according to the law; for a man having that righteousness, which the law requires, needeth not fear tryall by exactest justice: but, David deprecates judgment: Ergò. 2. View his reason; No living man shall be justified in thy sight; to wit, if thou deal with him in judgment, according to the law: Theodoret, paraphrasing the text expounds. Novienim fieri non posse, ut aliquis sine paenâ à tuo tribunali discedat; si enim hominum vitae regulam legum â te latarum appones, nemo secundum has vixisse videbitur: And Augustine, quantum­libet rectus mihi videar, producis tu de thessauro tuo regu­lam, coaptas me ad eam, et pravus invenior.

To these testimonies so direct, what answers give they? Perhaps they will say, they speak of actuall justice, not of habituall; and therefore are impertinently alledged to the purpose in hand. Answ. Not to examine that distinction, we shall see, they conclude as well against habituall, as against actuall righteousnes: For is our actuall righteous­ness such, as may not endure the censure of the law; then certainly, it more then seems, the habits whence they pro­ceed, are not so perfect, as after the law they should be: For, what should let the perfect habit of faith, to bring forth a perfect act of faith? &c. sith therefore the acts are imperfect, so are the habits also.

But, other answers they have many, and variable; First, that the Prophet speaks only of justice, which a man hath of himself, not of God; Bellarm. in Psal. 143. & lib. 4. cap. 20.) de justific. and that he denies a man to be justified thereby. But, howsoever, or whensoever David had his righteousness, if it were justice, such as in the law is re­quired, why deprecates he judgment? He needs not fear Gods Tribuniall, that hath the iustice of the law, to pre­sent unto God; For its written, The man that doth them, shall live in them, Rom. 10, 5.

[Page 40] Their second Answer is this; That David deprecates judgement, because of his veniall sins; and they, forsooth, though they deserve punishment, in exact justice, yet hin­der not justification?

Answ. Well then, belike; these lighter sinnes though a man have, He may be justified according to the Law. What is then become of that sentence of the Law, cursing all men to the pit of Hell, that continue not in all things (little, or great) written in the Book of the Law, to do them? Gal. 3.10.

2. And, are these the sins onely, for which David feared judgement? then hear: either veniall sins hinder justifica­tion; or else David doth ill give this as a reason, why he was so loath to have the Lord enter into judgement with him; because no flesh should be justified in Gods sight. In a word, draw out the Prophets speech something largely, af­ter this Exposition; The sense will be this: Oh Lord, I be­seech thee, spare calling me to reckoning for my veniall sins; For, in respect of them, sith no man is free from them, no flesh shall be justified in thy sight.

Their third answer; No flesh shall be justified; because, our Righteousness, though it be true, and pure in it self; yet, compared to the infinite righteousness of Gods Nature, it seems no righteousness: as, the light of a candle, though it be light, yet compared to that of the sunne, is no light: and this exposition hath the Authority of some Fathers an­nexed?

Answ. With this distinction of righteousness I find no fault. It hath the testimony of Fathers, and the warrant of Scripture, Job 4.18. But, is this the reason, why David so much feared to come to judgement, because he wanted righ­teousness comparable to the Essential righteousness of God? Who can think it? it sufficeth to any man, at the day of judgement, to bring unto God the righteousness, which the Law prescribes; neither need he fear punishment, because he wants righteousnes comparable to that, Lev. 18.5. Rom. 10.5. which God hath, as God: and thus Theod. Aug. and others interpret; that [Page 41]his desire to be free from judgement was, because he an­swered not to the (rule) of righteousness: Now, is Gods Essentiall righteousness The Rule, after which in judge­ment, our righteousness must be squared? Dic sodes? I think, rather the Law of God. Saint Hierome, in his time, al­leadged this Scripture against Pelagius, to prove, that no man ever was, or could be so Holy, as to live without sin; what answer receives he? saith 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, quàm patres nostros; qui non minùs veraciter, quàm humiliter aiebant; omnis justitia no­strae [Page 42]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, [Page 43] 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?

[Page 44] 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; its 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?

Ʋse 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; [Page 45]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.

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 [Page 46]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 [Page 47]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 its 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 p [...]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; [Page 48]where principles, and causes, the effects; where one equall, there also the other: By the like reason, where a phrase, or thing equivalent, the phrase and thing to which it is equivalent, &c. And whatsoever may otherwise, by just and necessary consequence, be deduced from the Scrip­ture, that is all the sentence, and contents of Scripture: They say as well what they imply, as what they express: quae colliguntur ex Scripturis sacris, perindè habenda sunt, ac si in illis scripta essent; Gregor. Nazianzen. lib. 5. Theolog. See Ruizius, Reg. 74. and see to this purpose likewise Tertullian in his Treaty, despectaculis.

The particulars of the sentence come now to be scanned: David saith, Blessedness is that mans, to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness, without works: Wherein observe we two things.

First The subject, or, Person, to whom David appro­priates blessedness; The man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness.

Secondly, His description.

Observ Whereout amounts this conclusion; That the man iusti­fied, is the only blessed man on earth. The branches are two.

First he is blessed.

Secondly, Only blessed.

Needs either of them proof? His sins are remitted, vers. 8. His curse removed Gal. 3.13. His conscience paci­fied, Rom. 5.1. His person accepted, Heb. 11. His heart sanctified, Act. 5. His actions pleasing God. Heb. 11.6. His crosses sanctified; His hopes certain, Rom. 5.5. Death he fears not, Heb. 2. Persecutions he laughs at, Rom. 5. Satan he triumphs over; hell is quenched; God reconciled; judgment with joy expected; Angels serve him; Devils envy him; Heaven is prepared for him.

Give me now, he that can, this mans peere for blessedness, amongst all the Monarchs of the world: Oh miserable blessedness, that men fancy to themselves, without justifica­tion! [Page 49]One swims in sensuall pleasures, and thinks himself blessed, that he hath wherewith to glut his sensuall appe­tite; saith Tully, a speech better beseeming beasts, then men; another hath his castle of wealth, and no misfortune he thinks can approach him; but, wretched man, what pro­fits it to win the whole world, and lose thine own soul? what ransome wilt thou give for the sins of thy soul? A third feeds upon the breath of the people, and thinks himself a God because the people so applaud him; but miserable man that thou art, the basest vermin can consume thee: The last more generous, place their felicity in the action of vertue; but, wilt thou hear who said, without faith, its not possible to please God? and the most glorious actions of a man not justified, are but glittering sins. In a word, goe over all the blessedness, that the world fancyeth to it self out of Christ; Thou shalt be forced to say of every parti­cular; This also is vanity and vexation of spirit: was ever any man more happily miserable in this kinde, then he in the top of the golden empire? yet see him in the middest of his pompe, and glory, shaken with the fingers writing on the wall, Dan. 5. Such, and more miserable is the state of all those, again whom the handwriting of ordinances stands still in force, unreconciled to them in the cross of Christ.

Be awakened therefore, all ye that are drunken with the vanities of the world; Why lay ye out silver and gold for things that cannot profit? yea, that cannot but hurt, whiles they feed corruption, and aggravate condemnation: labour for righteousness, remission of sins, for justification; for, to every one unjustified I may say as Christ, woe be unto him, it had been better for him that he had never been born, or born a dog, or a toad, or if there be any other creature more loathsome, or detestable in the eyes of man; The wrath of God, saith our Saviour, abideth on him, John 3.3.6 Gods curse, even all the curses written in the book of the Law, he lyeth open unto; no peace hath he in his life, Isa. 57.20. in death, horrour, or astonishment; after death, dam­nation never to be ended.

[Page 50] And, let Gods children partakers of his high favour, herewith comfort themselves, in all those outward afflicti­ons, that press them; The were but Godless Epicures, that placed felicity in vacuity of grief, and that could discern no other happiness of a man, but when sensuall pleasures af­forded him: If we believe the Authour of happiness, there is more blessedness, even in Christian sorrow, then in all such heathenish pleasures; Heb. 12.6. yea, afflictions are so farre from im­pairing the happy state of a justified man, that they rather confirm and encrease it; while they kill the corruption that is in them; and so assure them, that the sinnes are remitted, which are thus mortified. And, shall any Christian now think, he is therefore miserable, whiles he feels smart of sor­rows, when he knows his sins are remitted? The heathen could say, that vice onely made miserable, and that a wise man lost not his happiness, no not in equuleo. Christianity much more teacheth the sinner, whose sins stand still in force against him, to be onely wretched; and the justified man, in the greatest outward afflictions, to be blessed, therefore, be­cause justified: And, I would but know of such weaklings, that think themselves miserable, because afflicted: Whether they think the happier, the glutton with his Belly-chear or the Lazar pinched with hunger? David every day afflicted, or those gallants, that spend their dayes in mirth, and in a moment go down to hell? Augustine would soon resolve, Hîc ure, hîc seca, (saith he) ut in aeternum parcas: For me thus I resolve, Let me have my sins pardoned, my person ac­cepted with God, for outward pressures, I say, as David, lo here I am, Let the Lord do with me what seemeth good in his eyes, 2 Sam. 15.26. See we now the description of the man thus Blessed: He is such an one, as to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness, without works.

In the words, three things. 1. He hath righteousness. 2. The quality of his righteousness, without works. 3. The manner how he is partaker of it, by Imputation.

For the first, that in justification, we are made partakers [Page 51]of righteousness, vers. 11. Circumcision was to Abraham a seal of the righteousness of faith, which he had being un­circumcised: Paul desires to be found in Christ, having the righteousness, which is by faith of Christ, Phil. 3.9. and per­haps, it is true that Bellarmine hath, that justification hath the name, à termino ad quem, because, that thereby we are made partakers of righteousness, 2 Cor. 5.21. We are said to be made The righteousness of God in Christ, and Rom 5. To be made righteous. This then, let stand for a ground, That in justification, Righteousness is imparted to us.

But secondly, it is enquired, What righteousness this is? of Righteousness, in this question of justification, we find two kinds. One called our own righteousness; or, the righ­teousness which is by the Law. The other, the righteousness of God, sometimes called the righteousness of faith, or, the righteousness, which is by the faith of Jesus, See Rom. 10.3. Phil. 3.9. our own Righteousness, or, the righteousness of the Law, is the perfect obedience of the Law performed by ourselves: The righteousness of God, is the righteousness which God in Christ performed, fulfilling the Law for us; called the Righteousness of Faith, because, we are by faith made partakers of it. See, Illyric. & Zanch. ad Phil. 3.

If any shall demand, what the difference between these two is? I answer, They differ not at all in the matter, or substance of righteousness; for the righteousness, which by Christ we are made partakers of, is that very righteousness, which the Law prescribes, namely, perfect obedience to the Law: but they differ efficiente; our righteousness, that we in our persons perform to the law.

And, that it is no other righteousness, then what the law prescribes for substance, whereof in justification we are made partakers, that one place, Rom. 9.32. is clear; where, the Apostle giving a reason, why the Jews that followed the law of righteousness, attained not the law of righteous­ness, that is, as most interpret, the righteousness which the law prescribes; The reason was, because they sought it not [Page 52]by faith, but by the works of the law; as if he had said, Had they sought it, by believing, as they did, by working; they had attained the righteousness which the law pre­scribes to justification: The righteousness of the law, then, we obtain by faith, to justification; It is therefore the righ­teousness which in justification we are made partakers of.

How then is it said, to be righteousness, without works? I answer, In respect of us, without works; In respect of Christ the performer not so.

Come we now to the means, how it is imputed unto us; and that is, by Imputation.

Imputation, Imputation of righteousness What it is. in this case, we may thus describe; To be an act of God ascribing to us the righteousness of Christ, and counting it ours no less, then if we had in our own persons performed it: Touching it, it is enquired, whether there be any such act of God in our justification: Papists generally deny it, and make the righteousness of Christ to avail to ju­stification, onely as a cause procuring to us remission of sins, and the gifts of the holy Ghost: That which our Divines hitherto have consented in, is this; That the righteousness of Christ is not onely the cause for which the Lord remits sins, &c. but the very thing, whereby we are made righteous in the sight of God. Their reasons are these.

1. Because we are said to be made righteous by the obe­dience of Christ, Rom. 5.19. shall we say, as by a procuring cause? nay rather formally; For so are we made sinners, by the transgression of Adam: And, the purpose of the Apo­stle, in that comparison betwixt Adam, and Christ, seems to be this; To shew, that it is no absurd thing, that we should be made righteous, by the righteousness of Christ; seeing we were made sinners, by Adams disobedience. Inst. But, A­dams disobedience was not ours by imputation? but we ra­ther were actours therein, by an implicite act, sinning in A­dam? To say nothing, that the whole stream of Interpre­ters judge otherwise; Let it be granted, that we were actours in Adams sinne, being in his loins; Why not also [Page 53]actours in Christs obedience, being one mystically with him, by bond of the spirit?

2. It is no more absurd that we should be righteous by im­putation of Christs Righteousness; then that Christ should be a sinner, by imputation of our sins; but Christ was a sinner, by imputation of our sins. Inst. Not a sinner, but a sacrifice for sinne? Answ. The exposition is ancient; but 1. The Antithesis bears it not and, 2. How could God punish him in that extremity, had he not taken upon him our sins.

3. For to Papists, methinks, of all men, Imputation should be no such ridiculous matter; sith they are of opinion, the overplus of some Saints righteousness may be applyed to others, by indulgence, to make up the defects of their obe­dience: How, I wonder, except by imputation?

4. Quid quod? Their Bellarmine plainly confesseth, Bellarm. de Amiss. grat. & stat. peccat. lib. 4. c. 10. Bernard. ser. 1. de Dom. 1. post octavas Epiphaniae. that Adams sin is imputed to all his posteritie, so, as if they had all committed the same, and alledgeth to this purpose the testimonies of Augustine, and Bernard. Nostra est (inquit Bernardus) Adami culpa, quia etsi in alio, nos ta­men peccavimus; & nobis, justo Dei judicio, imputabatur, licèt occulto: And why so absurd, sith Adams sin is, in this manner, ours, Christs righteousness should also in like sort, become Ours; that, as the same Bernard speaks; aliena la­vet aqua, quos culpa inquinaverat aliena. And so wash, as the other had defiled.

Against it, these reasons are brought: First, that it hath no testimonie, either in Scriptures, or Fathers, to avow it? Answ. What none? neither expressed, nor implyed? we have above shewed, that the Scripture testifieth as well what it implyeth, as what it expresseth: how say we now to this Scripture in hand? God imputeth righteousness with­out works; whose? our own? that stands in works, Phil. 3.9. Anothers therefore; and whose else, I wonder, except Christs, who alone is mentioned to be the procurer of our righteousness. Hear S. Bernard, Domine, Bern. ser. in Cant. 61. memorabor justi­tiae tuae solius; Ipsa est enim & mea: nempe, factus es mihi [Page 54]Tujustitia à Deo; nunquid mihi verendum, ne non una am­bobus sufficiat? non est pallium breve, quod (secundum Pro­phetam) non possit operire duos; Justitia tua justitia in aeter­num: quid longius aeternitate? & te pariter, & me operiet largiter larga, & aeterna justitia.

Object. 2. No necessitie of such imputation of Christs righteousness? Answ. Yes, That we may be found, at that great day, having such perfection of righteousness, as for which we may be accepted, and pronounced righteous, See Phil. 3.9. Inst. But, our inherent righteousness is perfect / for faith, hope, charity, &c. are perfect? Answ. Hear Bernard, Are we better, then our Fathers? They said with as much truth, as humility, All our righteousnesses are like the clothes of a menstruous woman, Isa. 64.6. and again, Quomodo pura justitia, ubi non potest culpa deesse? Augu­stine, August. epist. 29. ad Hieron. Charitas in aliis major, in aliis minor, in aliis nulla; plenissima verò quae jam non potest augeri, quamdiu hic homo vivit, in nemine est: quamdiu autem augeri potest, profecto illud quod minus est. quàm debet, Bern. in Cant. ser. 174. ex vitio est. And again, Charitatis (effectualis) initium quidem, profectúmque, vi­tam quoque praesentem experiri, divinâ posse gratiâ non ne­gamus; sed plane consummationem defendimus futurae feli­citati. And if any shall ask, why it is commanded, when it cannot be fulfilled: Bernard answers, Judicavit utilius ex hoc ipso, suae illos insufficiontiae admoneri, & ut scirent sane, ad quem justitiae finem 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) [Page 55]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 Ʋnus 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 quàm 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.

[Page 56] 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.

[Page 57] 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, Ʋnius 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.

[Page 58] That we may the better see the my stery of their iniquity, in this point; let us a little enquire how many things are to be considered in actuall sins: For, as touching concupi­scence, we will touch it only by the way.

In every actuall sin we must consider, 1. The act it self, with the anomie thereof, wherein the nature of sin consists, 1 Ioh. 3.4.2. The effects, and consequents flowing therefrom; as 1. the offence and displeasure of God; 2. as Cajetan cals it the turpitude thereof; Thom. 1a. 2ae. quaest. 109. Art. 7. which according to Thomas, and others, we will imagine to contain three things.

First, Maculam, the blemishing of the soul, or person of a sinner; and the deprivall of that beauty, and comeliness of it, wherewith by grace it is adorned.

Secondly, The corruption, or, destroying of that naturall good, that stands in the subjection of man to God.

Thirdly, The encrease of prones to the same sin.

A Third consequent, is the guilt, that lyeth upon the per­son of the sinner, and his liableness to punishment.

Fourthly, The fourth let be the punishment it self.

Let us now apply their conclusion to some controversies betwixt us, and them: Sins, they say, when they are re­mitted, are utterly abolished, and extinct; yea, so done away, that there remains nothing of them, that can be reputed sin: then I hope we may assume of every sin par­doned, that it is wholly abolished. What think we then of originall sin, in infants after Baptisme? Is it pardoned, or no? Yes, for Baptisme so takes away sin, that it leaves nothing, that hath the true and proper nature of sin. Well then, how comes it to pass, that many of them dye, before ever they had ability to commit actuall sins? Have they nothing left, that hath the nature of sin, and yet tast they of death, the wages of sin? Rom. 6.23. Far be it, that the Judg of all the world should not do right, in punishing an innocent, that hath nothing left in him that hath the true, and proper nature of sin.

Again, had David true remission of his adultery, and [Page 59]murther, yea, or no? Yes, no doubt; for Nathan telleth him, the Lord hath put away his sin, 2 Sam. 12.13. Well yet, David must be punished, though his sin be put away as a Clowd, and there remains no foot-print of it, nothing that could be reputed sin: Help us to reconcile these, or else blush at your contractions.

Lastly, Methinks the sin being wholly abolished, the whole reatus accrewing to the person thereby, should be withall extinct; for, what is it, that binds us over to pu­nishment of any sort, temperall, or eternal? sin only, I trow; yet, according to their judgment, in remission of many sins, there remains reatus poenae Temporalis; as they give instance in Davids case. Well, one thing I perceive, remission of sins is any thing, but what it is; that is, a re­lease, and discharge of the sinner from punishment.

Let us now come to set down, what our judgment is, con­cerning remission of sins: We thus conceive it, out of Cyprian, to be in property of speech, Cyprian. de Orat. Dom. nothing but Venia delicti, the pardon of sins; and that, in common appre­hension, is the discharge of the offendor from the punish­ment of his sin; and that which pardon or remission hath, in property of speech, respect unto, is the punishment of sin. The first phrase in Davids speech, hath this meaning; Their sins are forgiven, or, pardoned; that is, not taken no­tice of to be punished.

What is the covering of sin? the same that pardon is, in effect, saith Ambrose; save only, that the phrase is me­taphoricall: unfold it, it is this; as things that are covered, are not seen, so sins when God will pardon them, are not seen of him; that is not seen with regard, or which such notice, as that he should punish them: (Are) they then, and not seen of him, to whose eyes all things are naked, and Heb. 4.13. uncovered: or, is there any covering so thick, or impe­nitrable, as that the eyes of God cannot pierce through it, to discern what lyeth under? Answ. None that so hides, as that he cannot see, or know, that they are done. Isai. [Page 60]29.15. But yet, they are so covered with the righteous­ness of Christ to believers that God willingly overseeth them, and takes no notice of them to punish: the times of this ignorance God winked at, saith the Apostle, Act. 17.30. Num. 23.21. He hath not beheld iniquity in Iacob, neither hath he seen trangression in Israel; See Psal. 130.3. Bernard, Bern. de sep­tem misericor­de Serm. 2.3. Ego peccabam, & tu dissimulabas; expectans expectavit me dominus, & non intendit mihi, sed oculos suos avertit a peccatis meis quasi nolens advertere quantum de­linquerem, &c. Si texit peccata Deus, noluit advertere; si noluit advertere, noluit animadvertere; si noluit animad­vertere, noluit punire, noluit agnoscere maluit ignoscere. Tecta peccata quare dixit? vid August. ad Psal. 31. ut non viderentur; quid enim erat dei videre peccata, nisi punire peccata? ut noveris quià hoc est dei videre peccata, quod punire peccata: quid ei dici­tur? averte faciem tuam a peccatis meis, Psal. 51. &c.

See we now, What it is, not to have sins imputed? The same I think that Stephen prayes for, Act. 7.60. that they be not laid to our charge, nor come into reckoning against us before God to be punished. 2 Sam. 19.19. Saith Shimei to David Let not my Lord impute iniquity unto me neither do thou remember that which thy servant did perversly &c. that the King should take it to his heart: What begs Shimei here, but that his offence be not punished? But, (are) they still, where they are not imputed. Answ. Actuall sins, as acts after committing, have no being, save only in Gods, and our own remembrance: Actus transit, saith Thomas, the sinfull action is transient, and vanishing; that only which results from the action remains, As, 1. The offence of God. 2. The guilt of the person. 3. The recording thereof in Gods book of remembrance, and setting it on his reckoning, against the day of accounts. 4. The punish­ment. 5. Add, if you will, the maculam. Now, when they are not imputed; the offence, guilt, remembrance and punishment are taken away: remains there any thing of them? Nothing at all, no not the macula.

[Page 61] Where then is the odds betwixt us? Answ. 1. Here­in: that they will have remission of sins, to be that act of God, whereby our vicious inclinations are abolished: we not so; but take it rather to be that other act of Gods Spirit in our hearts, which the Scripture call sanctification, 1 Cor. 6.11. 2. That they affirm all sins remitted, even by remitting to be utterly abolished: We say, for corrupti­on naturall, and our inclinations to evil, they still remain in part in us, after they be forgiven and have the true and pro­per reason of sin; so that 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 [Page 62]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 [Page 63]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.

[Page 64] 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.

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 [Page 66]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 [Page 67]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 [Page 68]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 sufficeth.

And it teacheth us, in our study, and search of Scripture, not to let pass the smallest circumstance, sith under it, lye hid Doctrine so substantiall: For wisdome we should search, saith Solomon, as men do for silver, Prov. 2.4. turning up every clod, and almost grain of dust, wherein the least portion of pure metall may seem to lye hid. In sacris liter is nihil est, quod non ingentem thesaurum contineat modò scru­tatorem habeat: Ruizius, reg. 118. è Chrysostomo; sin­guli sermones, syllabae, apices, & puncta in divinis Scriptu­ris, plena sunt sensibus; Hieron. ad Ephes. 3.

Howbeit, that we mistake not; we must not forget, that even the Scripture hath its [...]: and therefore, it is not safe always, to reason from order of narration; except by other circumstances, it be evident, that the narration be to the order of times,

A Second collection of some Interpreters hence, is this: That the grace of justification, is not tyed to Sacraments; because it may be had without them: And that was it, (as they think) the Lord would teach us by the time of Abrahams circumcision, and justification: that look as the Lord, furnishing the earth with hearbs, and fruits, before he made starrs, by their heat, or influence, to give them vigour, or raine to yeild them moysture, would teach us, that they are but Arbitrary Jnstruments, which he useth, ad Placitum; So the the Lord giving Abraham Testimony [Page 69]of righteousnes, before his circumcision, would thereby teach us, that his grace may be had, without the Sacraments: The question hath been already treated, ad cap: 2. Let us yet, resume it, that at least Our Judgement may be more manifest.

Necessity of Baptisme (whereof the question chiefly is) may be two ways conceived. First, Calvin justifi. lib. 4. cap. 19. Serm. 26. Whether the receiving thereof, be a necessary duty, pressing the conscience by the law of God? Whereto we answer, with joynt consent; it is necessary, and so necessary, that the wilfull contempt, yea neglect of it, where it may be had, lays guilt of sin upon the conscience of the negligent, or contempuous refuser.

Secondly, It may be thus apprehended; whether it be necessary, as a mean of salvation? In this also we consent; that it is necessary, as a mean of salvation: Because, 1. The observation thereof is a work of obedience, and so part of that vita Regni, 2. Because in the right use, it serves to confirm faith, and to nourish all graces, that do accompa­ny salvation.

What is then the question betwixt us, and Papists? It stands chiefly about the decree, or manner of necessity; namely, whether it be absolutely necessary, Vt perijsse pro­tinùs existimetur, cui ejus obtinendi ademta fucrit facultas? Bellarm de Bapt. lib. 1. cap. 4. As Calvin explains it. This measure of necessity of Bap­tisme we deny; Papists affirm: The question is saith Bel­larmine, whether Baptisme be necessary, as a mean of sal­vation, so that if any be not Baptised, he perisheth? eti­amsi forte obignorantiam excusetur a praevaricatione praecep­ti: that they affirm: and, if any demand, what time it came to this height of necessity, They answer; Baptismus Christicaepit esse necessarius, necessitate medii, & praecepti, a die pentecostes.

As touching what we are to hold, in this question; I had rather utter in Bernards terms, then in my own; considering what adversaries we are are to deal with: He therefore [Page 70]thus delivers his judgment, Bernard. Epist. 77. That, whosoever in men of years if any man, since the publishing of that remedy for sin, re­fuseth to be Baptized, he adds to the generall contagion of nature, the crime of pride, and so carries with him, a double cause of just damnation; if he so dye: yet, if before death he repent, and have a will and desire to be Baptized, and cannot, being prevented by death; so be it, he want not fides recta, spes pia, charitas sincera, propitius sit mihi deus, quia huic, Ambrose de obitu valenti­niani impera­tor. ob solam quauam, si defuerit, nequaquam desperare possum omnino salutem, nec vacuam credere fidem nec confun­dere spem, nec excidere charitatem, tantum si aquam non con­tempus, sed sola prohibeat impossibilitas: His reasons are, First, from authorities of Ambrose, and Augustin. Ambrose doubts not of the salvation of Valentinian, for his faith only, though he dyed unbaptized; because he had a purpose, S. Augustin. de Bapt. lib. 4. cap. 22. and desire to be baptized: Hear himself speak; I hear, saith Ambrose, you are grieved, because he received not the Sacrament of Baptisme: Hear his reply: Dicite mihi, quid aliud nobis est, nisi voluntas, nisi petitio? Atqui etiam dudum hoc voti habuit, ut cúm in Italiam ve­nisset, initiaretur & proximè baptizari se a me velle signi­ficabit, &c. Non habeat ergó gratiam, quam desideravit? Non habet, quam poposeit? Certe quia poposcit, accepit; & mox: quem eram regeneraturus amisi; sed illi gratiam, quam speraverat, non amisit: To Ambrose Saint Bernard adds: S. Augustine determining, that not only suffering for Christ, but faith also, and conversion of the heart doth supply the stead of Baptisme, when not contempt of reli­gion, but point of necessity excludes the Sacrament of Baptisme.

2. His next reason is collected, out of Mark. 16.16. Our Saviour in likelihood, when he said, he that be­lieves and his baptized, shall be saved; even for this, so cau­telously did not repeate; he that is not baptized, but onely he that believes not, shall be damned; intimating no doubt, solam interdum sufficere fidem ad salutem, & sine ipsa suffi­cere nihil.

[Page 71] 3. His third Reason that which gives Martyrdom its value, and causeth it to supply the stead of Baptisme, shall it be thought so weak, that what it gives to another thing, it cannot alone by it self obtain; we cannot think it.

Now faith gives Martyrdome this power, that without any doubt, it is reputed Baptisme; For, what is Martyr­dome without it, nisi poena? It therefore alone may, out of case of contempt, suffice to salvation.

4. Suppose the Lord see as great Faith in the heart of a man dying in Peace as in his that suffers martyrdome? Sure­ly, God needs not outward evidences for discerning of faith; and there may be in a man dying in peace, a readiness to suffer death, for the maintenance of faith, suppose now this man to desire Baptisme, but prevented by death, to die without it; damnabit fidelem suum Deus? damnabit (in­quam) hominem prose etiam paratum mori? God forbid, his peremptory conclusion is this: Pro certo cùm non aliunde martyrium, nisi ex Fidei merito illam obtinuerit praerogati­vam, ut fingulariter vice Baptismi secure suscipiatur; Non video cur non ipsa aeque, & sine Martyrio apud eum tan­tundem possit, cùm & sine Martyrii probamento proculdubio innotescit.

5. In sins, The will is, in esteem, the Fact; Matth. 5.28. Why not also in good duties? nisi forte putetur in malo, quam in bono efficacior inveniri voluntas apud Deum, qui Charitas est, & promptior esse ad ulciscendum, quam ad re­munerandum misericors, & miserator Dominus.

Add to this the consent of Bellarmine, That martyrdom, Bellarm. de Bapt. l. 1. c. 6. and true conversion of the heart, in case of necessity, sup­plies the stead of Baptism: And, follows is not thence, that the Baptism of Water is not of so absolute necessity to sal­vation, that he that dies without it perisheth everlastingly?

A man would now think the odds is not great betwixt us, and Papists, touching this point of necessity of Baptism; They teaching, as we, that out of case of contempt, faith [Page 72]and conversion avail to salvation without the Sacrament: But, will you hear a Merciles distinction? It is true, they say, of grown men, inasmuch as they have faith, and con­version to supply the stead of Baptism; but yet, for infants, it is their peremptory conclusion; though they be born of believing parents, are not capable of personall contempt, yet perish they, in their originall sinne, for want of Baptism, if they die unbaptised; For, they have nothing to supply the stead of baptism? Answ. 1. Let them shew us, where the Lord hath made the condition of infants, in this respect, worse then that of grown men? 2. Let them prove, that in grown men, faith and conversion, therefore exempts them from condemnation, because they supply the stead of Baptism. 3. What hinders to say, that the faith of the parents is available to salvation of infants, without ba­ptism, as well as with it? In case they be baptized, they confess with Bernard, that through grace it is granted them, to have benefit, by others faith, as they were damni­fied, by anothers fault; yea, faith Bernard, there is no doubt, but that the stain contracted by others, may and ought to be purged also by the faith of others: doth the faith of a grown man supply the stead of baptism, out of case of contempt, and shall not the faith of infants do as much for them? No; For it is said, Except a man be born again of water, and the holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God? But, I demand, is this understood of Ba­ptism, generally belonging to all men? or, must it be limit­ted to infants onely? If of all, then methinks of grown men also: If of infants onely. 1. What meant Christ to pro­pound it to Nicodemus? was it his purpose to teach him, that inasmuch as he was not baptised in his infancie, he could not not enter into the kingdome of God? then sure, I shall not wonder, if Nicodemus conceited a necessity, for an old man desiring to come to Heaven, to return back into his mo­thers womb, and be born again. 2. Will they say, it must have this gloss by limitation; If a man want baptism by [Page 73]contempt, and not otherwise? Why then should it stand in force against infants, in their own persons not capable of contemning, and whose parents hasten to it with desire, but are prevented by necessity? alas! poor infants, that you free from contempt in your selves, and your parents, must to Hell for bare want of baptism; and elders, in the same want have access to Heaven, so they be free from contempt: Can we imagine bare want to be more prejudiall to infants, then to grown men.

Now, what if it shall appear to us, that the place cannot, in that strict manner, be understood of baptism, but of rege­neration? The point I wil labour to clear against Papists only, comparing it thus expounded, with other of their grounds.

For ground this I wil lay; That the sentence of our Saviour had truth at that time, when he had conference with Nicode­mus, yea long before ever since the fall of Adam: 1. For that our Savior blames Nicodemus, for his ignorance in this point, the necessity of that which he calls the new birth, v. 10. Art thou a master of Israel and knowst not these things? Now sure, if it must be understood of baptism, the ignorance of that or­dinance could have been no such blemish to Nicodemus, the ordinance being so new, and of him, till that day, unheard of. 2. Besides this, the purpose of our Saviour more then seems to be this, to exhort Nicodemus to present labouring for that, whose necessitie Christ teacheth to be so absolute: Now, shall we say, that at this time baptism was of so ab­solute necessitie? hear Bernard, He was informed of one that taught, how that ever since this sentence was pro­nounced by our Saviour, none could in any wise be saved, without actuall receiving the visible Sacrament, or martyr­dome in stead thereof: Now sure, saith Bernard, Bernard. Epist. 77. De Tem­poris praefixione durum nimis, austerúmque videtur, ut vide­licet verbum absconditum palam jam noceat, & ante judex feriat, quàm minetur: His arguments in short are these. 1. It is improbable it should so be, because many should by this means be damned, that never had knowledge of any [Page 74]such precept: For this of baptism is not, as some other things are, that are known by nature, factitium enim quo­dammodo est, & non naturale mandatum; but that is impos­sible, Rom. 10. John 15. Ergò. 2. Circumcision as yet stood in force, and had its virtue, as Baptism. 3. And from the dayes of John Baptist, the kingdome of heaven suffered violence. 4. Fit injuria antiquo illi Dei aeque man­dato, si novo adhuc furtive superveniente, non tamen subveni­ente, illud ita subito evanuisse putetur, ut prodesse deinceps non valeret. 5. And Bellarmine confesseth that Baptism be­came not thus necessary, as a mean, untill [...]he day of Pente­cost: The inference is this; that which Christ teacheth Ni­codemus to be thus necessary, was necessary at that time, when he had conference with Nicodemus; Baptism was not then so necessary, Therefore that that Christ speaks of is not Baptism: And do we think Christ taught Nicodemus, that after the time of Pentecost, Baptism should become thus necessary? The sense then must be this: Nicodemus, look that thou procure Baptism, betwixt this and the next Pen­tecost after my death; if then thou want it, there is no hope for thee to enter into the kingdom of Heaven: From those circumstances of the text, besides others elsewhere pointed at, it is clear, I think, that the place is not to be un­derstood of Baptism of water, but of that which they call the Baptism of the Spirit, that is, of Regeneration: And see, whether the reason annexed prove not as much Rege­neration necessary; for, whatever we have by the first birth, is fleshly, and corrupt: Now, shall we say, that corruption is removed onely by Baptism? or, at least, not without it? Faith purifieth the heart Acts 15.9. and sometimes, saith Augustine, S. August. de Bapt. contr. Donat. l. 4. c. 24. before Baptism, the spirit is obtained, as he gives instance in Cornelius, Act. 10.

I have dwelt, perhaps, too long in this question; yet it repents me not, considering how I see many, carried away with authority of some ancients, incline to this merciless errour of Papists, shutting up all infants that die unbapti­zed, [Page 75]under condemnation, except (perhaps) some extraor­dinary work of Gods power exempt them from hel: We were wont to teach, not that Baptisme gives title to the Covenant; but the Covenant to Baptisme: so we reason against Anabaptists; the Promises are theirs Acts 2.39. the spirit theirs, Acts 10. Mark 10. Gods kingdome theirs; therefore Baptisme must not be denied them: how turn we the argument now? on this manner; They must be bapti­zed, that they may come nto the Covenant, and that they may have title to the promises of God, and kingdome of heaven. And how stand these arguments in force, against baptisme of Turkish, and other Pagan infants? Nay, if in Baptisme there be this vertue, to give the baptized title to Gods kingdome, if want of it so perillous; merciless were we, if we forced it not upon such children. What should we imagine the cause of this change of judgement? One, or both of these? 1. The authority of ancients. 2. An inconvenience they desire to prevent in the people: For the first of these; Let ancients (on Gods name,) have their reverence; but yet, shall we be so sworn to their words, that we shall suffer them to lead us with them into their errours? Love Augustine, and give him reverence; yet let truth be preferred in esteem before him: as to the second, The pe­rill of our peoples neglecting this holy ordinance upon per­swasion, that it is not of so absolute necessity: 1. Where learn we in Divinity to expell poyson with poyson? one er­rour with another? 2. Besides that, arguments there are sufficient, to press on their conscience, the use of this ordi­nance; if it were but that it stands in force, by Gods com­mandment; and, as Bernard speaks. V [...]ra & plena Fides universa praecepta amplectitur. And, this is one, yea a chief one of Gods commandments. Quomodo denique Fidelis, qui Dei contemnit Sacramentum? Contemtu violatum iri Domini foedus affirmo, saith M ^r. Calvin. Calvin in stit. lib. 4. cap. 16. Ser. 26. Are not these ar­guments sufficient, to support the reverence of the Sacra­ment; unless we winde in Infants in the peril of remediless [Page 76]damnation, not for their own, but for their parents con­tempt. 3. Nay see, whether as great mischiefs follow not upon this conclusion; as, profaning these mysteries by un­consecrated hands of Lay-people: For, where grew the ancient audaciousness of midwives Baptizing? save only from this errour; that without Baptisme, the infant dyes condemned? 4. Yea consider, I beseech you, into what a gulfe of comfortless griefe, poor Parents are by this means plunged: when once they cannot be perswaded, but their children are gone to hell: who shall blame them, now, if they weep for their children, I say not, as Rachel, because they are not; but as Heathens, and men without hope, be­cause they are for ever, shut up under condemnation?

To close up this point, touching necessity of Baptisme, there are these opinions;

First, That it is none at all, but meer superfluity; such miscreants abhorre.

Secondly, That it is so absolute, that bare want excludes from heaven; such cruelty detest.

Thirdly, That it is necessary, where it may by any means, be had regularly; so as the contempt is damnable in those, that omit it; yet not so prejudiciall to the infant, as to plunge it into hell: This the sentence of Scripture; herein rest.

Now, let us go to that which followeth; And he recei­ved the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith, &c.] The point here proved, is this, as we have heard; that to believing both Iewes and Gentiles, the blessing of justification belongs: proved from the first branch because Abraham had righteousness, being yet uncircum­cised.

Now that to Jews onely it belongs, is next concluded: and to this the passage is by a new Prolepsis; the objection whereof, as it seems, hath these two branches: If Abra­ham were justified in time of uncircumcision, to what pur­pose was he circumcised? The use of circumcision seems [Page 77]needless; yea, and if because he had it in uncircumcision, therefore Gentiles are sharers in it; follows it not, that the circumcised Jews have no part in that blessing? Answ. Neither of these follow; for though he had righteousness, being uncircumcised; yet he tooke the signe of circumcision, an evidence, that to the circumcision it belongs also: and he took it to be a seal of the righteousness of faith; therefore not unnecessarily; for it is not vain, that faith should receive confirmation: and if any shall further demand a reason of both these, why he had righteousness before circumcision; and why, having righteousness, he was after circumcised? It was for this; That he might be the father of both people believing: This the Context.

In the words, let these particulars be observed. 1. Abra­hams fact. 2. The object; what he received, the sign of circumcision. 3. The end of it; a seal of righteousness. 4. The applying of the whole to the purpose in hand, by assigning the end of Gods dispensation in Abraham; that he might be the Father.

Observ From Abrahams act, considering together with the state of his person, amounts this instruction: That no measure of grace received, exempts any from use of Sacraments: or thus, That men enjoying the grace signified by the Sacraments, are yet bound to the use of Sacraments. The collection is direct, and naturall; Abraham was justified, before he was circumcised, yet received he the sign of cir­cumcision: Who then shall think himself free from use of them? Cornelius had received the Spirit of God, Act. 10. Doth that prove, he needed not be baptized? It makes him capable of baptisme, saith Peter; yet give water that they may be baptized. What needs much proof? Its a point of righteousness, saith our Saviour to Iohn Baptist, Mat. 3.15. Vera, Bern. epist. 77. & plena fides universa praecepta complecti­tur, saith Bernard; & fidem convincitur non habere per­fectam, si negligit sacramentum.

Add to this, consideration of thine own necessity; for [Page 78]darest thou assume to thy self perfect perswasion of thy justification, so that at no time, thou feelest wavering? sure that arrogancy, (for it is no less) sorts not with the practice of faith: And Abraham, though he be commen­ded for his [...], at some time; yet, at others, bewray­ed distrust: But say, it is perfect for the present may it not be shaken? to preserve that perswasion, to prevent doubt­ings, thou hast need of Sacraments.

Lastly, Canst thou assume to thy self perfection of sanctification? for shame leave that pride to Catharists: count it a part of thy perfection to acknowledg imper­fections, and with Paul to strive for it: What need more words? The use is enjoyned to all, necessary for the most perfect; therefore upon no pretence to be neglected.

Who dare then stand up to defend the profaneness of those fanaticall spirits, that scoffe at these ordinances; more meete (they say) for carnall Jewes, then for spirituall Christians: Forsooth, they have the spirit immediately, to work what Sacraments serve to signifie, or exhibite; and what needs the Element, where the grace is received? They had best taxe God of indiscretion, that of his mercy hath ordained them to be helps, for our weekness; and fit­ting himself to our state in the flesh, in sensibilibus intelli­gibilia praebet, Chrysostom. Homil. ad Pop. 60. and 83. in Matth. as Chrysostome; in things sensible reacheth unto us things intelligible: They boast of the spirit; they have a spirit indeed, but not of God; but of fornica­tion, as the Prophet speaks, or of delusion, that hath caused them thus to erre. No man, saith Paul, speaking by the Spirit of God, defieth Iesus, 1 Cor. 12.3. Moman, said I, taught by the Spirit of God, contemneth the ordinances of Christ established in the word.

But, what need Sacraments, when the thing they signi­fie is obtained? Let Paul answer thee from the case of Abraham; he was justified before he was circumcised; yet received the sign of circumcision, to be a seal of the righteousness of faith, which he had being uncircumcised.

[Page 79] No less absurd is that saying of them, that in heat of affection, inveighing against dumbe Ministers, stick not to affirm their actions are meer nullities; Baptisme no Ba­ptisme, that is administred by a non-Preacher: Well then, why receive they not a new Baptisme, sith the old is a blank? They answer, they have the inward Baptisme, and therefore need not the Sacrament: Be well advised; if thou hadst the measure of Abraham, or of the blessed Virgin in regeneration, thou art not exempted from use of any Sacrament.

From Abrahams act, proceed we to the object: What received Abraham? The sign of circumcision: genitivus speciei; frequent in Scripture, and common language; the gift of tongues, the gift of healing, 1 Cor. 12. That is, tongues, and healing, which are gifts; the sign of circum­cision; that is, circumcision which is a sign.

Observ The things here observable, are. 1. The natvre of a Sacrament opened. Bellarm. de Sacrament. lib. 1. cap. 17. A brief description of the nature of Sacraments.

Sacraments are signes ordained of God to seal up unto us the righteousness of faith: Your collection is naught, say Papists: For, you conclude a generall from a particular: It follows not, that if circumcision were so and so to Abra­ham, that therefore all Sacraments are such, and to all men such? But, it is well answered, that what belongs in com­mon, to all the species may well enough be attributed to the generall: For, that which all the species have in common, Parcus ad loc. they have from their generall: proceed we therefore, to the explication.

Touching the name of Sacraments, it is idle to contend; though in so many letters, and syllables, we have it not in Scripture, yet the thing we have: and, why should we be so abhorrent from the word so significant, and of so long continuance in the Church of God?

The first thing, in the nature of a Sacrament, is this: August. de Doctr. Christ. lib. 2. cap. 1. That it is a signe: Now, a signe, saith Augustine, is that, which besides the species it offers to the senses, causeth some other [Page 80]thing to come to our mind; as, when we see smoak, we say, there is fire; when we see the rain bow, we think of the co­venant God made with all flesh.

Signes are of two sorts: Naturall, Voluntary; Augustine calls them data: others, [...]. Naturall signes are such, which naturally, without the will or appointment of any of themselves, cause us to think of what they signifie: as smoak, of fire: Voluntary signes are such, as signifie what they do signifie, by the will and appointment of those that make them signes; as the rain-bow, of the Covenant; which it signifies, not Naturally, but by the will of God: and of this latter sort are Sacraments.

Again, of these Voluntary, or made signes; some are ana­logica, that carry a resemblance of things they signifie; some not so, but meerly by appointment, and constat of the impo­sers, signifie what they signifie: as, Ivy bush, wine.

Sacraments are in the first kind: whereupon, saith Au­gustine, if Sacraments had not some similitude, and likeness of the things, August. epist. 23. ad Bonifa­cium. whereof they are Sacraments, they could, at no hand, be Sacraments: Therefore, in all Sacraments, God hath made choice of such signes, as have a fitness naturall, though indeterminate, to represent what they are ordained to signifie; though actually they do not signifie it, till Gods ordinance have therto determined them: for example, wash­ing in water hath a fitness to signifie spirituall cleansing by Christs bloud; actually, it signifies it, onely by appointment of God, &c.

Moreover, Popish Schoolmen, in this question of Sacra­ments have devised other distinctions of Signes, which it shall not be amiss to propund: Scotus ad sent. l. 4. dist. 1. First thus: Signes are either Rememorative, which, by their signification, call to remem­brance something past; or, Demonstrative, as it were point­ing at something present; Aquinas part. 3. qu. 6. art. 3. Bellarm. de Sacram. l. 2. c. 9. or Prognosticall, foreshewing something to come: Sacraments of the new Testament are al these; Memorials of Christs Passion; demonstrating the effect of the Sacrament: Foreshewing eternal glory: Al­though [Page 81]though this we must observe, saith Bellarmine, Bellarm. de effect. Sacra­ment. lib. 1. c. 8. that that which Sacraments of the new Law chiefly, and essentially signifie, is onely justifying Grace: According to him there­fore, our Sacraments are chiefly, yea essentially onely, demon­strative. Yet, they further distinguish: of signes, Scotus, ubi suprà. some are speculative onely; they are such, as are ordained to no other end, but to signifie: some are withall practicall which are ordained to effect, and work that which they signifie: and of this latter sort they will have our Sacraments to be.

Thus farre of the generall nature of Sacraments: Pro­ceed we now towards enquiry of the difference, that we may see, what it is, that distinguisheth Sacramentall signes, from others.

Signes then are, all of them, amongst those things, quae dicuntur ad aliquid: Every signe is a signe of something; and by being a signe, leads us to consider of that, whereto it stands in relation: What is it then, that Sacramentall signes do signifie?

For better understanding; we are to consider in every Sacramentall signe, Two things, as Parts, after a sort of it, as it is such a signe: First, a Substance, or Matter. 2. Acti­ons about that matter: as, in Circumcision, the matter was the Foreskinne; The Action thereabouts, The cutting off the Foreskinne: In Baptism, the Matter is water; the Sacramentall action, the dipping or sprinkling of the child, &c. If the question now be, what Sacraments in common signifie? Answ. The Matter, or Substantiall element signi­fies the person of Christ, or something therein: The acti­ons of the Minister, the actions of God the Father, and his Spirit, communicating Christ, and his benefits unto us: The Sacramentall actions of the people, their receiving Christ, and his benefits.

The Authour of them comes next to be treated of, as part of the difference, whereby they are distinguished from other signes of mans imposition: The Authour of them, is God onely. 1. Because, He onely can determine signes, to such [Page 82]actuall signification. 2. And can alone by them assure us of the grace they signifie.

Last is, the Use, or End of Sacraments; which is inti­mated in the next words; seals of the righteousness of faith: Let us explain the words, and then examine the doubts.

The office of a seal stands in four things. 1. Conceal­ment. 2. Distinction. 3. Impression. 4. Confirmation According to which severall uses of seals, the explanation is here diversly conceived: Some think the Apostles metaphor hath respect to the first office, Concealment; and they thus expound it; Circumcision sealed up righteousness, that is con­cealed, Sasbout ex origine. and closed it up for a Time, namely, Till by Christs coming in the flesh, it should be revealed. That dotage needs no confutation.

Another sort take it well nigh, Stapleton, in Antidoto. Cajetan, ad loc. as Anabaptists; and they will have it so called, onely because it is a mark of the righ­teousness of faith, by which men might know, that they had obtained the righteousness of faith; but that office of Sa­craments (if there be any such) is sufficiently expressed in the former Title when it is called a signe.

Whether, in the third respect they are called Seals; be­cause they leave a stamp, and impression of the righteous­ness of faith: that absurdity I wonder some of them fell not up [...]; considering, that they teach, they confer grace, by the work done: but, the place it self sufficiently con­futes it; because Abraham had this righteousness, before, either he received; or God ordained the sign of circumcision.

It remains then, that in the last respect, they are called seals; because, they are ordained for greater confirmation, and assurance given to us of righteousness, promised in the Covenant of grace: So Theophylact, as Sasbout conceives him; a seal, whereby God sealed up righteousness to Abra­ham, and testified it to be most true, and certain; as we are wont to set seal to that, which we would testifie to be sure, and firm.

Now, if any demand, what they seal up, or confirm un­to [Page 83]us the answer is; It is the righteousness of faith; that is, remission of sins, and that esteem of righteousness, which the Lord allows to all truly believing: If this be not all they assure us of, yet it is the principall other ends being all subor­dinate to this; other uses less principall, and dependent there­on. Now see we what it is that adversaries except against our description of Sacraments, hence collected: Forsooth, they tell us, that we reason absurdly, from one species, to the whole kinde, affirmatively; thereto hath been already answered.

They limit this use of circumcision to Abraham only; and though to (him) it was a seal, in this sence, yet not therefore to others: But, I demand, Bellarm. de Sacram. lib. 1. cap. 17. Gen. 17.7, 10. was the Covenant made with Abraham only, or with his seed also: or, was circumcision a sign of the Covenant to Abraham only, or else, to his seed also. If the Covenant be­longed to (all;) if circumcision was to (all,) a sign of their being in the Covenant; why not to (all) also, a seal of righteousness? Forsooth, say our adversaries, one end of Abrahams circumcision was peculiar to Abraham, as that he should be the father of all believers; therefore this also of being a seal of the righteousness of faith? Answ. And I wonder, why we may not conclude, by the like reason, that to Abraham only, it was a sign of the Covenant? be­cause this end they mention had place in Abraham only: But, let us more neerly view the Reasons: It was Abrahams priviledg only, to be the father of all believers, both cir­cumcised, and uncircumcised: Ergo, His priviledg onely, to have circumcision a seal of righteousness: How prove they their consequence? Forsooth, Paul joyns both toge­ther, and therefore they are of like priviledg? Answ. Why may we not say, (ut supra) that the necessity of the sign of circumcision, was also Abrahams priviledg, because it also is joyned to the rest? But, for more full satisfaction; view we the scope of the text, which is this; To shew that justi­fication belongs to believers of both people: The proof is from a sign; Abraham had righteousness in uncircumcision; [Page 84] Ergo, Righteousness belongs to the uncircumcised; For, this was that the Lord mystically intended to signifie, in justifying Abraham before circumcision; and in commending circumcision to him justified: But, to what end mentions he that end of circumcision, sealing up the righteousness of faith? Answ. To answer that which he saw might be objected, on this manner: If Abraham were justified be­fore circumcision, what profit received he by that Sacra­ment? Answ. It (sealed) unto him the righteousness of faith: And, shall we say now, it was Abrahams priviledg to be confirmed, in perswasion of righteousness? belike then, his posterity either needed no such confirmation, and so Abrahams priviledg shall be, to be the only weakling in faith, that needs means of confirmation; or else, his seed shall lack that help, that Abraham had for establishment, though the Covenant were equally made with them. It is too tedious, to follow them, in all their diversions; here therefore, an end of his enquiry, touching the generall na­ture, and use of Sacraments.

What is it now, that our adversaries want, in our de­scription, that serves to express the generall nature of Sa­craments? that pulcherima definitio of a Sacrament extant in the catechisme of Trent Councill, and ours, besides the ho­monymie of the word righteousness, they can assign no difference, but in a term onely: Sacramentum (say they) est res sensibus subiecta, Bellarm. de Sacram. lib. 1. cap. 11. quae, ex dei institutione, sanctitatis, & justitiae, tum significandae, tum efficiendae vim habet: Sa­cramentum (say we) est res sensibus subjecta, quae ex dei institutione, justitiae tum significandae, tum obsignandae vim habet: sealing of righteousness they like not, though the Apostle hath pointed us thereto; It should be effecting, or working of righteousness, and then all were well: See we therefore a little, whether this be of the nature of Sacra­ments, and amongst the uses to which they are assigned, to effect, or work righteousness.

Where we have to things to consider. First, What [Page 85]grace they are appointed to work? they answer, justify­ing grace; which (after them) stands in the habit of faith, hope, charity. Secondly, How they work it? Not as principall efficients; for, that is peculiar to God: but as instruments, as the Master of sentences expresseth it: Lumbard. l. 4. Ho­mo non quaerit salutem â Sacramentis, quasi (ab) eis, sed (per) ea, à Deo: Haec enim praepositio (A) Scotus ad lib, 4. dist. 1. denotat Cau­sam agentem; (per) verò notat causam instrumentalem.

Well, let us yeild them to be organa; whether Morall or Physicall? It pleaseth not Bellarmine, Bellarm de ef­fect. Sacram. lib. 2. cap. 11. that they should be causes Morall, though he confesse a stream of their own Writers run current that way: But they must be Physicall instruments, that is such as properly and by inherent vertue, work, or cause justification: And if any ask what that ver­tue is that God hath put in them to effect this grace? He answers, It is nothing but Gods moving or using of them to that purpose: For by this, that God useth the Sacramen­tall action to produce grace, he doth elevate it above the nature, and makes it reach to an effect supernaturall.

Now, I might be long in shewing the contrary judge­ment of his own side; some making them means, or in­struments of grace, per modum continentiae, because they contain the grace they signifie; some by concomitance one­ly, &c. I will propound the sentence of Scotus onely, whom ye shall find thus to resolve; There is not (saith he) in Sacraments, aliqua Causalitas activa propriè dicta respectu gratiae; but they are said to be causes of grace improperly inasmuch as the receiving thereof is an immediate dispositi­on to grace: & mox; For thus hath God disposed and set down the order, and hereof he hath certified the Church; that to him that in due manner receives the Sacrament, he will give the effect thereby signified. This, I trow, is far from Bellarmines conceit. But let us further examine his conclusion: In all ordinary Physical instruments, which God useth to effect his purposes by, there is (besides Gods use of them) a vertue, and power, and fitness given them to [Page 86]produce what he useth them unto; as meat, to nourish; clothes, to warm; Sun, to cherish the earth &c. and shall Sacraments be ordinary Physical instruments and yet lack this inherent vertue? What Philosophy, yea or Divinitie, so teacheth?

Besides this, Sacraments all suppose those habits, where­in they make justifying grace to consist, Acts 8. Matth. 28. to be in him that receives them, they must have faith or, at least; [...], before Sacraments may be applied unto them: and shall we think they are elevated by this use and motion they speak of, to work what is already wrought?

Lastly, if they wrought thus Physically, as it were poti­ons; methinks, then, every one to whom they are applyed, must needs receive their effect unavoidably; and so Simon Magus must receive the grace of the Sacrament, as well as Simon Peter; which if it be absurd, as absurd it is, to make them Physicall instruments, or Active causes of this grace, which they call justifying.

To conclude this whole question; May it not be granted that Sacraments are instruments or means of grace?

Answ. No doubt, yes; but instruments morall onely; that is, such as whose vertue sticks not in them; but onely be­cause where they are duely used, God is present by covenant to work grace supernaturall. So Scotus, ut suprá: so some of our Divines.

Yet more nearly; 1. Consider what grace they are ordain­ed to work, as means. 2. How they concur to the working of it. The grace they work is; 1. Confirmation in per­swasion of justification. 2. Care and increase of sanctifi­cation, &c. How work they it? Answ. Occasionally onely; quatenus they represent Gods actions, Christs person and benefits, our duty &c. by which representations Gods spirit worketh in our hearts in these or the like discourses: God hath in the Gospel promised remission of sins to all those that believe in Christ; and for further assurance hath been pleased to ordain Sacraments as it were his seals set to [Page 87]his covenant; wherein I see represented the death of Christ, that procured pardon of sinns; and in the Ministers action delivering the Sacrament to me, Gods act in delivering Christ and his benefits to me is resembled. Now, his pro­mise is, that if I bring faith to the use of the Sacraments, the things they signifie are mine. How then assumes consci­ence; I believe what God in the Gospel promiseth what in Sacraments he seals unto me: and thence follows as a con­clusion, my faith confirmed, &c.

Now, what say our Adversaries to this manner of Sa­craments efficacy? Forsooth if in this manner onely they have their efficacy, there shall then be no difference betwixt Sacraments of the Old Law, and those of the New Testa­ment? Answ. What, none at all? Bellarm. de ef­fect. Sacram. lib. 2. c. 8. They confesse else­where that we agree with them, in the differences thus far: 1. The signes are others. 2. The number less. 3. The faci­lity more. 4. Clearness of signification greater. 5. Man­ner of signifying different. 6. Endurance of new longer.

Object. Yea, but in the point of efficacy, there is left no difference: For thus theirs were effectuall, by stirring up faith by their significations, and by the devotion of the re­ceiver which they call. The work of the Worker.

Observ Is that the matter? then hear what I think the Apostle here teacheth; or, at least, warrants us to teach by collecti­on; That Sacraments of the Old Testament were the same with ours, in matter signified, in use, ends, and efficacie. What is Baptisme unto us more, then a signe of our initia­tion into the Covenant? Gen. 17.7. Rom. 4.11. Deut. 30.6. A feal of the righteousness of faith? An occasionall mean of sanctification? The same was Circumcision to Abraham, and to all his posterity; in the ordinary measure of efficacy there might be some odds; in efficacy and manner of it, none at all that can be assigned. For, 1. In their Sacraments they had Communion with Christ; They ate the same spirituall meat, 1. Cor. 10.3, 4. drank the same spi­rituall drink, that we do, though under other signes or ele­ments.

[Page 88] Object. Rhenenses ad loc. Bellarm. de ef­fect. Sacram. lib. 2. c. 17. August. de utilit. Poenit. cap. 1.2. Nay, rather (say Papists) the same amongst themselves, not the same with us? Answ. Then let us hear Augustine: Eundem (inquit) cibum spiritualem manduca­verunt: quid est (eundem)? nisi quia eum, quem etiam nos? & mox, Eundem non invenio quomodo intelligam, nisi eum quem manducamus & nos. Inst. What Paul there speaks of were not Sacraments. Answ. How then fit they Pauls intention? which is apparently this, to take from this people vain confidence in Sacraments, 2. What means Paul to say of their passage through the sea, &c. it was a bapti­zing of them? Cyprian. Epist. 76. August. in Psal 77. Hear ancients; Cyprian, Mare illud Sacra­mentum Baptismi fuisse, declarat beatus Apostolus Paulus, dicens. Nolo vos ignorare fratres, &c. 1. Cor. 10. Augu­stine, Per mare transitus Baptismus est. The same Augu­stine; Cùm essent omnia communia Sacramenta, non com­munis erat omnibus gratia, quae Sacramentorum virtus est; speaking of the very elements.

Inst. The same let them be, but in signification; not in vertue or efficacy. Answ. They drank of the Rock, which was Christ: some of them, I mean, as Augustine expounds in Psalm, 77. And if therein they had Communion with Christ, how are they not the same in efficacy? Will they say, the effect was one; the efficiency, or manner of producing, different? It is easie to say any thing: their proof we want, and require.

Not to be long: Scholast. ad 4. senten. Concerning the Sacrament of Circum­cision, their own Divines confess many of them, that it had the same effect with Baptisme; and in the same manner, namely, the work wrought. Why may we not then con­clude, that their Sacraments were one with ours in Use, Ends, and Efficacy?

Forsooth, their Sacraments had no absolute promise of grace, ours have. But before I answer their objections, the Reader must be entreated to observe; that they change the state of the question: For, the question is not betwixt them and us, Whether their Sacraments conferred justifica­tion, [Page 89]as ours? For we maintain, that neither confer justifi­cation though both equally confirm it, in manner above­shewn. But the question is whether theirs had the same efficacy that ours have, to the uses, and ends whereto they were designed. And so we affirm; that the same promises for spirituall things, were made to both people, in both Te­staments, and confirmed in both Sacraments. The same promise that is made to us, was made to Abraham; yea, first to Abraham, and first to the seed of his loins, walking in the steps of his faith, Gen, 17. How else reasons the Apostle from the example of Abraham? the promise was given Abraham through faith; Ergò, Its ours through faith and not by the Law, &c. and again, How makes he Abraham the father of believers in both people, except that the Covenant was stablished in him as the father, for his children of both people?

But have our Sacraments absolute promise of grace ju­stifying to be conferred by them? then what lets infants, even of hereticks in baptisme of hereticks, to receive justifi­cation? And if justification may be had in the Conventi­cles of hereticks, why not also salvation? We will hence­forth be of comfort in the Church of England, and we will hope for our infants yet that they may go to heaven.

2. Where have we such an absolute promise made to our Sacraments? Mar. 16.16. this I read, He that believes, and is baptized, shall be saved. Acts 2.39. He that repents, and is baptized, shall receive remission of sins: Never, He that is baptized shall have justification, or salvation simply, because he is baptized.

To omit all other their objections, bewraying too foul ignorance in the matter of the Covenant of grace; their last onely I will take notice of: It lies thus; Our Sacraments are said to save, to regenerate, to justifie; and no such thing is read of theirs in the Scriptures; Ergò. They are not equal in efficacy? Answ. Many of the places alledged, are to be understood of the Baptisme of the Spirit; as that, [Page 90]1. Pet. 3.21. Tit. 3.5. Joh. 3.5. And what is that to the Sacrament? 2 If in other places remission of sins be in shew of words ascribed to the Sacrament; it must be un­derstood significativè, at most, but concomitanter.

Ʋse Let us now leave a while these toilesome controversies and see what use of this conclusion redounds to us: And, it shall be the same that Paul once made to the people of Corinth, 1 Cor. 10. upon this ground: That none of us presume upon Sacraments, as if they sealed up impunity to willfull transgressions; there is no greater vertue in ours, then was in Iewish Sacraments: And their Murmurings, Idolatry, Fornication, Tempting of God was severely pu­nished even in those that partook Sacraments, the same with ours, in signification, use and efficacy: And, why should any of us adventure the displeasure of God, upon vain con­fidence of the work done of Sacraments? Consider we, that they are not only obsignations of favour but obliga­tions to duty; and so bined to dutifull carriage; that they seal up pardon of no more sins, then are repented, and for­saken: It is in this respect with Gods pardon, as with like indulgence of Princes to Malefactours; they binde for ever to good behaviour: And, I could wish our people thus per­swaded of them. But thus it fares with most, through their ignorance; as it is said of the Hart, when he is wounded, he runs to the herbe dittany known, by naturall instinct, to be soveraign: So our people, when they have wounded their souls even to death, with the vilest abominations; they post to Sacraments for medicine, adding to their other sins, this of profaning Gods sacred ordinances: By the law of God given to the Iewes, it was ordained, that none that had contracted any legall pollution, should on pain of death adventure on their Passeover, till such time as his cleansing, according to the law was accomplished: The statute for the letter, bindes not us; but the signification thus far serves to instruct us, that none of us renewing his sins should adventure on Sacraments, without renewing repentance.

[Page 91] The last thing here observable, is this; That Sacraments are ordained, not to confer justification; but to confirm us in perswasion of it: As, to Abraham circumcision gave not righteousness, but as a seal confirmed it unto him; for what? shall we say, as Papists, This Sacrament was so to Abraham only, as his priviledg, not so ours, to us? There­to hath already been answered; and the case is as plain for Baptisme in Cornelius, as this for circumcision in Abraham: Kemnit. Exam. part 2. de sacram. efficac. & Ʋsu. or, shall we say, these instances were extraordinary, and therefore afford no generall rule? First, How appears it of either, that there was any thing extraordinary? Second­ly, Whence should we fetch the rule, to judg of the ordina­ry use of Sacraments, save from their persons, that first re­ceived them. Let it stand therefore for a conclusion, that the use of Sacraments, is not to confer faith, or justifica­tion, but to confirm it: For which cause we shall finde, that ordinary faith is required as a pre-disposition necessary in all, that are admitted to the Sacraments; yea, Act. 8. faith of the Messiah and confidence in him for justification; be­tween which faith and justification, the connexion is in­separable.

Ob. If any shall say, that they cannot have use in in­fants?

Answ. To omit other answers, though in infants, while they are infants, they have not actually that use; yet, to [...] end they are ministred to infants, that when in time to come, they shall believe to righteousness, their faith may receive confirmation by baptisme in infancy received. August. de Bapt. contra Donat. lib. 4. cap. 24. To this purpose, saith Augustine, In Abraham praecessit fidei justitia, & accessit circumcisio signaculum justitiae fidei, &c. that in some, justification goes before the seal; as in Abraham, and Cornelius: In others, the seal is before righteousness: Hear his words: Sicut in Isaac, qui octavo suae nativitatis die circumcisus est, praecessit signaculum justitiae fidei; & quoniam patris fidem imitatus est, secuta est increscente ipsa justitia, cujus signaculum in infante prae­cesserat: [Page 92]Ita & in baptizatis infantibus, praecedit Regenera­tionis sacramentum; & si Christianam tenuerint pietatem, sequitur etiam in corde conversio, cujus mysterium praecessit in corpore.

Sense The last thing in this period remains to be explained; and that is the application of all this to the purpose; by setting down the end which God aimed at, in giving Abraham te­stimonie of righteousness, before circumcision, and enjoyn­ing him circumcision, after justification: The end was, that he might be Father of Believers in both people: where­out amounts the conclusion intended, That the blessing of justification belongs, by Covenant, both to uncircumcised Gentiles, and circumcised Jews believing.

That he might be Father] That is, that he might be de­clared, or known to be; For, these things made him not so, but signified him to be so: so Matth. 5.45. Bless them that curse &c. that ye may the sonnes of your father in Heaven, that is, that ye may be known to be: Frequent is that phrase in Scripture: whence is that old rule; That a thing is said to be, when it is (known) to be; John 15.8. Ye shall be my Disciples: 2 Tim. 2.21. He shall be a vessel unto Honour, that is, known to be so: Psal. 2.7. This day have I begot­ten thee, that is, manifested that I have begotten thee, as many expound that place, Acts 13.33.

Father of all them that believe.] Rolloc. ad Loc. Father, that is, say some, Pattern of justification: And they suppose it usuall in Scripture, that those in whom a thing is first exemplified, should be called Fathers thereof: Cajetan. Say others, Father, be­cause of him Believers are, after a sort, begotten, in respect, that by example of his faith, others believed; others, because from him the Blessing of justification is derived, as an in­heritance, or Free passeth from the Father to the Son: Thus rather I think, He is called the father of believers in both people, because in him the covenant is made with all be­lievers: And, they are all counted Abrahams seed, with whom the Covenant of Grace is made in Abraham [Page 93]the Father, that walk in the steps of his faith.

Of them that believe, [...]] That is, of Gen­tiles uncircumcised; by uncircumcision, enallage praepositio­nis, as Rom. 2.27. Howbeit, perhaps, it may stand without any such enallage, as intimating, that the want of circum­cision occasions, after a sort, the Gentiles betaking them­selves to faith; thereof if any difficulty be shall be after ex­plained.

Observ Observe we here, out of the body of the Text: That many the actions, and accidents of Patriarchs were not without their mystery: Gregories speech is something too large, if we take it universally; but make it particular, it hath frequent Truth; Scriptura, dum narrat gestum, prodit mysterium: Abraham was justified, before circumcised; chat wanted not its mystery: Thereby was signified, that A­braham was father even of uncircumcised believers: That of his two wives, and their children, with their severall con­dition and issues, Gal. 4.24. the Apostle hath avouched to be mysti­call: the like thinks Augustine of his offering his sonne; of taking Keturah to wife after Sarahs death, and resolves (though too largely) Quicquid dicit Scriptura de Abra­ham, & factum est, & Prophetia est. Augustin. Ser. 72. de Temp.

Augustine, out of this ground, takes occasion, though not to justifie the falls of Saints, yet to defend the Scri­ptures of the old Testament, recording them, Nos Scriptu­ras sanctas, non hominum peccata desen­dimus: Au­gustin. contr. Faustum Ma­nich. l. 22. c. 45. &c. 42. against Fau­stus the Manichee; and shews how many the sinnes of Saints are holily recorded in Scripture, though wickedly com­mitted by them: They are recorded, saith he, as Prophesies, and presignifications of things to come; God so disposing even of their falls, that they figured mystically some mat­ter, either of knowledge, or practice: one instance he gives of Lots Drunkenness, and Incest, allegorizing it vainly, as he doth many other things; and at length concluding; Illud factum cùm in sancta scriptura narratur, prophetia est; cùm verò in illorum vita, qui hoc commiserunt, consideratur, Fla­gitium est: Better satisfaction to the Manichees cavill he [Page 94]gives after; Narrata ista sunt, non laudata, &c.

Papists, some of them, have hereby taken occasion to turn the whole Scripture into an Allegory, and endeavour a my­sticall interpretation of every part of Scripture: It were a wonder, they should attempt it in the ten Commandments; Yet, that ye may see, how spiritually these men understand all things in Scripture, Dionys. Car­thus. in Exod. 20. the very Decalogue hath, with some of them, besides the sense literall, another mysticall.

Others of them more judicious, acknowledge, that there is not in every sentence of Scripture, to be found or sought after this spirituall, Bellarm. de verb. Dei in­terpretat. l. 3. c. 3. or mysticall sense: But yet in many they acknowledge it; And in so many they hunt after it, as may afford them, either arguments to support their errours, where the letter fails them, or evasions, to decline the stroke of the letter, when it directly strikes at them.

An acute disputant amongst them, would needs take up­on him, to prove by Scripture, the Imperiall power an un­derling to the Papacie: What is his argument? God made two lights, the sun (the greater light) to rule the day and that signified the Pope; the Moon, to govern the night, and that was the Emperour: Another would prove, that spirituall, and temporall jurisdiction are both, by Christs ordinance invested in the Popedome: For, Peter said to his Master, Ecce duo gladii hîc: The like in sundry answers to our arguments they practise; such, and such texts must be understood mystically. My purpose is not, on this occasion, to run out into that controversie: I note it onely, for that I have long observed it with grief; our Ministers growing into a Fryer-like Preaching, turning all things almost into Allegories; wherein howsoever they make shew of some such wit, as he speaks of, Wit whither wilt? yet question­less, with judicious men, they lose all authoritie in Consci­ence, the chiefest point of eloquence in a Preacher.

I would entreat them to consider, the inconveniences should I terme them, or mischiefs? such dealing with Scri­ptures brings with it: As 1. Leaving little, or no certainty [Page 95]in the sense of Scripture, and strenthening many in that blasphemous opinion of the waxen nature of Scripture, flexible to any sense that mans wit shall bring unto it.

2. Occasioning many, through ignorance, to denie the truth of the History, understood according to the letter, and to fansie all things after the course of Allegories: From my experience, and knowledge something I can speak; An id to once falling on a Fryer Allegorizing, after their fashion, The History of David, and Goliah, grew stiff in the opinion, that there never was such a monster as Goliah; He would have added, nor such a Saint as David: His reason; For Go­liah signifieth the Devil; David, Christ; the stone where­with he was slain, the Word of God: and what, I wonder, the scrip, and sling? But such mischiefs draw wrested Al­legories frequently with them.

But, affords not Scripture, often, such Allegories?

Answ. No question, Yes; but, it is good for us to be sure, we have Gods spirit directing us, in their accommodation, before we propound them, as things intended by the inspirer of Scripture, least we belie the Holy Ghost, in fathering on him a sense, that he never intended: Hieron. praesat. decem vision. Esaiae. Saint Hierome speak­ing of Origen, (the Father of Allegories) though himself be faulty enough in that kind; Yet, casts on him this asper­sion; Origines (saith he) liberis Allegoriae spatiis evagatur & ingenium suum facit Ecclesiae sacramenta: Would God not many of our Ministers also! And other ancients, though bold enough this way; Yet, set limits to us, in this kind. Basil in Hie­ron. Hieron. in Zech. 4. & Gal. 4. 1. Ever preferring the sense literall. 2. Prohibiting Alle­gories to be attempted in praeceptis, quae ad vitam pertinent & in his quae perspicua, & manifesta sunt: Later Divines have straighter bonds. as, 1. That it be done, Parcè. 2. For illustration, rather then proof; except where Gods spirit points at the Allegorie. 3. Let this be added, that as simi­litudes, such things may be used; so be it, we be not too pe­remptory, in fathering that sense upon the Spirit of God: For example, it is said of Moses, He brought the Israe­lites [Page 96]to the skirts of Canaan; but Joshua gave them posses­sion of it; perhaps in that was this mystery: That the Law prepares to Gods kingdome, but it is the Gospel, that brings thereinto: howbeit, it were too much audaciousness, in any, to say any such thing was taught thereby; though, by way of similitude, it may be so applyed, Of this observation, thus farre.

2. Whereas Abraham is said to be the Father of all that believe in uncircumcision; Note we, That the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham, reached, by Gods intention, from the beginning, even to the Gentiles believing: And this appears, Gen. 17. inasmuch as to strangers, and those bought with money, Circumcision must be administred: And long after, when the greatest enclosure of Grace to Jews seemed to be; if strangers sojourning amongst them, would consent to be circumcised, they might eat the Passover; there was one Law, for the home-born, and for the stranger, so­journing amongst them. Exod. 12.48, 49. And if any ask, Why Paul saith of them, They were strangers from the com­mon-wealth of Israel, Aliens from the Covenants of Promise, Ephes. 2.12. Answ. In respect of the dispensation of the Covenant, the body of the Gentiles were Aliens; because God had not yet so generally manifested his Grace to them, by calling, Ephes. 3. Yet, in respect of Right, it belonged to as many of them, as walked in the steps of Abrahams faith: or otherwise thus; The Covenant, from the begin­ning, was intended to Gentiles; Howsoever the Visible ad­mission of them into the Covenant, was not, till the dayes of the new Testament: so that, who can blame the Lord of hard dealing towards Gentiles, even before Christs coming, that (even in Israel) gave place unto as many of them, as would submit to the conditions of the Covenant? will any say, the Lord should have called them, as he did the Jews? Answ. Who hath given him first, and it shall be recompen­sed him? Rom. 11.35. And, his church was conspicuous, and eminent in the eyes of the whole world, that who so had [Page 97]hearts, might thereto joyn themselves, and share in the pri­viledges thereof.

And father of circumcision] That is, of Jews circum­cised: To them, &c.] that is, to as many as unto circum­cision added imitation of Abrahams faith.

So then circumcision alone while it stood in force as a Sacrament, made no man a child of Abraham; they must as well imitate his faith, as admit circumcision, that would be indeed and truth of that seed of Abraham, to whom the Covenant belonged: Children of Abraham were of three sorts; some such by propagation onely, so Israelites, yea Ishmaelites, are all his children: some by imitation onely, as Gentiles, that descended not out of his loyns: some both by propagation and imitation, as believing Jews. Now here let it be observed, that faith is the predominant, and that that hath chief virtue, in making children of Abra­ham; such I mean as to whom the Covenant belonged; insomuch, that faith severed from circumcision, made chil­dren of Abraham; circumcision severed from faith not so. The Jews, saith Theophylact wanting faith, Theophyl. ad loc. vaunting of cir­cumcision, are as they that make shew of a sealed bag, em­ptie of money; such Jews, saith he, marsupium gestiunt, cir­cumcisionis signo munitum &c.

And why may we not so say of Baptisme, the Sacrament of the New Testament? Hath it more virtue to bring us into the Covenant, then had Circumcision? He that be­lieves, and is baptized, shall be saved, Mar. 16.16. he that believes not, shall be damned, yea though he be baptized. Why then do Papists obtrude upon us the work done of our Sacraments, as if it had such virtue to make us sharers in the Covenant of grace? they will never be able to prove unto us a disparity in this kind, betwixt old and new Sacraments. Indeed, saith Peter Baptisme saves; but it is not the element, but the interrogation of a good conscience, 1. Pet. 3.21. And let me here once again advise our people, to adde to that they call their Christendome, faith unfeigned, as they [Page 98]desire to become Christians indeed; and to share with Christ in his benefits conveyed unto us in the Covenant of grace. They erre dangerously to their souls peril, that think the naked Sacrament makes them Gods confederates: To us indeed, the baptized are such till they discover hypocrisie; to God, none else but hearty believers. Now in describing the circumcised sons of Abraham, that are such not by pro­pagation onely, or participation of the Sacrament, but by imitation; the phrase of the Apostle is to be observed: They are said to walk in the steps of his faith; A Meta­phor expressing the exactest kind of imitation. Not much unlike is that, that Job hath, expressing his precise, and ac­curate obedienee; Job 23.11. My foot hath held his steps. So accurate would the Lord have us, in imitating the vir­tuous examples of his Saints: But of this point of imita­tion, with the cautions and limits thereof, more hereafter on another occasion. Here it shall suffice to observe, that whoso will share with Abraham, in the blessing of righ­teousness, must imitate Abraham in the condition of righ­teousness; Believe as he believed, and as near as may be, tread in the steps of his faith: Needs proof? see vers. 24. and consider, that the conveyance of all blessings is made to Abraham and his seed, on even terms: From hence is it, that in the next verse the Apostle takes it for granted, that as the promise is one made to Abraham and his seed; so the condition is one, required of Abraham, and his seed. Onely let it be remembred, that Abrahams measure is not required of all; so we follow him in faith, though we keep not pace, we have interest in his blessing; provided alwayes, we strive to equal, yea to excell him, albeit through weak­ness, we reach not his perfection.

This point, had it been well understood, or considered of ancient Jews, they had not perished so many, through vain confidence in their carnall descent from Abraham; but so besotted were they in that presumption, that they thought very birth of Abraham to give them title to his [Page 99]blessings; what more frequent in the mouths of the most incredulous, then this, We have Abraham to our father? Joh. 8.36, 39. We be Abrahams seed; Abraham is our fa­ther. But our Saviour well distinguisheth, They were his seed by generation; not his seed by imitation: If they were Abrahams children, they would do the works of Abra­ham, but now they seek to kill Christ, thus did not Abra­ham, &c.

And I know not how that Jewish errour hath place in many of our people; that think they have enough even to salvation, that they proceeded from the loyns of virtuous Parents. A blessing, I confess, not to be dispised; and such an one, as in temporall favours, brings a share often, even to graceless children: But what advantage in spirituall things a religious parent brings to degenerating posterity, I conceive not; except, perhaps, the heavier condemnation, Read Ezek. 18. And of this period thus far. Proceed we in the Text.

THe Apostle having now sufficiently cleared the doubt, moved touching the persons to whom this blessing be­longs; returns now from that digression to his principall purpose, propounding new arguments to confirm his con­clusion. His return is very artificiall, and such as matcheth the skill of the chiefest Rhetoricians; the close of his di­gression rescuing, after a sort, the conclusion from which he had digressed. His passage thus conceive; Describing the Jews, to whom he extends the blessing of justification, he will have them thus qualified; That they walk in the steps of Abrahams faith: And marvell not, saith the Apostle, [Page 100]that I interpose that condition: For the promise was not to Abraham, or to his seed, by the Law, but by the righteousness of faith.

This third argument therefore, is in summe this; Look (as) the blessing was promised to Abraham and his seed, (so) it must be obtained; But it was promised to Abra­ham, &c. not through the Law, but through the righteous­ness of faith; Ergò, it must be so obtained.

Sense The promise] Whether we are to take it properly, for that act of Gods mercy binding himself by promise, to give A­braham this blessing; or Meconimically, for the thing promi­sed, is the question: The first acception seems most perti­nent, as well for the scope of the text, as for that we read, Gal. 3.16.18.

That he should be heir of the world] The doubts here are many: 1. What is here meant by the World and Abra­hams being heir thereof? 2. Where we find this promise made unto Abraham? 3. How it fits the purpose of the Apostle?

For the first; Beza, Paraeus, & alii Most Interpreters here understand by the World that Mundus credentium; whereof, 1. John 2.2 and by his being heir thereof, his fatherly dominion, and title he had to them by Covenant. But then the question is, How this belongs to his seed? for howsoever such dominion was promised to Abraham and he by Covenant was to become Father of many nations; yet to his posterity was no such promise made. Now the promise here mentioned, extends it self to his seed also. If any shall say, that by the seed we are here, as Gal. 3.16. to understand Christ; the circum­stances of the Text seem not to bear it: for, shall we say, the promise was made to Christ by the righteousness of faith? surely it appears, his title that he hath to the world as Mediatour, comes to him as a reward of his Legall obe­dience, Phil. 2.9. and besides, the confirmation added, ver. 14. seems to force us, by the seed, to understand Abrahams other posterity; except perhaps we shall say that the Apo­stle [Page 101]intends to shew, not so much what condition the Lord required of Abraham, or Christ (his chief seed) to the end they might be heirs of all the world; as the means by which he intended to set them in possession of that inheritance; which was not by the Law, but by the righteousness of faith: and that indeed is a truth, and affords accommodation of the reasons subjoyned fit enough: Judicent docti. Others by the world understand, by Metalepsis, the Kingdome of Heaven, figured (they say) by Canaan, as the principall part of the world; and that was, as they say truly, Heb. 12. a type of heaven. But where find we in all the Scripture, the word (world) so used?

To the second doubt, Where this promise is extant in Scripture? They that by the (world) understand Believers of all nations, alledge that place, Gen. 22.17, 18. I will multiply thy seed as the starres of heaven, &c. that for the promise to Abraham: and for Christ his seed, Psal. 2.8. I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance.

They that by the (world) understand Canaan, and that which it Typically shadowed, produce these Scriptures, Gen. 12.7. and 15, 8.8. The first concerns his seed; the second, Abraham himself. To the third question, touch­ing the accommodation to the Apostles purpose; their con­ceits are divers; the drift is diversly conceived: The con­clusion some imagine this; That Abraham is father of nations, not by circumcision, but by faith: To this conclu­sion, the accommodation is plain.

The promise, That he should be heir of the world was made to Abraham by faith: Ergo, He is father of them in respect of faith; not of circumcision, or the law; be­cause it is the promise that makes him heir: Look there­fore how the promise is made, so Abraham hath his inhe­ritance.

The conclusion seems this rather; That to believers the blessing of righteousness belongs, in respect of faith: How followes that from the Apostles proof? Answ. The in­heritance [Page 102]of the world, that is, of Heaven, was made to Abraham, through the righteousness of faith; Ergo, Righte­ousness it self is obtained by faith; there being one conditi­on and means both of justification, and salvation, accor­ding 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.

[Page 103] 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 [Page 104]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 Ʋlpian, 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 [Page 105]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 para­dox; That Gods Children are the richest heirs in the world, being by promise, heirs of the whole world, and of all the comforts, earth, or heaven can afford them: And should it not teach us, to labour to come within the Cove­nant of grace? Questionless, it is true, that though in civill states, men aliens from the Covenants of promise, have by humane right a dominion, and property in the things they enjoy; yet, in respect of spirituall, and true interest, they are but usurpers: the air they breath in, the earth they tread on, the heavens they look on, the meat they eate, the cloaths they are cloathed withall, are not theirs; much less the comforts of a better life: For the promise, whereon such right is founded, belongs only to Abraham, and to his seed, &c.

The last thing remains, and that is the means whereby the promise was intended to be accomplished; Not by the law, &c. but by the righteousness of faith.

[Page 106] Not by the Law? may some men say; though to Abra­ham the promise was given, through faith, yet to his seed, it was made by the law, Rom. 10.5. Lev. 18.5. Answ. Made it might be to his seed, by the law hypothetically; but the exhibition and performance, was neither accompli­shed, nor yet intended to be accomplished save only by the righteousness of faith: And yet was not the law vainly gi­ven; there being so many other ends to which the promulga­tion in Sinai tended, as the Apostle afterwards, cap. 5. fully shewes.

Now, from the manner of the Apostles reasoning, we learn, so to exspect the blessings promised, as they are pro­mised, and intended to be performed: God promised Abraham and his seed, to be heirs of the world; the means whereby that promise was intended to be perfor­med, was not by the law, but by the righteousness of faith; by faith therefore, and not by works, must we exspect the enjoying of them: and of all our hopes of things promi­sed, this must be the measure: By what means, In what manner, In what measure they are promised, so to exspect the blessings: For example, he hath promised to godliness all the good blessings of the earth; but how hath he pro­mised it? with limitation to experiency; with exception of the cross: Disjunctively, either the blessings, or, the equivalent, &c. He hath promised victory to us in the spirituall combate; but it is neither perfect victory, nor without condition of striving lawfully; nor so, but that for our humiliation, and to teach us compassion, he may leave us to our selves, and permit us to foyls in many par­ticulars: Sic de reliquis

The due meditation whereof serves to support Gods truth in his promise, and our hopes of enjoying the blessings promised; both which, our ignorance often makes to waver, because of our misprisions: the Matter of the pro­mise we look at; the Manner how it is made we seldome consider: For example, Godliness, we say, hath the promise [Page 107]of this life: How is it accomplished, saith a weakling in his wants? Answ. (As) it is promised, (so) I dare say it is performed to thee; so farre as these Temporalities are ex­pedient for thee, so be it thou demean thy self as becomes a child of God; either in the kind, or by a compensation in spirituall things equivalent, thou enjoyest them, &c.

And want of this Prudence, in weighing the manner, how the promises are conveyed, alas! how many inconveniencies hath it drawn Gods great servants unto? Abraham had a promise of a seed to come out of his loins, intended by Sa­rah; because the time is delayed, and naturall vigour de­cayeth, Sarah begins to distinguish; she shall obtain chil­dren by her maid, it may be; and so Abraham goes in to Ha­gar, to have the promise hastened; Rebecca had learnt from Gods mouth, that Jacob was the Beloved, and the blessing should be derived from him to his brother Esau; but see, how she betakes her self to shifts of her own, that Gods intentions may take place, &c. the like in sundry par­ticulars, might be instanced: Learn we to exspect the pro­mises, by means, in manner, measure, time, that God hath been pleased to limit them withall.

A more particular observation out of the Text, is this; That the inheritance promised to Abraham, and his seed, was never intended to be exhibited to them, through the righteousness of the Law, as a mean, whereby they should obtain it: What needs much confirmation? the conclusion being the Apostles, almost in so many words; and reasons by him annexed to that purpose: Had God a purpose, by the Law to make us partakers of the Inheritance; What meant he then to substitute another mean? namely, the righ­teousness of Faith: Perhaps some should obtain it by the Law; others, by faith? How absurd is that conceit? when as the Apostle hath taught us, that God is unvariable in his courses in this kind, Rom. 3.30. and, can we think the po­sterity obtained it, by any other mean then Abraham the root of blessing? Either therefore, God intended not unto [Page 108]us the inheritance, by the Law; or else, vain was the substi­tution of faith: Hereto let us add this consideration, That no man ever yet obtained it, by the righteousness of the Law; and can we better judge of Gods intentions, then by the event? Besides, How was it, that the Lord creating A­dam in the perfection of righteousness, wittingly permitted his fall; if he had meant to give us the inheritance, by the Law? see Rom. 11.32. And, wherefore is it, that having power to enable us to perfect performance of the Law, He never yet supplyed any of his Saints with perfection of strength to fulfill it? Certes, if by Legall righteousness he intended for us the inheritance; that righteousness should be at least by Grace given unto us: But it is given to none. If any shall now demand, why the Law was given, except to be a mean of the inheritance? Answ. Let him hear the Apostle: To shew us our sinne, Rom. 3.20. To beat down pride, to drive unto Christ, Gal. 3.24. And if to any it be propounded as a mean of life; I dare say, it is to a proud Justitiary, to the end to humble him, and to drive him through conscience of infirmity, from confidence in works, to believing in Christ for righteousness.

Ʋse. Is it now any less, then madness, in our popish Justitia­ries to thrust into Heaven by the Law, which God never intended to be a mean of the inheritance? One of the two I dare say, they must procure, that by it will enter; either an alteration of Gods intention, that he may make the Law the mean of inheritance; or else by strong hand, break into Heaven, by such a mean, as God hath not provided: Syna­goga, Bernard ser. 14. super Cantica. saith Bernard, fortis est: the Jewish Synagogue, so may we say, the Romish also, is strong; she cares not for the light burthen, nor for the sweet yoke; Confidet in Lege, liberet eam, si potest: but sure, saith he, there is no such Law given, as can give life: & suprá: I [...]st judicium ut qui contemnunt Dei misericordem justitiam, & suam volunt constituere — eidem suae justitiae relinquantur, opprimendi magis, quàm justifi­candi: For us, Let us learn to expect the inheritance, by the [Page 109]means whereby God hath intended to give it.

What is that, if not the Law? the Apostle answers, The Righteousness of Faith: And what is that righteousness? say Papists Cui fides est initium; that is, in short, Bellarm. de Justif. l. 1. c. 17. obedience which we, in our own persons, perform to the law, after we have received to believe the word of God: so great force is there, in general faith, to make works imperfect in themselves; and therefore condemned by the law, to be the mean of our inheritance, and salvation: But, I wonder what made Paul now a believer, having it in so exellent a measure; yet to say he was not thereby justified? 1 Cor. 4.4.

Large discussing of the point, I mean not, on this occa­sion, to enter into: But this I am sure of, the law to sal­vation requires perfection of obedience, curses to hell even the least imperfections; Gal. 3.10. and, doth any man be­lieving receive ability to perform it to the full? I am sure, its Augustines, and Hieromes resolution, that howsoever, perhaps, such measure of grace may be obtained; yet there never yet lived the man on earth, nor should do, to the end of the world, so righteous, that he did good, and sinned not; Eccles. 7.20.

Say others; The righteousness of faith] That is, the righteousness, which stands in faith: so making faith the substance, as it were, of that righteousness, whereby we are justified, and saved: against it are these reasons. 1. That then our righteosness, whereby we are just in Gods sight, shall be a thing that is imperfect; for, hath any man, at all times, perfection of faith? 2. Accordingly, conscience shall never have solid peace; neither in act, nor in the cause. 3. Righteousness of Justification shall be variable in the degrees, according as faith is more or less, in the same, or divers subjects; so that some shall be more, some less justi­fied in the sight of God; and the same man, according as his faith ebbs, or flows, shall be, whiles perfectly, whiles partially, whiles not at all, justified in the sight of God: [Page 110]For, the act of faith, wherein, according to this opinion, our righteousness stands, may, by the consent of all, be lost for a time.

The old way still is the good way; by righteousness of faith, that is, by righteousness which faith apprehends in Christ; see Rom. 5.17. By righteousness of Christ, then, apprehended by faith, obtain we the promised inheritance, Gal. 3.22. The Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe; and vers. 9. They which be of faith, are bles­sed with faithfull Abraham: By faith they are made parta­kers of the Blessing.

Ʋse Exhortation in this point is more needfull, then proof, the whole Scripture almost running this way. Be we exhor­ted therefore, leaving all confidence in the Law for righte­ousness or salvation, to cleave fast to the righteousness of faith. It is a fearfull doom passed on the Jews by the Apo­stle, Rom. 10.3. that going about to stablish their own righ­teousness, they were not subject to the righteousness of God: And was it for nothing, think we, that the Apostle counts all dung and dross for the excellent knowledge sake of Christ? and desires to be found in him not having his own righteousness, by the Law, but that which is by the righteousness of faith, Phil. 3.8.9. Surely, if any had cause to trust therein the Apostle much more; that from the time of his calling had lived in all good conscience, before God and men, Acts 23.1. and yet knowing, that thereby he was not justified or saved; he utterly disclaims confidence therein, and rests onely in that which is by faith of Christ: Whose example let us follow as we desire to have comfort in the day of judgement. Bern. in tan­tic. Ser. 30. S. Bernard elegantly comparing grace and the Law together in their effects, saith, Quàm dissimili vultu ad omnem conscientiam se offerunt, suavitas hujus & illius austeritas? quis sanè ex aequo respiciat con­demnantem & consolantem? reposcentem, & ignoscentem? plectentem, & implectentem? And surely, they know little [Page 111]the terrour of the Judge, and have had as little experience of the Laws arraignment in the conscience, that trust to their own polluted righteousness, and not to that absolute obedience of Christ the Mediatour.

Proceed we now in the Text.

THe words tend to confirmation of the Apostles former argument for justification by faith: the summe where­of was this, That the promise of inheritance was not to be accomplished by the Law, &c. the proof of it is here laid down, taken from a double inconvenience, issuing from that manner of attaining the inheritance. If they which are of the Law, be heirs, then is faith made void, and the promise of none effect: But neither is faith void, nor the promise of none effect: Ergò, They which are of the Law, be not heirs; or which is equivalent, the promise of inheri­tance is not obtained by the Law.

They which are of the Law] That is, saith Theodoret, Qui ex Lege vitam instituerunt: saith Cajetan, Qui subdi­ti sunt Legi Mosi: Sasbout, Qui Legis observatores sunt. Many the like Expositions might be cited: Thus, I think, rather, They which are of the Law, that is, which by the works of the Law seek the inheritance; as Gal. 3.9, 10. The Apostle sorts them that seek righteousness, and salvati­on into two kinds; Some are of faith, they are such as by faith seek the inheritance: Theophylact. ad Gal. 3. Some again are of the works of the Law; they are such as by the Law seek salvation: or, as Theophylact, They are of faith, Quirelictà Lege, ad fidem se conferunt: They of the Law, which leaving faith, betake [Page 112]themselves to the Law. If these be heirs] namely, ex Lege, as Ambrose interprets; if they get the inheritance by the Law.

Then is faith void] Whose faith? Gods or Mans? Gods, saith Cajetan, that is, his fidelity in keeping promise; impertinently: rather Mans, prescribed of God to be the means of inheritance.

Their faith is void or vain] What is that? whether frustrate in respect of fruit? or unnecessary, and needless in the prescript? Calvin Instit. lib. 3. c. 11. S. 11.13. & 3. or else, as M. Calvin, so shaken that it turns to distrust, and degenerates towards desperation? this latter is a truth, as he explains it; there being left no place for perswasion of justification, if it depend upon con­dition of fulfilling the Law; 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 [Page 113]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 [Page 114]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 4 [...].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 [Page 115]inherit the blessing? I say not much; but sure, Gal. 4.30. if Ishmael may not be heir with the Son of promise no more shall Workres with believers.

The second inconvenience follows to be scanned: The promise by this means, becomes ineffectuall; How, if any demand? Answ. Because, the inheritance promised, shall never by this means be obtained: For hangs it on condition of fulfilling the law? And must those that desire to inherit by legall obedience, obtain salvation? Who then can be saved? Seeing no man is able, by any measure of grace in this life given, to fill up the measure of legall righte­ousness: This, saving the judgment of more Learned. I take to be the ground of the consequence; the rather, for the reasons objoyned.

Hence the inference is fluent; That who so teacheth us to seek salvation by works, frustrates Gods promise, and de­prives us of salvation: Not but that good works are ne­cessary; but as duties, not as merits; for thankfulness, not for righteousness; as the way to the kingdome, not as causes of salvation; the son of the bondwoman, shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman, Gal. 4.30. That is, by Pauls intention, not legall workers, with Evangelicall be­lievers, Gal. 3.9. As many as are of the works of the law, are under the curse; so far is it, that they should have any title to the blessing. Such mischiefs bring pharisaicall Iustitia­ries upon their sectaries.

Hear the Reasons: They bind us, by this means, to a condition, and means of Salvation, impossible not onely to Nature, but to Grace, according to that portion, God is pleased, in this life, to proportion to us; that is, the fulfilling of the whole Law; Gal. 5.3. our Saviour to such a boaster, asking, What he must do to inherit salvation, suits answer to his proud humour; Thou knowest the Commandments; if doing be the means thou seekest to inherit by, Keep the Com­mandments, this do, if thou wilt needs be doing, and thou shalt live; fail in the least apex, the Curse is upon thee, Gal [Page 116]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.

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? Mans, 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; [Page 118]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 t [...] Apostle here intends; whose purpose is, to shew, not s [...] much the necessity of a Law to the being of [Page 119]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 all the posterity of Adam: That mass, let us conceive, to admit this distinction; part of it is meerly naturall, such only as it is derived from Adam; part sanctified, and purged in a measure by the Holy Ghost: For that meerly naturall, it is confessed by adversaries, it is so meerly rebellious against the law, that the more it is restrained, the more it rebells: things prohi­bited therefore the more affected, because prohibited, con­fer, Rom. 7. & 8. The main question is, touching those of Adams posterity, that are by grace renewed; whether in these also the law puts a necessity of transgressing? Now, howsoever we acknowledg, that grace so far prevails against nature, that there is something in every man rege­nerate, so far from fretting against the law, that it findes a kinde of complacentia, and delight in the laws prescripts Rom. 7.22. Yet, 1. Neither are we so wholly purged by grace; but that there still remains in us, part of that carnall wisdome, that is not nor can be subject to the law, Rom. 8.7. There still is a law in the members, rebelling against the law of the minde Rom. 7.23. And, 2. Though it were granted, we are wholly freed from enmity to the law, yet are we not wholly delivered from frailty in obe­dience; in which last respect at least, sinning even in men regenerate, is occasioned by the law inevitably, in respect [Page 120]of the event: Let us yield then, ex abuntdnti, that trans­gression is not in Gods Children caused, ex fremitu; yet (I hope) it is occasioned, ex infirmitate, by frailty: And though Gods Children sin not, out of fury; yet sin they out of impotency: Besides the texts now alledged, com­pare we the perfection of the righteousness, which the law requires, with the perfection of that holiness grace wor­keth; and we shall not chuse but acknowledg, that howsoe­ver out of another principall; yet sin is by the law occasio­ned infallably, in the Children of God so long as they live here, in the spirituall warfare; see Rom. 7.

For clearing of this point, sith thereon turns the whole controversie: It shall not be amiss to handle that contro­versie: Whether the righteousness performed in the law to justification, fall within compass of our power to perform, so long as we live in this world? Or, whether all trans­gression of the law, may be, by any strength of grace here attained, avoided? In this question, the opinions are three. First, That of Pelagians, condemned long since, to the pit of hell: The law they say, is possible to nature; If a man would strive with his naturall abilities to the ut­most, he might perfectly fulfill the law, without any assi­stance of grace supernaturall: And, the only reason, why men fail in legall obedience, is, because they want will: Touching this, though I refer the Reader to what was long ago written pithylie, and truly, by S. Augustine, Hierome, and others: only remember we, what Paul, that had more then nature, professeth of himself; To will is present, but I finde not power to perform, Rom. 7.18. He failed in obe­dience; not for that he wanted will, but because he lack­ed strength: And least any should think it was his perso­nall weakness; he shewes the same impotency to be in all Gods Children, even after regeneration, Gal. 5.17.

S. Augustine, S. August. de peccat. me­rit. & Remiss. lib. 2. cap. 17. ex abundanti, yields to Pelagius, that we may keep the law, si volumus; but the Hypothesis, saith he, is impossible; We cannot (will) to make good the obedi­ence [Page 121]of the law: His reasons are; because impediments unavoidable the will hath alwayes clogging it, in this life; 1. Ignorance. 2. Infirmity: And sometimes our wills are not moved to do what the law prescribes; quia latet quod justum est; sometimes, quia minus delectat: From both these who can say, he is, or can be free, during state of this life?

Second opinion is that of Papists; The Law is possible, yea easie, though not to Nature, yet to Grace: and anatha­ma to him, that shall say, the Commandments of God are impossible to a man, in state of Grace.

The judgement of our Churches stands thus: obedience to the Law is thus distinguished; there is an inchoate obe­dience, standing. 1. In love of the Law. 2. Desire. 3. Pur­pose. 4. Endeavour to obey. 5. Some measure of actuall performance. 6. Grief for imperfections: this is possible to every regenerate child of God.

There is also perfect, and complete obedience, which an­swers exactly to the rigour of the Law, for matter, manner, measure of performance: of this is the question; and hereof teach we, that by no measure of grace here given, it can pos­sibly be attained.

See we therefore the terms. 1. What that obedience is, which the Law requires. 2. What measure of grace it is, that God, in this life, gives to his children.

The justice of the law, in Bernards terms, must thus be qualified. 1. It must be Recta, according to rule, so that all that is prescribed, and onely what is prescribed, must be done. 2. It must be Pura, free from blemish in manner and measure of performance. 3. Firma, steady for conti­nuance, without any the least intermission, and interrupti­on: And this explanation hath ground, Gal. 3.10. Where, the law curseth to hell every man that continues not in all things, written in the book of the law to do them.

In Hieroms term, somewhat unusuall, but significant, the law requires to righteousness, Impeccantiam, that is, Free­dome [Page 122]from all sinne; not onely that, which he calls [...], Enormity, but [...], Infirmity; and that explanation hath ground, Rom. 6.23. because the wages of every sinne, more or less, is death. According to the Apostles explicati­on: The righteousness of the law must be 1. Universall Gal. 3.10. so that no duty, nor branch of duty, in any Commandment, may be omitted; No sinne, nor degree of sin, against any precept, may be incurred. 2. As the law is spirituall, Rom. 7.14. so prescribes it spirituall obedience; not onely binding the outward man to good behaviour; but reaching to the very thoughts, and affections, and ordering them; so that, though it were possible for a man, to omit no outward act of duty enjoyned; to incurre no outward act of sin forbidden; yet evil purposes, desires, yea thoughts of evil approved; yea, if they arise from that inward prin­ciple, Concupiscence, unapproved, disable us from being ju­stified by the Law: For, the tenour thereof runs thus, Love the Lord with all thy soul, with all thy thought, &c. This measure of obedience we teach, S. August. de peccat. merit. & Remiss. l. 2. c. 6. &c. not onely as Augustine that it never yet fell into any man, in this life, nor, in likeli­hood, shall be attained; but that it is impossible, to be reach­ed unto: That that term offend not, know we, that though all things are possible unto God, nothing hard unto Him; yet that infinite, and boundless power of God admits a double limit. 1. His nature; hence said the Apostle, God cannot lie, and, it is impossible, that God should lie, Heb. 6.18. or denie himself, 2 Tim. 2.13. These, and the like defects being so repugnant to his nature, that if they were incident into Him, he might cease to be God. 2. Besides his nature, his will, and ordinance further restrains his pow­er in respect of the executions thereof; whereby it comes to pass, that of many things agreeing well with his nature; yet, supposing his peremptory ordinance, and decree to the contrary; we may say, They are impossible: For example, It was possible for God to have saved his children, by some other means, then the death of his sonne; but supposing his [Page 123]ordinance, determining this; we say, without blasphemy, it is impossible, that any should be saved by any other mean, then the death of Christ, Acts 4.12. So, though we con­fess, it had been possible for the Lord, to have given his chil­dren Grace, fully proportionate to the obedience of the Law; yet considering his Will to the contrary, we say, it is impossible, that by measure of grace here given, to make good perfection of legal justice. That measure Paul thus expresseth; we have primitias, the first-fruits, Rom. 8.23. and arrham spi­ritus, The earnest of the spirit only, 2 Cor. 1.22. A measure of renovation that grows, 2 Cor. 4.16. Corruption still cleaving to the most sanctified, stil there is some of the old man to be put off, Ephes. 4.22. Corruption stil to be mortified, Col. 3.5. In a word, Grace such, as that when we have attained to the greatest measure appointed to this life, and stretched our gracious abilities to the utmost, hath need of mercy to cover imperfections; and pardon, to clear from guilt contracted.

Let us now out of these grounds, assume; And first, out of Bernards Requisites: Can any possibly say, His actions are all so regular, that in none of them, there is want of that recti­tude, required in the law? whose measure of illumination is so great, as to comprehend that depth of righteousness con­tained in the Law? Certainly David, a man of a Propheti­call spirit, prays for pardon of secret sins, Psal. 19.12. and still finds need of further Revelation to know the wonder­ous things of the Law, Psal. 119.18. And Pauls profession is, That we know in part, 1 Cor. 13.12.

But yield a man may know all enjoyned, and do all he knows; can any say, His performances are without blemish? so that no imperfection cleaves to any of his actions? saith Bernard, Nostra, si qua est, humilis justitia; Recta forsitan, sed non Pura; Except, happily we are better then our fa­thers, whose humble confession it was, that all their righte­ousnesses were as filthy clouts, Isa. 64.6. If any say, The Prophets so speaks in humility? Nay, saith Bernard, Non minùs verè, quam humliter; in as much truth, as humility; [Page 124]say Pelagians, He spake as the mouth of the people, and as a member of the Body, wherein those blemishes were: Hear then that great Daniel, S. August. de peccat. merit. & remiss. lib. 2. cap. 10. saith Saint Austine, of whom said the Prophet, Art thou wiser then Daniel? He professeth to confess, as well his own, as the peoples sins, Dan. 9.8.

But suppose our performances may be thus universally re­gular, and free from (blemish); is it, or can it be so (steddy) in any, that it at no time admits interruption? Hear James, In many things we sin all: and Solomon, There lives not the man so just on earth, that doth good, and sinneth not: and our Saviour taught not onely the common rank of his children, but the Apostles also, to pray daily, forgive us our sins: yea, say Papists, but he would be understood of veniall sins; and they, though they be praeter Legem, yet are not contra; Apage! are they sins? then are they breaches of the Law, 1. Joh. 3.4. and so impair that justice which the Law requires to justification: say Pelagians, these Scriptures testifie, De facto onely; not De impossibilitate. Augustine answers; It is a strange possibility, that never yet came into act, no not in those whose measures of grace were greatest. Besides that, the Apostle tells us of an [...]; and by a reason irrefragable, shews not onely that through negli­gence we do not, but that through impotency we cannot do what we would: Gal. 5.17. the Apostles requisite is, that our obedience be spirituall Rom. 7.14. The second Com­mandment forbids, not onely manuall, but mentall images or similitudes of the Diety: We may not so much as think the Godhead like to silver, Acts 17.29. Matth. 5.28. or gold, or any thing that either sense imagines, or reason conceiveth: and our Saviour tells us of adultery, that may be committed in the thought, and desire, though the act of uncleanness follow not.

S. Hierome to this purpose, mentioning that of our Sa­viour, Matth. 15.19. out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, &c. Procedat, saith he, qui in corde suo haec non esse testetur & plenam in corpore isto mortali justitiam confitebor. Let me see the man that can say, he never feels these in his heart: I [Page 125]will then say, there may be complete justice in this state of mortality. And could ever any claim to himself perfect freedom from those inordinate motions of wrath, grief, fear &c. of him that is such, I will say, saith Hierome, Aut Deus est aut saxum: I not so; but sure he is either an Angel, or a glorified Saint.

To these let be added that continuall in-dwelling of ori­ginall corruption in men most sanctified, Rom. 7.23, Gal. 5.17. empty the heart of all reliques thereof, then I will say, Perfection may be attained: yield that sentina cannot be drawn dry, thou must needs yield pollution, and stench in thy best obedience.

Add moreover, the ingenuous confession of the Saints of God, and the recorded examples of frailtie in the strong­est. Augustine hath all in a short summe; Quid excel­lentius in veteri populo sacerdotibus sanctis? & tamen bis praecepit Deus sacrificium primitùs pro suis offerre peccatis: Quid sanctius in Novo populo Apostolis? & tamen praecepit bis Dominus in oratione dicere Demitte nobis debita nostra, &c. The conclusion is this; Omnium igitur piorum sub hoc onere corruptibilis carnis, & in istius vitae infirmitate gemen­tium spes una est, quòd Advocatum habeamus apud Pa­trem, &c.

Thus far we have avowed the truth of this controversie, by grounds of Scriptures, and Fathers. Whereto if any shall object, that Fathers deal against Pelagians onely? I answer that their grounds conclude as well Papists, as Pe­lagians. As to their objections they are the same that of old were made by Pelagians: as, 1. Christ saith of his yoke, it is easie, Matth. 11.30. S. John that his Commandments are not grievous, 1. John 5.3. Answ. Saith Hierome, Poyse but a piece of the yoke, a little portion of the burthen, and then tell me whether it be of so easie carriage: He that takes not up his Crosse, and follows me, is not worthy of me, saith our Saviour, Matth. 10.38. Crux Christi facilis est; nudum post Christum ire, ludus est, jocus est; Christs crosse [Page 126]is easie, to follow Christ stript of all helps of this life, it is a matter of sport, Hieron. advers. Pelag. lib. 2. a very play-game. Thus S. Hierome Iro­nically. His answer is this; It is certain they are called light, not simply; but in comparison to the yoke of the Jews: something he aimed at. Thus we answer, The Command­ments of God must be two wayes considered, 1. As pro­pounded in the rigorous terms of the Law; so the yoke is importable. 2. As tempered to our weakness in the Gospel; so comparatively light; In respect, 1. of the assister, Gods Spirit: 2. of the accepter, that is content to approve en­deavours, Aug. Retract. lib. 1. cap. 19. and to pardon omissions. Augustine, Omnia mandata facta deputantur, quando quicquid non fit, igno­scitur.

Object. Instances we have many of such as have kept the Law, as of Zachary, David, Job, &c. to whom the Scri­pture gives the title of Just men? Answ. Just they are called, because absque vitio; free from notorious crimes; non quia [...], void of all sin, even infirmities, Hierome. 2. Not simply just, but in comparison to others of their times, August. de pecc. mer. & remiss. l. 2. c. 12 Ex hominum, qui sunt in ter­ra, comparatio­ne laudatur. Augustine. 3. Just, in respect of their endeavour: for Zacharies foul incredulity is recorded, and chastened; so is Davids adultery, and murther; and Jobs defects in that grace, wherein he was the greatest mirrour.

Object. May do more then is commanded, as sell his pos­sessions and give them to the poore. Answ. Duties en­joyned are of two sorts: 1. Some generally and perpetu­ally binding. 2. Some duties in casu; as leaving goods, life, &c. for Christs sake: which though, till God call to performance, they are not necessary, to be done, yet stand they in force upon the conscience, by Gods precept, Quod ad praeparationem animi; and in case the Lord call to actuall forsaking of goods, or life; it is so a duty, that the omission thereof makes culpable of damnation, Matth. 10.37.

Object. Impossibilia non ligant: No man is bound to an impossibility; yea, it were not onely vain to propound im­possible precepts, but tyrannicall in God the Lawgiver, to [Page 127]exact obedience. Answ. Man is to be considered, 1. In pure nature. 2. In impure nature. 3. In nature purified. 4. In nature glorified. In nature pure, before the fall, they were possible: In nature glorified, they shall be possible: In nature merely impure, merely impossible: In nature pu­rified, partly possible: In perfection, impossible. Inst. Then they bind not? Answ. It follows not: God made man righteous at the first, Eccles. 7.29. and hath not lost his right of exacting, because we are wilfully disabled to perfor­mance. In a word they are impossible, not per se, but ex accidenti. Inst. However, yet vainly enjoyned? Answ. Nor that, saith Augustine: August. de pec. mer. & remiss. lib. 2. c. 16. In contemptorum damnatione fa­cit Deus quod justum est; in proficientium mundatione, quod bonum est: and the Apostle sets down uses sufficient; as, 1. To acquaint us with sin, Rom. 3.20. 2. To drive us to Christ, Gal. 3.24. in whom God hath provided a remedie for our imperfections. Legatur Bernardus, Ser. 2. in vigil. Nat. Dom. fol. 11. A, Propterea mandata sua.

Object. He that is born of God sins not, 1. Iohn 3.9. Answ. And yet, saith the same Apostle, If we say, we have no sin, there is no truth in us, 1. Ioh. 1.8.10. Bern. serm. 1. in Septuag. Bernard thus interprets, He sins not, that is, non permanet in peccato, he lies not impenitently in his sin. 2. Or thus, tantundem est, ac si non peccet, pro eo (scilicet) quòd non imputatur pecca­tum. 3. Augustine thus; We are all, after regeneration, August. de pecc mer. & remiss. lib. 2. c. 7, & 8. in part the children of the world, though in part also we be the sonnes of God: and though per quod filii Dei sumus, per hoc non possumus peccare; yet, per hoc, quod adhuc filii seculi sumus, per hoc peccare adhuc possumus. Other Expositions there are many; the fittest these: He sins not, nor can sinne, 1. Namely unto death, 1. Joh. 5.18. 2. Not with full or whole consent, Rom. 7.15. Gal. 5.17. 3. Not customari­ly practising known sins; or in the Apostles phrase, not (walking) after the flesh, Rom. 8.1.

The summe of all is this; That in respect of frailtie of flesh, and small measure of grace, in this life given, the righ­teousness [Page 128]of the Law is impossible, the transgression of the law inevitable.

Ʋse Let us now see a little, how we may use this conclusion to our profit: and first, I cannot here but take notice of that pride and arrogancy of our vulgar people; then whom, though none be more licentious in life, yet none that arro­gate to themselves greater purity, or perfection of righte­ousness. And howsoever they scoff at the very endeavour of purity in others, though with never so feeling acknow­ledgement of imperfections; yet, who hath not heard that proud profession from their mouthes; They can love God above all, their neighbour as themselves: To whom if our Saviour should propound like triall, as to him in the Gospel, that made like proud profession; I doubt not, but they should discover as much hypocrisie. Our Saviour lighting on such a braggard, that had from his youth up kept the Commandments, to make him see his pride and hypocrisie, propounds him not as Papists say, A counsell of Perfection, but a precept of triall: Thou professest to love God above all, and thy neighbour as thy self: If that be so, sell all that thou hast and give to the poore; thou shalt have reward in heaven. That precept, to such a measure of love, as was professed, was not harsh. But, He goes away sor­rowing, saith the Text, and thereby bewrayes his proud dis­sembling. Let the triall be far more reasonable unto our people; Leave but profane pastimes, unlawfull profits for his sake you love so well: this speech is as harsh to our proud, dissembling, self-loving people.

To us all, Let me say as Paul, Gal. 4.21. You that will needs be under the law, for justification, do ye not hear the law? you look for righteousness by the law, it causeth transgression; for salvation, it causeth wrath: And is it not strange, men acquainted with Scriptures, should cleave so close to the justification of the Law. I had once to deal with a Papist, in this question, and that of merit: Menti­or, if he professed not; that except he thought, he could [Page 129]merit righteousness and salvation by his works, he would never do any good work: Miserable man! are there not motives strong enough 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 [Page 130]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.

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.

[Page 131] 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.

[Page 132] 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 point at all the dreams, and devices of the enemies of Gods grace, with their cunning shifts, in that no less then Sacrilegious, diverting the more part of the glory of mans salvation, from Gods grace to our selves: Fitter occasion will hereafter offer it self: only I say as Augustine, Augustin. tract. in Ioh. 3. seeing God gives freely, let us love freely: quia gratis dedit, gratis ama; noli ad praemium diligere deum.

The Second point followes; That it may be of grace, it must be of faith: This way of justification, and no other preserves the glory of Gods grace entire: Let us see how, say some, because grace is promised, and given only to the believer; Paraeus ad loc. that is a truth: But the Apostles purpose in this argument, is not to shew the necessity of faith, to the ob­taining of grace; but rather to the maintaining of the glory of Gods grace, in the matter of our righteousness, and sal­vation. Let us enquire therefore, how this means of justi­fication [Page 133]by faith stablisheth grace; and how that other by works, either overthrows, or empairs it: May we say as some of late, because faith is a free gift of God in us? The like may be said of charity: But take faith correlatively, thou shalt see easily, how this means of justification alone, and no other, makes grace glorious: For, if all our title to righteousness, and salvation accrew to us only, for the obedience sake of Christ, apprehended by faith; who sees not how entirely the glory of all, belongs to the grace of God?

But I wonder how Papists, with all their skill, can up­hold the concurrence of works, in procuring our title to righteousness, and salvation; and not overthrow, or clip, at the least, the glory of Gods grace: Perhaps, because our works proceed of grace: but, Dic sodes; are they meerly of grace? or partly, of the power of nature? Their com­mon consent is, that though grace be a principall, yet natu­rall abilities have their partnership in every good work: So much as they ascribe to nature, so much they derogate from the grace of God: See Annotat. ad cap. 3. vers. 27. S. Bern Ser. 67. in Cantic. 28. Deest gratiae quicquid meritis deputas, as S. Bernard.

The Second argument followes; That the promise may be sure, and that to all the seed:] Whether we make this a second argument, or a confirmation of the minor, in the former, is not much materiall: If a new argument, thus is the frame; If the promise must be sure, then must the inhe­ritance be of faith: But the promise must be sure; Ergo. Take it the other way; It is of grace: Why? Because else the promise cannot be sure: I rather conceive it as a second argument, though linked thus artificially with the former.

In it we have also two points.

First, That the promise is sure.

Secondly, That except the inheritance be of faith, the promise cannot be sure.

Sure] Whether in it self, in respect of certain accom­plishment; [Page 130] [...] [Page 131] [...] [Page 132] [...] [Page 133] [...] [Page 134]or to us, in respect of our apprehension, and un­doubtfull perswasion: This later some insist on, and thus give the sense; If the inheritance depend on any thing, ex­cept faith and grace, we can never have any assurance to ob­tain the promise; but must needs be filled with uncomfor­table doubtings, and uncertain waverings: And that is a truth, but not here directly taught; The Apostle speaking of the certainty of the promise rather in it self; then to our apprehension and perswasion; though by Consequence, this follows from the former.

Observ The Point is, That the promise of inheritance is firm, and shall have certain accomplishment: Read for this, Heb. 8.6. where the Apostle compares the two covenants together, and shews that of grace to be preferred, especially in respect of the certainty of it, and of our attainment of the blessings therein conveyed: And, view. 1. The Mediatour Christ, in whose bloud it is ratified, Heb. 10.2. The removall of impediments, by mercifull pardon of sinnes, and imperfecti­ons, Heb. 8.3. The certain donation of graces necessary to attainment, and our confirmation therein; ibidem: the certainty of accomplishment is easily discerned.

The more solid is our Hope, and the more firm should be our faith, and confidence, as the Apostle inferres, Heb. 10.23. So that neither violence of afflictions, nor prevailing of heresies, nor conscience of our own weaknesses and imper­fections, to which pardon is promised, Heb. 8. nor any doubt of perseverance in state of grace, should make us wa­ver: 2 Tim. 2.19. For he is faithfull that hath promised, not onely sal­vation but pardon of sinnes, donation of spirit, perseve­rance, and perfecting the work of grace to the day of the Lord Jesus Christ: It is true, there are duties required of us, to the obtaining of the promises; as faith, and perseve­rance in faith; obedience, and perseverance in obedience; but that God that requires them, hath covenanted to work them, Jer. 31. and, 32.40.

The next point is, The necessity of faith, and the proper­ty [Page 135]it hath peculiar to it self, in making firm, after a sort, the promise: the truth of this point will the better appear, if we shall consider a little the consent, and difference of the two Covenants: Their agreement is this; in both is pro­mised Salvation, and Blessedness; of the Law it is said. That if a man do it, he shall live thereby; as of faith, he that be­lieveth, shall be saved.

Their difference stands. 1. In the condition, the Law re­quiring perfect obedience to be performed in our own per­sons; threatning a curse to every transgression, Gal. 3.10. The other Covenant requiring faith of the Messiah, and sincere endeavour of obedience. A second difference; the Law requires perfect obedience; promiseth neither ability to perform it, nor pardon to any imperfection: The Gospel so requires faith, that it promiseth to work it; so new obe­dience, that withall, the Lord covenanteth to make us walk in his statutes, Ezek. 36. Yea, and to pard on imperfections, Jer. 31. Heb. 8. And besides, delivers all these promises, as ratified unto us, in the bloud of Christ.

These things thus briefly laid together shew, how faith onely makes the promise sure; because, to the believer pro­mise is made. 1. To remove impediments, by pardon, and sanctification. 2. To enable to do, and to persevere in do­ing whatsoever the Lord, in the Covenant of grace, re­quires to salvation: Who can shew like promises made to the Worker? that, not without cause, said the Apostle. It must be of faith, that the promise may be (sure;) it being impossible by the Law to obtain the promises.

The third Argument, from the extent of the promise, both in the making, and accomplishment; It is made, and must be sure to (all) the seed, not onely to that of the Law, but to that also, which is of the faith of Abraham; there­fore, it must be of faith, and not of the Law: The minor hath its proof, in the latter end of the verse, and is also fur­ther confirmed and illustrated, vers. 17. Abraham is the father of all both Jews, and Gentiles, as it is written; [Page 136]Therefore the promise must be sure to all the seed.

Sense That the force of the argument may appear; See we briefly the sense of the words: The whole seed of Abra­ham is here, Paraeus. as some think, described by properties; as I ra­ther think, distributed into kinds: They that think it de­scribed, imagine a trajection of the Article, and thus render; To the whole seed which is not onely of the Law, but also of the faith of Abraham. But against this exposition are these reasons. 1. That by this means the promise shall be here restrained to the Jewish seed onely; inasmuch as they onely are that seed of the Law; whereas the Apostles pur­pose is, to include the seed of the Gentiles, as appears by the confirmation; I have made thee a father of many nations. And, 2. The Emphasis of the argument lying in the uni­versall particle is, by this means, much abated: besides that the Trajection is harsh, and hath no pregnant example in other Scripture, nor warrant from circumstances of the place to approve it.

I rather conceive it, as a distribution of Abrahams seed, brought to illustrate, and explain what the Apostle meant, By the whole seed; as if it had been said, The seed of Abra­ham is of two sorts: One, part of the Law, as the Jews; another, not of the Law, but of the Faith of Abraham, as the Gentiles: To both these must the promise be sure; which cannot be, if the law be made the condition, or mean of in­heirtiance.

What is the ground of the Consequence? this as I think; because the Law was given to the Jews onely, and not to the Gentiles, Rom. 9.4. and 2.14.

The question then here is, Whether the Law were not given to Gentiles, as well as to Jews? Answ. Some here distinguish on this manner: The law of ordinances, and ceremoniall rites was given onely to Jews: that that en­joyns morall duties, to Gentiles also; as who say, the A­postle spake onely of Ceremonies, and not chiefly of the Law morall.

[Page 137] Was not then the Law morall given to the Gentiles? how then binds it us to obedience? Answ. In the morall law, we must consider two things. 1. The substance of doctrines, and prescriptions. 2. The accidents, and cir­cumstances of giving: For the substance of doctrine, it be­longs to all, Jews, and Gentiles, as having at first an impres­sion in mens hearts, Gen. 2. and being by immediate voice of God delivered to Adam: Touching accidents, under which comes the delivery of it written, in two Tables, by the fin­ger of God in Sinai; so, not given to Gentiles, but to Jews onely, no not to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; as Moses am­plifies the Lords love to the people of his time, Deut. 5.3. He made not this Covenant with our fathers but with us; The Negative seems absolute; but is respective onely to the manner of giving.

But howsoever the law was given to the Gentiles whe­ther in writing, or otherwise, the Apostles ground seems infirm? Answ. Supposing the Cavilsome objection of Ju­stitiaries, firm enough: For this very circumstance they ur­ged strangely, in the point of justification: that the law was given in writing to the Jews, with promise of life to the observing thereof; which in their judgement had been vain, except righteousness might be in part by the law? ac­cording to which supposition, the Apostle in this place dis­putes; see Gal. 3.17.

Now, though I love not extravagances, yet let me have leave a little, upon occasion of this question thus assoiled, to note the idle inference of some Antisabbathists: Therefore, say they, The precept of Sabbath binds not the Church of the Gentiles, because the Decalogue was given onely to Jews? Answ. And why inferre they not the like for other Precepts, and so become absolute Antinomi? Object. For­sooth, other precepts are revived, in Scriptures of the new Testament, & their recitall there gives them authority with us? Answ. Belike then, no precept of the Decalogue binds futher, then it is recited in the new Testament: It was [Page 138]wont to be taught, that the whole Decalogue stands in force for ever unto our consciences, in respect of that congruence it hath with the Law eternall, and the impression it once had in our hearts, in Creation some rudera whereof, in all the Commandments, are to be found in very Ethnicks.

But, to their argument. It is fallacious, and, except it be limited, untrue. Take the Decalogue for the (substance) of precepts therein contained, so it is given to Gentiles; respect the (circumstances) and accidents of giving, as the writing in so many letters and syllables, &c. so the peculiar favour of Iews; but so understood it affords no such conclusion. Leave we them, and see what out of this argument we may observe.

Observ That is chiefly this; An answer to a thread bare argu­ment of Justitiaries, ancient and modern, that reason from the reviving of the Law in Sinai, to prove an intention in the Law-giver, to justifie us by the Law, and to give us pow­er to perform it to justification? Answ. If from that ground, we may infer a possibility to be justified by the Law; from the self-same may we prove justification to be peculiar to the nation of the Jews; for theirs onely was the giving of the Law, Rom. 9.4. But the promise belongs to Gentiles, as well as to Jews: Ergò. Whereto then ser­ved the reviving of the Law? Paul answers, Gal. 3.9. It was added because of transgressions; not so much to restrain them by prescriptions and threats, Theoph. ad Gal. 3. as Chrysostome and Hie­rome, and after them Theophylact; Ʋt pro fraenis esset lex il­la Iudaeis, quae hos vel à mandatorum quorundam transgressu, etsi non omnium prohiberet: but rather to detect and disco­ver them, as Augustine centies interprets; agreeably to the Apostle, Rom. 3.20. and 5.20.

Here also occurs that observation before made, ad ver. 11. That the promise of righteousness and salvation belongs to Gentiles believing, and not to Jews onely: because it hath been often fore-treated, I will not long insist on it: onely, sith the Apostle is pleased so often to inculcate it, and here [Page 139]to add new confirmation; it shall not be amiss to explane his proofs, against the foolish limitation and enclosure of Abraehams covenant made by Jews to themselves. The ar­gument of the Apostle is this, because Abraham is father of us all both Gentiles and Iews believing: the covenant and promises therefore belong to the whol seed and generation of believers. Because the antecedent might be doubted, the Apostle first proves the universall paternity of Abraham, and after illustrates it; the proof we have extant, Gen. 17.5. whwere the Lord, to signifie the point in hand, is pleased to alter the name of Abram to Abraham; himself giving the Etymon and signification, Because a father of many nations I have made thee.

How then say Iews, that the Covenant made with A­braham belongs to them onely, and think the fidelity of God must needs fall to the ground; if either they be reject­ed, or Gentiles admitted to be the people of God. Certes, the name of Abraham, considered with the signification pointed at, by the Imposer, might well have taught them; that other nations believing, as well as Iews, might call A­braham father; themselves being, though a populous nation, yet but one nation; whereas Abraham hath promise to be father of many. And of the argument thus farre. Fol­lows now the illustration of Abrahams Universall Pa­ternitie.

THe Fatherhood of Abraham is here illustrated, Cajetan. Beza. Sasbout. as some think by the quality, or manner of it; as I rather, with Chrysostome, and Theophylact, by similitude. Those that [Page 140]follow the first sense, thus render and interpret: Before God that is in the sight of God, or, in Gods esteem: the sense is, Not so much by carnall generation, which hath place with men; as by spiritual cognation, wherein faith combines us, which God principally respects: Chrysostome and Theo­phylact follow the other interpretation; [...] that is, ad instar Dei, or as the word natively signifies, Ex ad­verso Dei, that is, after the example of God: Exemplar enim ex adverso opponimus, saith Sasbout. Sense So that the sense is this; So far hath God honoured Abrahams faith, that in respect thereof, he hath made him like himself, a father, not of this or that nation; but universally of all, amongst all nations, believing after his example.

The scope of which particle is thus conceived by Theophy­lact: The Iews seemed zealous of Abrahams honour and prerogatives, and thought them much impeached, if his works were excluded from his justification, &c. but in the mean time, denying his fatherhood to be the reward of be­lieving, Theoph. ad loc. and respective to faith in his posterity, they impaired much that honour, that God vouchsafed him, in making him like himself, a father of many nations; which honour he could not preserve, if it accrewed from the naturall ne­xus, and tie of bloud, and not rather from the propinquity of faith.

The second point of illustration, is the means, whereby Abraham became father of nations; and that is, by belie­ving: like him whom he believed: take the addition cau­sally, and that faith of Abraham is explicated by the ground of it. The power of God intimated in that description of God, by his powerfull effects, annexed; Which raiseth the dead &c.

Observ The points are these: First, That Abraham by believing, or in respect of faith, became father of the nations, as Theophylact pro praestita fide; for the faith which he shewed, he received this as a reward, to be father of Nations.

The inferences thence are these: First, That the Jewes [Page 141]carnall descent from Abraham, severed from faith, made them not the seed of Abraham; I mean that seed, to which the promises of Abraham belonged: compare Ioh. 8.39, 40. and Rom. 9.7, 8. &c.

The second this; That Gentiles believing, are that seed of Abraham, though they descended not out of his loyns: Know ye, saith the Apostle, That they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham; and again, They which be of faith, are blessed with faithfull Abraham; Gal. 3.7, 9.

That this may the better appear; Let us consider the re­lation, wherein Abraham and the Nations stand: The Relative, is Abraham; The Correlative, the Nations, or his seed. What is here the foundation of the relation between them? Namely faith; that is it, that makes Abraham Father of nations; that it therefore, that makes the nati­ons his children: Abraham by believing, became Father unto the Nations; we therefore by believing, become Chil­dren of Abraham: Where faith hath place, there is place for this relation to Abraham; where that is wanting, the relation ceaseth; for that is in this relation, the fundamen­tum.

So that vainly do unbelieving Jewes, lay claim to Abra­hams Covenant, in respect of the naturall bond of bloud between them: and on the other side; soundly do Gentiles believing, make title to Abrahams Covenant, in respect of the propinquity faith hath founded betwixt them.

Observ The Second point here observable, is the ground of Abrahams faith; that was the power of God, which he considered in the wonderfull effects whereto it extends: And let us note it, as a piller for faith to rest on; the infi­nite, and unresistable power of the promiser: It it well ob­served by Zanchius, that in great prudence, the pen-men of the Apostles creed, prefixed the article of Gods omni­potency, as a staff to support our frail faith, when ever the strange and supernaturall works of God, after mentio­ned, [Page 142]should come into question: It is a point of faith, that God made all things of nothing; consult with nature, she hath this principle, ex nihilo nihil fit; but hold this ground, God is omnipotent, the article is easily credited: It is a point of faith, that the body dissolved into the first prin­ciples shall live again; naturall principles are against it: A privatione ad habitum impossibilis est regressus; but con­sider, that the promisers power can quicken the dead; the point easily admits credence.

Let us (frail creatures) when ever we feel faith wave­ring, as touching Gods promise, cast our eyes to the trans­cendent power of the promiser; able, as Eph. 3.20. Paul speaks, to do exceeding abundantly, above all that we can ask, or think: To particularize a little, for help of the simple: We have a promise, that hell gates, that is, Satans policy, and power, Mat. 16.18. shall not prevail against us, to overthrow our faith; Let a weak man consider his naturall constitution of flesh, and blood, the small measure of faith given him, to­gether with the might of spirituall enemies, principalities, and powers, as Eph. 6.12. How impossible seems perseve­rance to a man exercised with temptations? But if a man would remember the comfort, in like case ministred to the Apostle, 2 Cor. 12.9. From the power of God, perfected in our weakness, herein hath the weakest amongst Gods little ones, cause of confidence, and insulting over the ma­lice of Satan: This wisdome learn we in our weakness.

One Caveat by the way must be remembred: That in reasoning from Gods power to any event, for the stabli­shing of faith, there must be evidence also of Gods (will,) to perform it: It hath been in all ages, an usuall sophisme of Heretiques, to fly from Scriptures to the power of God, for confirmation of their absurdities.

Praxeas, Tertullian, ad­vers. Prax. in Tertullian, maintains this heresie, That God the Father is also the Sonne, and was incarnate: How proves he it? Nihil Deo difficile, nothing is hard to God; and those things that are impossible to men, are possible to [Page 143]God: Therefore it was not hard for God, to make him­self the same person, both Father and Son: To whom Ter­tullian well answers, That this sentence is of undoubted truth, Nothing at all is hard unto God; but yet, if we shall thus abruptly use this sentence, in our presumptuous and ground less conceits we may feign any thing of God, as if he had wrought it, because he had power to work it: Non autem quia omnia potest facere, ideo credendum est illum fe­cisse etiam quod non fecerit sed an fecerit requirendum: God could have furnished man with wings to flie; he hath done it to kites; follows it thence, that he hath done it? yea, or that ever it shall be done? In a word; Dei posse, velle est; & non posse, nolle: Quod autem voluit, & potuit, & osten­dit, &c. Psal. 115.3. Gods power must be considered with his will and significations thereof: what he will do, he can do; what he hath signified he will do, let us build upon it, that it shall be effected; but where we want evidence of his will, we shall but absurdly expect the event, in respect of his power: for he can do more then ever shall come to passe.

With like frand do our Transubstantiatours, and their of spring Ubiquitaries, delude the simple, perswading the reall presence of Christs body; some, in many; some, in all places; by this as one argument, God is omnipotent: Quis hoc nesciat? To vield, that it is possible for God to make reall communication of immensity (part of his incommu­nicable glory) to Christs Humanity; and to grant, that God can uphold a body in its essence, without that essentiall property of a body, Circumscription: What Divinitie teacheth to believe (that) as actually true, which God hath power to effect, where is no evidence of his will, to work it? Abraham rested on Gods power, and therewith sup­ported his faith; but it was for things whereof he had a promise; as after followeth, [...]. And of the generalis thus far. Let us now view the words.

Who quickneth the dead, and calleth things that be not, as though they were] These effects subject to Gods power [Page 144] Abraham considered fittingly for support of his faith, in the particular promised him.

Sense For thesense of the words: Sasbout, Cajetan, & alii. Many Interpreters take them particularly; and thus interpret: Who quickeneth the dead] That is, that gives generative virtue, to men disabled for ge­neration, so putting (as it were) a new life into them. And calleth the things that are not as if they were] That is, that makes eximious, things contemptible: the Gentiles that were no people, a people of God.

I rather think, they are to be taken in their largest sense, according to the immediate purport of the words; though I confess, Abraham from them inferred the particulars of his promise: and thus conceive Abraham to have reasoned, for the establishing of his faith. His first conclusion is this; My body now as dead, in respect of the act of generation, God will quicken, and make vigorous. His argument; God by his power can quicken the dead; therefore, he can give generative vigour to my dead body.

His second Conclusion: The seed promised, though it yet subsist not; yet shall have being. His argument, God by his word makes things to be, that are not: Ergo.

The question here moved by some seems to me imperti­nent: Whether it be Gods property onely to raise the dead? inasmuch as the Apostles purpose here is, not to de­liver these, as effects peculiar to Gods power; but rather to shew, that they are things subject to his power; Which was that, that Abraham considered, for establishment of his faith. In the mean time, I joyn with them in the conclusi­on; That these effects fall not under the compass of any created power: for howsoever we read of some Prophets, and Apostles, that raysed up the dead; yet was not the vir­tue that quickened them inherent in them; they being but instruments, if so much; rather signifiers of Gods will to effect such miracles. In a word, in all miraculous effects, three sorts of causes must be distinguished. 1. The princi­pall efficient, that is, Gods power. 2. The instrument, or [Page 145]mean cause; which sometimes are creatures, and their acti­ons; not so much elevated above their naturall ability; as chosen of God to be attended with his divine virtue. 3. The cause dispositive, which is fides miraculosa. Gregor. Dial. lib. 2. cap. 30. Grego­ry goes far, yet stayes within these bounds; Sancti aliquan­do, ex potestate miracula exhibent, aliquando & postulatione; utrolibet tamen modo. Deus principaliter operatur, &c. saith Thomas. If therefore at any time, this effect be ascribed to Saints, it is to them onely as instruments or means by faith obtaining the miracle to be wrought, by the power of God.

Sive sit Elizaeus, sive ille magnus Elias, mortuorum uti (que) suscitatores, ipsi quidem suo non imperio sed ministerio for is exhibent nobis nova, & insueta; Deus verò in ipsis manens ipse facit opera: Bern. super Cantic. Serm. 13.

Ʋse Let us see to what use the meditation of these mighty ef­fects of Gods power may serve us. God quickneth the dead, and calleth the things that be not, as if they were, that is, by his word gives things being, that erst had no being in nature. When there was no light, he onely said, Let there be light, and there was light; when no firmament, he called for a fir­mament, and there was a firmament. These and the like ef­fects of Gods power Abraham meditated; and thereby as­sured himself of obtaining the promises, that had no help of performance in nature.

As comfortable and great promises God hath made us, as he did to Abraham; as, to raise our bodies out of the dust of the earth, and to make them like to the glorious body of the Lord, his Son Christ, Phil. 3.21. Why should it seem en­credible to any, as Paul speaks, that the Lord should raise the dead? Acts 26.8. He could, at first, build the body in that excellent figure, out of the dust; why not again repair the ruines death hath wrought in it? He quickneth the dead.

He hath promised to Isa. 5 7.15. revive the spirit of the humble, and to bring them up from the gates of hell: Why are our souls so disquieted with our present apprehension of Gods wrath, as if our state were remediless: He quickens the dead.

[Page 146] Promised to work faith knowledge, sanctification in the hearts of all, that conscionably seek them in the means. What now, if we feel nothing but infidelity? Let him but call for faith, by his word he works it in the most incredu­lous: and as he caused the light to shine out of darkness, so can he cause the light of the glorious Gospel of Iesus Christ, to shine in the hearts, that yet sit in darkness, and in the shadow of death.

In these spirituall effects of his power instances we have daily. How many dead in trespasses and sins, hath he quick­ened by his spirit, to newness of life? How many incre­dulous, yea opposites to faith, hath he by his word, brought to the obedience of the faith? His hand is not shortned; it is ever true of him, He can quicken the dead; and still by his word give being to things, that erst had no subsistence. This may serve to direct us, in use of these marvellous effects of Gods power, for stablishing of faith. And of the first member of this Chapter, thus far. The second followeth, from the 18th verse, to the 23.

IN this verse, and the four that follow, the Apostle di­gresseth a little from his principall conclusion, to a com­mendation of Abrahams faith: The scope whereof seems this: To prescribe us a form of Believing, and to direct us a course for the establishing of our faith, required of us to justification; both which we may learn from the example of Abraham, the father, and pattern of Believers.

The specialties commendable in Abrahams faith expressed in this verse, are two. 1. His courage. 2. His prudence in Believing. His courage, in that against hope, he believed in hope.

[Page 147] Sense Against hope, in hope? How reconcile we? Against hope which naturall course could afford; In hope, by medi­tation of Gods power, and truth conceived: He had pro­mise to be father, not of children onely, but of whole nati­ons; the course of nature contradicted it; His body dead, and unfit for generation; with Sarah, besides her wonted barrenness, it ceased to be after the manner of women; so that, in respect of means, naturall causes there were many of despairing, none of hope; yet believed he the promise, in the largest extent, knowing that Gods power transcends nature.

Observ From whose example we learn, in the midst of despair, still to hope, where we have Gods promise for our warrant: Besides Abrahams example, we have like practice in Job; a mirrour not of patience onely, but of faith: Who would rest on him for life, whom he feels wounding, even to Death? Yet, Though he kill me, saith Job, I will trust in him, Job 13.15.

To their practice, let us add the consideration of defects in this kind severely punished; in Moses, Num. 11.13, 20, 21, 22. The incredulous Prince, 2 King. 7.1, 2, 17. Zacha­ry, Luke 1.18, 20, 22.

In a word; In Believing there are four degrees, one more excellent then another. 1. That which is exercised in suf­ficiency of means. 2. Where the means are weak, and im­proportionate to the promise. 3. In the want of means. 4. Where are means strongly opposing the accomplishment of the promise; this the highest degree of faith, so com­mendable in Abraham.

Ʋse Brethren, we all profess our selves the sonnes and daugh­ters of Abraham, Gal. 3.29. His children we are, if we walk in the steps of his faith, Iohn 8.39. and labour therein to resemble: Let us be exhorted, not onely in believing, but in the very measure of faith, to hold correspondence; above hope, yea, against hope, to believe in hope; above sense, yea against sense, to believe what the Lord hath promised.

[Page 148] There fall out times with Gods children, when if we shall make sense, or naturall causes the measure of faith; a thousand to one, but we are swallowed up of despair: The Lord sometimes writes bitter things against us, and makes us possess the sinnes of our youth; seems to surcharge Con­science with imputation of those sinnes, the pardon whereof he commands us to believe: What shall a poor soul do, in this case, to keep it self to the task of faith? Surely, what thou feelest God to impute, believe he will pardon to thy repentance, for so runs the promise.

There are times, when we may feel decayes of grace, and declinings in obedience; yet, sith it is his promise to give perseverence, without interruption, believe thou shalt stand, even while thou thinkest, thou art falling, &c.

Helps to stablish faith, in this kind, are these. 1. To rest on the naked promise of God. 2. Consideration of the transcendency of Gods power, able to work without, above, yea against nature, Ephes. 3.20. to do (as * Paul speaks) exceeding abundantly above all that we can ask or think. 3. Obser­vation of the Lords dealing with others, or our selves, ac­complishing his promises, beyond all expectation.

The second commendable specialty in Abrahams faith here mentioned, is his prudence in believing: according to that which was spoken.

Observ Whence learn we, That the rule, and measure of a wise mans faith, is the word of God; so that, all the Lord speaks, must be believed; onely what he speaks, must be believed: And in this generall, we, and Papists accord: The rule, and object of Christian faith, is Veritas prima; and the adaequa­tum objectum of faith, is the Word of God: But that word, say they, is of two sorts: Scriptum, & Traditum; Written and Traditionary: Both these together make us a perfect rule of faith; Scripture without Tradition, is regula, but partialis. Bellarm. de verb. Dei non scripto lib. 4. cap. 12.

That which is taught for Gods truth, in our Church, is this; That the Scripture contains doctrine, and direction [Page 149]all-sufficient for faith and practice, necessary to salvation; so that there is no more to be believed, or done, upon pain of damnation, then what is contained in the written word of God: For explanation; the contents of Scripture we conceive to be not only what is here immediately, and in express terms taught; but all whatsoever may thence be diduced, by just and necessary consequence; out of gene­ralls, causes, equalls, &c. Our arguments are these; 2 Tim. 3.14.15. The Scriptures, saith Paul to Timothy, are able to make thee wise to salvation; to make the man of God perfect, throughly furnished unto every good work: Af­ford they us wisdome sufficient to salvation? Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 11. ubi supra. therefore they contain doctrine sufficient for faith, and practice: And that there may be no place for that idle evasion of our adversaries; limitting the sufficiency of written doctrine, to what is necessary for Laiques: Both Timothy was a Bi­shop, and him they they were able to make wise to salvati­on; and generally, saith the Apostle, they completely fur­nish the man of God, that is, the Minister, to every good work of his calling.

Our Second argument is this; The written rule of practice, we are sure is perfect; both for that the Lord gives so strait charge, to add nothing thereto, Deut. 4.2. Prov. 30.6. Rev. 22.18. and because there cannot the du­ty be named, which the Law of God prescribeth not; nor the sin thought of, which it forbids not: May we think to evade this testimony, with that Nicety of Bellarmine; add not by depraving the sense; nay, as appears by the Lords own often reproof of doctrins of men, in matter of his worship, Isai. 29.13. and his heavy judgments on those that altered but circumstances of his prescripts, Levit. 10. additions, as well by new prescripts, as by false glosses, are here forbidden.

May we think, the rule of faith is left more at randome, and uncertain: How then doth Paul so resolutely de­nounce Anathema to him, that shall teach any other thing, [Page 150]then what they taught, and the people received, Gal. 1.8. Perhaps, they will say, under their doctrine of faith comes chiefly, what they delivered in Preaching, by word of mouth. Irenaeus, ad­vers. Haeres. lib. 3. cap. 1. Answ. Hear Iraenaeus: Evangelium quidem tunc praeconiaverunt, postea vero per dei voluntatem in in scripturis nobis tradiderunt fundamentum, & columnam fidei nostrae futurum: yea, and for their own rule of prea­ching, it is Pauls protestation; It was no other, then the Scriptures of Moses, and the Prophet, Act. 26.22.

Lastly, If there be, and have been ever so necessary use of tradition, to direct us in matter of faith, and practice; I wonder much, that our Saviour, and his Apostles, never in any point of faith, aledg tradition, but Scripture for evidence: It is written in the Prophets, Psalmes, Moses, &c. I finde often: It is come to us, by tradition from El­ders; I finde never for allegation of Christ, or his Apostles.

To these Reasons, Let us add the consent of some Anci­ents: Tertullian. ad­vers. Hermo­gen. Tertullian; Adoro scripturae plenitudinem, quae mihi & factorem manifestat, & facta: In Evangelio vero am­plius & Ministrum, at (que) arbitrum, rectoris invenio sermo­nem: An autem de aliquâ subjacenti materiâ facta sint omnia, nusquam adhuc legi: Scriptum esse doceat Hermo­genis officina; si non est scriptum, timeat vae illud adjicien­tibus, aut detrahentibus destinatum.

Augustinus; Austust. de Doctr. Christia. lib. 2. cap. 9. Contra litem. Petilian lib. 3. cap. 6. In his quae aperte in scripturis posita sunt, inveniuntur illa omnia, quae continent fidem, mores (que) vi­vendi.

Idem, sive de Christo, sive de ejus Ecclesia, sive de qua­cunque aliare, quae pertinet ad fidem, vitam (que) nostram, non dicam, si nos, nequaquam comparandi ei, qui dixit, licet si nos; sed omnio quod secutus adjecet, Si Angelus de caelo vobis annuncianerit, paeterquam quod in scripturis legalibus, & Evangelicis accepistis, Anathema sit: Heaps of such like testimonies of Fathers, are every were occurrent amongst our Divines.

[Page 151] It were strange, that in their own School, this doctrine should be taught, yet Scotus, and those that follow him, Scotus, & Nic. prolegom. in sent. q. 2. maintain this position: That cognitio supernaturalis, ne­cessaria viatori, tradita est sufficienter in sacra Scriptura; Their Reasons; Sacra scriptura tradit, quid sit finis homi­nis, puta visio, & fruitio dei; & determinat quae sunt ne­cessaria ad illum finem consequendum, scil. Mandata: decla­rat etiam proprietates substantiarum separatarum, quan­tum est utile viatori nosse. Igitur.

Dico illa omnia scripta esse ab Apostolis, quae sunt omnibus necessaria. Bellarm. de verbo dei non scripto, lib. 4. cap. 11.

Some chiefe of their arguments shall be propounded: If Scriptures be sufficient, either the whole Canon of Scriptures joyntly taken, or the severall parts: but neither the whole, because some parts are lost; nor the severall books. Ergo. Answers are given to the minor; that both the whole is sufficient, and perfect, according to perfecti­on requisite for the whole; and the parts also perfect, ac­cording to perfection of parts: That some parts of the Canon are lost they are not able to prove; their instan­ces being all, either of writings not canonicall, as some of Solomons Songs, and Proverbs; or else parts of Scripture extant, though not under the names of those, to whom they are assigned; as those ascribed to Nathan, Ahia, & Iddo: For fuller answer, Let us consider that the questi­on is, touching Scriptures now extant: Whether the Scrip­tures we have, be a sufficient rule of faith and practice?

How impertinent is it, to tell us that part of the anci­ent Canon is lost; which though it were yielded, impea­cheth nothing of the truth of what we hold, concerning full perfection of Scripture now extant, for the Church that now is, and shall be to the end of the world.

Our conclusion is this; Since the days of Moses, there never was wanting to the Church, a written Canon com­pletely sufficient for the times of the Church; sometimes [Page 152]it was more narrow; sometimes more large: ever perfect, secundum tempus, as Lumbard distinguisheth; never de­fective in any necessary point of faith, or practice.

Their Second argument, is from induction of particulars, necessary to be believed, or done, which yet are not contai­ned in Scriptures; as that there are some books of Divine inspiration; that these now bearing that credit are they, that they have such Authors, as they pretend, &c. None whereof are taught in Scripture: Answ. For this last, of the certainty of Penmen, whose names they carry, this that we answer: First, That many of them give testimo­ny to their Authors. Secondly, That the ignorance of the Penmen, impeacheth nothing of the fulness of necessary knowledg: It sufficeth, that we know, they have God for their Author, though his secretary, or scribe be to us un­known.

As for their other particulars; That we know not the Scriptures to have proceeded from God, Scotus, in Prolegom. ad Magistum. but only by tra­dition: Hear their own Scotus, and his followers, convin­cing all that question of the Heavenly Author of them, or any part of them, by Scriptures themselves: His argu­ments these. 1. Propheticall prenunciations all verified by events. 2. Perfect concord, and consent of scriptures. 3. Credit, and candor of the penmen. 4, The reasona­bleness of the things therein contained. 5. The unreason­ableness of errours, and heresies in things, wherein they oppose the doctrins of scripture. 6. The stableness of the Church, professing doctrine of Scriptures, and punishments of those opposing it. 7. Clarity of miracles, &c. These and the like hath Scotus, as arguments, in his judgment, sufficient to stop the mouthes of any Atheist, or Heretique, that shall question their inspiration from God.

And I will boldly say, The Scriptures carry as express characters of a divine author; as the creatures, of the power, or wisdome of the Creator: The Doctrine so holy, so majesticall, so divinely powerfull to humble, to comfort, [Page 153]to convert the soul, that it is as absurdly questioned, whe­ther God be the inspirer of Scripture, as he is the maker of Heaven, and Earth: There is no creature so high, or low, but carries this inscription, Deus me fecit; No Scripture, nor sentence of it, wherein a man, not blind, may not read this Title, Deus me inspiravit.

It is vain to object, that sundry have questioned this prin­ciple; For so have many done Gods Creation of the world: such quaere's arise out mens blindness to which, the clearest things are questionable.

For other particulars, they are either expressely, or by implication, taught in the Scripture, if necessary; or else, are such points of faith, or practice, as in the conclusion are in­quireable; For that of infants Baptism, Scripture prescribes in Generalls Principles equivalent; For that of the blessed Maries perpetuall Virginitie, post partum; a point that we piously believe, according to some probabilities of Scripture; No matter of such weight, as that the doubting, or deniall thereof should shut us up under condemnation.

To leave these men, to their vain faith, and conversation, taught by their fathers traditions, from which Christ with his bloud hath ransomed us, 1 Pet. 1.18. Let us in matter of faith learn Abrahams prudence, believe according to that we know the Lord hath spoken: And this rule let us remem­ber; it is partiall infidelity to deny credence to any thing delivered in Scriptures; Fancy, not Faith, to believe as Gods truth, what he hath not in Scriptures revealed un­to us.

And here, I cannot but take notice of the folly of many amongst us, Wise, it may be, in their generation, wiser in their own conceit; Their profession is this, in the point of believing; They had rather believe too much, then too little: and, in that sottish resolution, how many gross errours drink they in, almost to the bane of their souls? It cals to mind that fable should I call it, or story rather; of a woman in the dayes of Popish darkness, accused to her Confessour, for [Page 154]denying Christs carnall presence in the Sacrament; that be­ing charged by the Priest with that point of heresie, made answer for her self, That she never made question of any such matter: And believest thou indeed, saith her Confes­sour, that Christ is there present, Flesh, Bloud and Bone, as he was born of the Virgine? Not He onely, saith the woman but his blessed Mother also: O woman, replies this Seraphicall Doctour, great is thy faith: or rather, O man, great is thy impious folly to approve as points of faith, such sottish dreams: a just parallel for our men so superfluous, and supererogatory in matter of believing.

But now proceed we in the Text.

THe next commendable property of Abrahams faith, is the strength of it; set out in an Antithesis, and heap of words; Not weak, but strong, and fully assured. 2. By removing certain effects of weak faith from Abraham; as, 1. Consideration, and looking down upon things that op­posed the promise, and might hinder faith. 2. Doubting, or debating of the promise. 3. By the means supporting, and strengthening faith; the truth, and power of the pro­miser: This is the sum; these the particulars, of this passage.

Sense For sense of the words; Sundry questions offer them­selves to be discussed.

First, was Abrahams faith so perfect, that in it was no weakness, no doubtfulness at all?

[Page 155] Answ. So Origen; so Papists often, in question, touching perfection of righteousness: The truth is, great things are here given to Abraham, in this point of believing. Now, whether this strength of faith should be conceived compa­ratively; or limited to the particular Article now in hand, may be some question. This once is evident in the story of Abraham; that however firm his faith was, touching this particular, at some time; yet in other things, Cajetan. ad loc. he bewrayed some incredulity: and at other times, as Cajetane conjectures, was not without some doubtfulness of this promise. Now, what, when it is yielded, Abrahams faith was, at sometime, perfect, in respect of this particular promised? The Law to justification requires an universall perfection of all virtues as well as of faith; and in faith, perfection not onely in re­spect of some particulars; but of all truths revealed; and that, not at sometimes onely, but perpetually, without in­terruption, Gal. 3.10.

A second quaere: How saith Paul, Abraham considered not his body dead, &c. When as Moses bringeth him laugh­ing at the promise, Gen. 17.17. and enquiring, as it should seem, of the likelihood of it; Shall a child be born to him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah that is ninty years old, bear?

Answ. Cajetane answers, That the quaeres of Abraham recorded by Moses, were made, whiles yet the Revelation was not so clear unto him; and issued, not so much from doubtfulness of the thing, as from desire to be informed, whether the words bear the sense, that their sound pur­ported; Pauls speech is to be referred to the time, when the Revelation was complete, and the sense thereof distinctly un­derstood; conferre, Gen. 17.17, 18.

What if we say, Pauls meaning is this? He considered not these impediments, out of doubtfulness of the promise; but as admiring the power, and great grace of the Promiser, intending him a favour, that must be accomplished, against the course of nature: saith Augustine, Riserat pater quando [Page 156]ei promissus est, Augustin. de Civ. dei lib. 16. cap. 31. & super Gen. qu. 36. admirans in gaudio; riserat & mater, quan­do iterum promissus est, dubitans in gaudio. The same Au­gustine, to like purpose, enquires, Why the Lord reproves Sarahs, and not Abrahams laughter? and thus answers; Quia illius risus admirationis, & laetitiae fuit; Sarae autem dubitationis: So much force is there in the (grounds) of our actions, to determine them, either to good, or evil.

The third quaere; How saith Paul of Abrahams body, it was dead, that is, destitute of generative vigour; when as so many years after, he had many children by Keturah, Gen. 25.1, August. qu. 35. super Gen. & de Civ. Dei, lib. 16. c. 28. & contra Iulian. Pelag. l. 3. c. 11 2. his second wife after Sarahs death? Answ. Au­gustine in many places propounds this doubt, and assoyls it: The summe of his solution is this, First, that it was dead in respect of Sarahs body decayed by age; not so in respect of a younger woman, alledging to that purpose the judge­ment of Physicians. Emortuum corpus non ita intelligen­dum est, ac si omnino nullam vim generandi habere posset, si mulier juvenilis aetatis esset; sed secundum hoc emortuum, ut etiam de provectioris aetatis muliere non posset. His second answer this: That Abrahams bodie was dead, until such time as the Lord was pleased to put new vigour into it; as he did for the begetting of Isaac; and that the same gift of generation continued, after the death of Sarah, for beget­ting of other children of Keturah: we have both in summe; Abrahams body was dead through age, ut ex illius aetatis foeminâ gignere non valeret, qui tamen & ipse de adolescen­tula valeret, sicut postea de Cethura valuit; quamvìs & il­lic dici possit, foecunditatis munus in eodem perseverâsse, quod acceperat ut nasceretur Isaac.

Observ The difficulties thus rid, let us now see what we may ob­serve for our further profit. Where first offers it self that distinction of faith, according to the divers degrees, and measures thereof in believers: There is weak faith, and strong faith, there are men of no faith, as infidels; men of weak faith as novices; men strong in faith as was Abraham, Matt. 14.31. O thou of little faith, saith Christ to Peter: Matth. [Page 157]15.28. O woman, great is thy faith, saith our Saviour to the Canaanitish woman: Christ found not so great faith in Israel, as in the Centurion; some in Israel, not so great as in an alien.

The greatness or smalness of faith, is three wayes consi­dered: 1. In respect of the things to be believed; so, it is more or less, according as things believed are more or lesse in number. 2. According as things believed are more or less distinctly conceived; the more implicite faith is, the less it is; the more explicite, the greater. 3. According as the assent to things believed, is more or less firm; more or less free from doubting: and in this last sense we must conceive the Apostle; Abraham strong in faith, because he doubts not of the promise.

Questions here offering themselves are these: First, whe­ther weak faith have in it justifying virtue? or, Whether a man weakly believing, have title to justification, according to the Covenant? Answ. Weak faith, if true, gives title to justification: our Saviour speaking of faith miraculous, saith; The least degree of it, even the grain of mustard seed, Luke 17.6. is available to miracles, even of greatest nature; it holds pro­portionally of faith justifying, to the uses whereto it serves; the least measure is of force to justification. 2. Add here­unto, that it is not the greatness of faith that justifieth: Faith as it is a virtue, or gift in us hath not justifying virtue; but as it apprehends the righteousness of Christ, whereby we are justified; which apprehension may be as true in him, that believes weakly, as in him, whose faith is more firm. 3. It is not to be forgotten, that as the defects of other gifts, and parts of obedience are covered with Christs perfection, so that they hinder not justification; so is also the imperfe­ction of faith.

Secondly, it may be demanded; How we may discern our faith to be true, while it is weak? Answ. It is true, if 1. It strive against doubting, and infidelitie. 2. If it be carefull to get strength by means that God hath sanctified, [Page 168] Luc. 17.5. Mar. 9.24. 3. If that weak perswasion we have of Gods love, and pardon of our sins, breed care to purifie our hearts, and to please God, Act. 15.9,

The next point in the text is, the signes of strength in A­brahams faith, two in number: First this, That he consi­dered not the opposition in course of nature made against the promise. 2. That he doubted not of the promise, nor de­bated the matter, how it could have accomplishment. For the first, Whether we consider it as a signe, or as a means of Abrahams firmness in believing, is not much materiall. It is no small signe of stable faith, to passe by notice of things that oppose Gods promise; and a great means to stablish faith, the withdrawing of our minds from beholding the things, that may hinder the accomplishment of Gods pro­mise. This once is clear, that the first step to incredulity, is the loosing of our thoughts, to rove towards things oppo­sing Gods promise; and demitting our minds to behold the impediments of second causes: Thus fell Zachary incredu­lously to question the promise of God, whiles he considered his own. and his wifes old age, disabled (as he thought) for procreation, Luc. 1.18. Thus Sarah in like sort, Gen. 18.12. thus Moses, Num. 11.21. Thus Gods children, at this day; Their sins great, therefore not capable of pardon: Corruptions strong and settled by evil custome, therefore not possible to be mortified: Grace small, temptations ma­ny and violent; therefore perseverance impossible.

Ʋse It is our wisdome, and will be our comfort, in this par­ticular, to hold semblance with Abraham; where we have Gods promise, seem it never so incredible, rest in it; and that thou mayest so do, beware how thou give way to flesh and bloud, drawing down thy thoughts to the course of nature. To many, yea most, of the promises made to us in Christ, gainsaying we shall find in nature; reasons of be­lieving, onely in the power, truth, and goodness of God; and in the merit and obedience of Christ, the ratifier of the promises 2. Cor. 1.20.

[Page 169] The second signe of Abrahams strength in faith is, That he doubted not of the promise; where also the generall cause of doubting is expressed, that is, unbelief. Touching the sense see the former explanation.

The points we have here observable: 1. A difference be­twixt faithlesness and doubtfulness; such as is betwixt the Cause and the Effect: Not every one that doubts, is faith­less, though doubting argue some measure of unbelief: A man merely faithless denies all assent to truth propounded; in doubtfulness is some assent, though not without fear, that the contrary may be true.

I observe it the rather, respecting the weakness of some amongst Gods Children, that perplexed with doubtings pass censure of meer faithlesness upon themselves: Saith our Saviour to Peter doubting, Mat. 14.31. oh thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt? Doubtings argues weakness of faith, not a nullity of believing.

A Second point observable is the fountain of doubtful­ness, and that is unbelief; doubting is a fruit of unbelief; so far as we are doubtfull, so far are we faithless: from faith proceeds nothing but certainty; wavering therefore issues from want of faith.

If any demand, whether such as doubt may be presumed to have faith? Answ. Doubtfulness, though it agree not to the nature of faith, yet may meet with faith in the same subject. Why not, as well as other corruption with grace? Flesh with spirit, knowledg with ignorance, rebellion with obedience hard-heartedness, with remorsefulness, &c. So hath God tempted all gifts of the spirit in us, that their contraries are abated, not abolished: Whence issue in Gods Children acts not of grace only, but of corruption also; yea, in the same act of Gods Saints, a spice of cor­ruption, as well as a rellish of grace, see Rom. 7.23. Gal. 5.17. And, as the argument is ill, there is (some) rebellion, therefore (no) inclination to obedience; some corruption, therefore no grace: so as ill followes it; there is some [Page 160]doubtfulnes, therefore no faith: But, though this be true, yet doubtfulness hath no other fountain, then unbelief.

And it serves, first, to shew the vain contentment, and self-pleasing, many through misprision, conceive from their doubtings; even hence concluding the sincerity of faith, from the sense of doubtings.

Their errour I would gladly reform, and it springs from hence: We say, truly it is presumption, not faith, that's never encountred with doubtings; and they have no faith at all, that never had conflict with infidelity: though this be true, yet in doubtfulness simply none hath comfort be­cause it is a fruit of infidelity. The sense of unbelief is occasionally comfortably; and striving against doubting; is a sign of faith; in this thou hast no comfort, that thou doubtest; but this is the comfort, that thou seest thine un­belief, bewailest it, and strivest against it, Mar. 9.24.

Secondly, It serves to admonish us, to strive against doubtings, and to pray with the Disciples, Lord help our unbelief, Luk. 17.6. The root is bitter, out of which it grows; the vice, most dishonourable to God, most discom­fortable to our selves, unbelief. 2. This banes our prayers, and makes them return empty from our God, Iam. 1.7.3. Breeds wavering in Christian profession, and practice. vers. 8.4. In a word, makes all duties flow coldly from us, whilest we question Gods power, or will, to reward them. 5. Dishonours the promiser, by questioning his ability, or readiness to perform what he hath promised: And, that is it, which in the contrary comes next to be treated.

From the signs of strength in Abrahams faith; the Apostle passeth to the effect thereof, He gave glory to God, by such his believing.

Giving glory to God] We may not so conceive, as if any reall access of glory came to God, by Abrahams belie­ving; he is for gloriousness [...]; and no reall addition, or diminution comes to his glory from the creatures of him­self, [Page 161]and in himself he hath all perfection of glory; before the worlds were; his wisdome and power, the truth were in him, in the same infinite measure, as now by his works he procures not glory; but either manifests, or communicates it to his Creatures: But we are said to give him glory, in way, either of acknowledgement, or publication: so Abra­ham, by believing, gave glory to God, inasmuch as thereby he acknowledged the power, and truth of the Promiser.

The point to be observed, is; How glorious a thing it is to God, firmly to believe, and rest upon his word: I know not, whether by any one Duty, God reap more honour, then from this of believing; His power, his truth, his good­ness, his mercy. Attributes that the Lord counts most glori­rious to himself, and desires ratherest to be acknowledged amongst men, by believing we acknowledge: Yea, if there be any other office, and duty, whereby Gods glory is pub­lished, and occasionally acknowledged by others, from faith it issues; Profession, Patience, Love, Mercy, or if there be any other virtue, by exercise whereof men are excited to glorifie God; From Faith they all flow, as from their foun­tain: And I marvell not at the Lords so sore indignation against Moses his friend, for not sanctifying him, by be­lieving; read Deut. 32.51. Num. 20.12. and, 27.14. and, 11.21, 22, 23. a greater dishonour he could scarcely have done to the majesty of God: Faith thinks highly of God, Incredulity abaseth him.

By this we may take occasion to judge of that doctrine of Doubting so much commended by adversaries to Gods people, as more honourable unto God, then is ours of assu­rance: That we may not seem to wrong them, let us un­derstand, that Generall faith they allow to be undoubtfull; Faith speciall they make the Lutherans dream, having no ground at all in the word of God: their meaning is, that what is in generall taught, touching the power, and truth of God, in fulfilling his promises, must and may be believed with undoubtfull faith; For our particular, to believe, that [Page 162]to (us) he will give Remission of sinnes, perseverance, and life eternall; they teach the performance to be to the ordi­nary rate of Gods children, impossible, and groundless; the attempt arrogant and presumptuous: Hope it we may out of a probable conjecture; believe it we may not, as out of infallible evidence: Hence are those often commendations given to a course holden betwixt doubtfull Hope, and sla­vish, Fear, in our passage towards Gods kingdome. Where, First, I demand.; Whether there may not, or ought to be speciall Faith of Gods Power? my meaning is, whether a man be not bound to believe, that God can pardon his per­sonall sinnes, and give him life eternall? and whether the doubting thereof, in respect of our Persons, be not censura­ble of unbelief? It is truly said, Cain sinned more, by de­spairing of Gods mercy, and denying his power to forgive his sinne, then in embruing his hands in his brothers bloud, speciall Faith then there may, and ought to be touching Gods power to perform his promise. Let us see, whether like faith ought not to be concerning Gods truth, and Will to perform it. 1. Commandment is given to pray for par­don of our own sinnes, to pray for perseverance, and life eternall; and a requisite condition in available prayer, to believe, not onely that God can, but that he will give what we pray for; see Mark 11.23. Matth. 21.21. Jam. 1.6, 7. How then is it a point of arrogancy, to endeavour speciall faith? 2. Besides this, What dishonour is this to the spirit of God, not to believe his testimony given in our hearts, Rom. Bern. de An­nunciat. Ser. 1. Augustin. Mannal. c. 24. 8.16. shall we say, It is of Generalls onely? Hear Bernard; Si credis peccata tua non posse deleri, nisi ab eo cui soli peccâsti, hene facis: sed adde adhuc, ut & hoc credas, quia per ipsum (tibi) peccata donantur; hoc est Testimonium quod perhibet in corde nostro Spiritus Sanctus, dicens; Dimissa sunt tibi peccata tua: More I add not, upon this occasion; onely I say, If to rest on Gods word be a thing so Honou­rable to the Promiser; to doubt of his promise, is to dero­gate from his glory: whether the doubt be of his Power, [Page 163]or of his Will; of the Generall, or for our own Particular.

Let all Gods children, to whom God hath given repen­tance, take notice of their doubtings, as things dishonou­rable to God, and derogatory from the glory of his power, and truth, and mercy: What, when God proclaimeth par­don even to bloudy sinnes repented. Isa. 1.18. shall we question, whether in mercy he can or will forgive the sins we have forsaken? when he hath ratified all his promises in the bloud of his Sonne, 2 Cor. 1.20. shall we question, whether he mean sooth, in promising his children pardon, protection, perseverance, or life eternal? God forbid! I say not, we can at all times, free our selves of doubtings: onely I advise to take notice of them, as of sinnes, not of lightest nature; detracting so much from the glory of the power, or truth, or goodness of the promiser. It follows now in the Text.

And being fully assured, or perswaded] The strength of Abrahams faith the Apostle hath before declared, by remo­ving from him the effects, and signes of weakness in belie­ving; the same he here shews positively, setting down the property, and nature of faith in her strength, and ascribing it to Abraham.

In the words are two things. 1. The measure of Abra­hams perswasion; He 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, [Page 164]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.

Ʋse 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 quàm 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.

THe fruit of Abrahams faith is here expressed that is his justification: The depravations of this Scripture by [Page 165]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 [Page 166]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 [Page 167]virtue of the premisses; The conclusion was particular, I shall have a seed, in whom all nations, and my self also shall be blessed. The premisses these; God that hath promised is faithfull and able to give it. In respect of the premisses, his faith is generall: In respect of the conclusion, particular, as we see.

In like sort, we conceive the faith of every justified man to proceed; from generalls to their own particular, and to the particular, by virtue of the generals: Assent they yield to generals, but with reference still to particulars. For ex­ample; That which for comfort of conscience cast down by the Law, they believe, is this particular conclusion; My sins are, or shall be forgiven me: How come they to believe this particular? Answ. By belief of generals: The sins of all that believe in Christ, are for Christs sake forgiven accor­ding to Gods promises in the Evangelical Covenant; there­fore my sins are forgiven me, since I have received by grace to rest on Christ, for the pardon of my sins: so is faith justi­fying, Generall in respect of the premisses, Particular in re­spect of the conclusion.

Their third deduction: Faith concurrs to justification, not as an instrument, but as the formal cause of our righte­ousness; For, Abrahams faith was imputed justice, &c. Bellarm. de justif. l. 1. c. 2. Ipsa fides censetur esse justitia? Answ. Whether whole justice or justice in part? They answer, justice in part; for, it is only Initium justitiae, according to their conceit: The sense then must be this, absurdly: Faith is coun­ted justice, that is, the beginning of justice: And Abra­hams faith must be his justice, in part only; whereas the Apostle ascribes to Abraham whole justification in respect of his faith; or else, forgets the state of the question. For this Scripture, the sense is this; Sense Abrahams faith was impu­ted to righteousness, that is, set on his score, or taken no­tice of so far, that the Lord in respect of it, allowed him the esteem of righteousness; See supra, ad vers. 3, 4, 5.

The substance of Doctrine conceived in this verse, hath been already handled, ad vers. 3.

[Page 168] Pass we from it therefore, to the third member of the Chapter; the applying of all that hath been said, of Abra­hams justification to us.

THe passage to this last member, we may thus conceive: The Apostle supposeth some weakling thus to enquire: It is true, Theophylact. ad loc. quid nostra interest. thou hast taught of Abraham that his faith was to him imputed to righteousness; But what is that to us? Answ. It was not written for him only, as matter of his glory, and priviledg; but for us also, for our profit, and comfort.

The points of the text are three.

First, The use and comfort arising to us, from the re­cords of Abrahams justification.

Secondly, The condition required of us, to the end we may share with Abraham, in the blessing of justifica­tion.

Thirdly, The Reason brought to assure us of like favour, in like faith, &c. for better confirming the comfort unto us.

It was not written for him only, &c. but for us also. Where first observe we, The method of conversing in the histories of the Saints; let it still be with reference to our selves, and our use, They were written for us; see Rom. 15.4. Heb. 11. and 12. Their favours, for our comfort; their chastisements, for our terrour; their vertues, to our patterns; their falls, for our caution.

[Page 169] And it is idle to conceit them, as encomiasticall narra­tions of their glory only; Gods Spirit intended their re­cords to our benefit.

A Second generall here observable, is, That Gods mer­cifull proceedings with his children are exemplary; he justi­fied Abraham believing, he shall justifie us also, performing like faith: He pardoneth Paul repenting his blasphemies, and made him a pattern to all that shall believe in him, to eternall life, 1 Tim. 1.16. He saved Noah from the deluge; delivered Lot from the fire of Sodome: Peters inference, from these particulars, is this generall; God knows to deli­ver his, out of temptation, 2 Pet. 2.9.

It is therefore a discomfortable misprision of Gods Chil­dren in temptations, to conceive Gods favour, as the pri­viledges of some eminent amongst his Saints, and their great weakness, to study differences, betwixt themselves, and others, in points of necessary comforts: For, to yield that there were, that had their speciall prerogatives in some particulars; as Prophets to be taught by dreams, and visi­ons, and immediate inspirations, &c. Yet in matter gene­rally necessary for comfort of conscience, and eternall sal­vation, what was vouchsafed one, may be expected of all. 1. The Covenant is made with all, without difference, with the least, as well as with the greatest, Ier. 32.40. 2. The mediation of Christ available for all 1 Tim. 2.4. of all sorts, sexes, nations, and ranks of men: God, is he the God of Abraham only? nay, even of his seed also: Christ, is he the Mediatour for Apostles only? nay, even for all, that the Lord hath given him out of the world, Ioh. 17.9. Their is neither male, nor female bond nor free, weak, nor strong, but all are one in Christ Jesus: The same blood of Christ redeemed all; the same love of God embraced all; the same spirit seals all, to the day of redemption; the im­pression in some is more evident, then in others; the image all one, wherewith all are stamped and thereby sea­led unto the day of redemption: The only thing that con­cerns [Page 170]us, is, to provide we resemble in our behaviour; the Lord we shall finde impartiall in his favours, if we be not dissonant in our demeanure; and that is the next thing the text leads unto: To us it shall be imputed, as to Abra­ham, believing as Abraham, in him that raised up Iesus from the dead.

Observ The generall instruction the text affords, is this; That a man desiring to partake the favours of the Saints, must be carefull to resemble the practice of Saints: Wouldest thou be justified as Abraham? believe as Abraham; pardoned as Paul? repent as Paul; delivered as Lot? be righteous as Lot: The same God is a like to all in his blessings, that are alike to him, in their obedience.

There is a generation of men, enviously emulous of the priviledges of Gods Children, dissolutely careless of their behaviour: Let my soul dye the death of the righteous, saith Balaam; but the hellish wretch cares not to live the life of the righteous: Bernard. in Psal. qui Ha­bitat. Ser. 7. life of the righteous: Tantus est pietatis fructus, (saith Ber­nard) tanta justitiae merces, ut ne ab ipsis quidem non desi­derari queat impiis, & injustis. I would the conditions might seem as reasonable, as the reward is glorious: But the complaint of that Father, who sees it not fitting the times? quam pauci post te, o domine Iesu, ire volunt, cum tamen ad te pervenire Nemo sit, qui nolit: Lord Jesu; How few are they, that are willing to go after thee, when as yet, there is no man but desires to come unto thee; as knowing, that at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore: Et propterea volunt omnes te frui at non ita & imitari; conreg­nare cupiunt, sed non compati: Hence is it, that all men would enjoy thee, but they like not so well to resemble thee; fain they would raign with thee, loath they are to suffer with thee: Et mox mortem spiritualium optant sibi etiam carnales, quorum tamen vitam abhorrent: Brethren, like rewards, require like labours; like favours, like duties: They fail not of Abrahams blessing, that follow Abra­hams faith; and let them never expect his comforts, that [Page 171]refuse to resemble his virtues.

That for the Generall.

View we now the Words, wherein are two things.

First, The duty it self required of us, to the end we may share with Abraham, in the blessing of justification, believing in God.

Secondly, The object thereof, God set out here by a periphrasis, who raised up Iesus from the dead.

Sense Sense; Believing in God] The words thought not deli­vered in that form, yet import the condition required of us to justification, and are therefore well rendred, accor­ding to the sense, by some translatours; If we believe, or, so that we believe.

Some here conceive the Apostle to deliver us, the nature of justifying faith; and to resolve us, that it is rather an affiance, or putting trust in God, then an assent, or giving credit to the truth of his promise. The question hath been largely discussed, ad vers. 3. Whether I remit the Rea­der.

We may better hence collect the necessity, of putting trust in God for righteousness to justification, then a de­scription of the faith that justifieth: And that is it the Apostle directly teacheth; that to justification, is necessary a relying upon God, through Christ, and putting confi­dence in him, for justification; and withall, the infallible sequel of justification, upon our confidence, placed in God for that blessing.

As touching the nature of faith justifying, the Apostle intends not here to teach us; yet shall it not be amiss, on this occasion, to propound some arguments brought for that conclusion; as I heard them lately in conference with a friend, reverend for learning, and piety: Mr. J.D. His judgment was, that faith justifying was rather an affiance, and rest­ing on Christ for righteousness, then a perswasion of Gods love in Christ, or an assent to the promises of the Gospel: His arguments these. First, Faith that justifieth, (be it [Page 172]what it will be) must needs go before justification it self; so doth affiance, so not particular faith: For it must first be true, that God justifieth me, before I can believe it; and in order of nature, there is truth in the proposition, before the assent is given to the truth of it. Answ. The propo­sitions of the Gospel we may conceive, to offer themselves to our minde, either in terms of the future tense; or, sub verbis de praesenti, or praeterito: As thus; God (will) par­don my sins, and accept me to his favour for Christ; or thus, God (hath) pardoned my sins, and doth accept me as righteous in Christ; accordingly, the assent thereto, is ei­ther as to a thing that shall be, or as to a thing already done: In the first obtaining of justification, the assent of faith is to the proposition, De futuro; and that we are sure had actual truth from everlasting, concerning all those that shall be heirs of salvation: The assent to the proposition, de praesenti, or praeterito, is, in order of nature, after justifi­cation: In time, for all that, they are simul; the propositi­on, de futuro, is in nature before it: so soon as I believe that God (will) pardon, he pardons: Before I believe that he (hath) pardoned, he hath pardoned: And that I think may suffice to assoyl that doubt, so expertly and acutely contrived.

Besides this, they should attend, that the affiance they speak of, issues out of the perswasion, we have of Gods love to us in Christ; for who can relye on God for righte­ousness and salvation, that hath not some perswasion, that God is a father to him in Christ? So that what argument concludes the precedence of confidence to justification, con­cluds much more a precedence of particular assent, out of which, as out of a fountain, that affiance issueth: And howsoever it be true, that such assent as is spoken of, re­ceives strength from our affiance; yet from it, no other­wise, then from other gifts of sanctification; namely, as from evidences, and signes, and, as I may term them, quali­fications of our persons, and dispositions as it were, to en­title [Page 173]us to the Promises; or rather, to evidence the title we have (according to the Covenant) unto the merits, and be­nefits of Christ.

The second argument was, as I conceived it, on this man­ner; To faith justifying all men are bound: To particular perswasion, of Gods will to pardon sins, all are not bound: For, God binds no man to believe an untruth: there are some of whom it never was, nor shall be true, that God will pardon their sins as Reprobates: Ergó. Answ. Zanch. de natura Dei, lib. 5. c. 2. That which is ground of his Argument I confess I find amongst our Divines, more resolutely determined, then distinctly explained: Their conclusion is, that all men, even Repro­bates, are bound to believe, that they are in Christ Elected to Salvation: These reasons seem to make against it: First, for that there are, and ever have been many, to whom the name of Christ, or the benefits in him conveyed unto us, were never known: And Paul seems to say of such, Rom. 2.12. as sin without the Law, they shall perish without the Law, By proportion we may say, They that sin without the Gospel, shall perish without the Gospel; The not giving credit thereto shall not be imputed to their condemnation, in as much as it was never revealed unto them: By consequence therefore, there was no bond upon their conscience to be­lieve it: Moreover, particular assent riseth from that par­ticular Testimony of Gods spirit with ours, Rom. 8.16. Which who can say to be vouchsafed to Reprobates? But yield, ex abundanti, that Reprobates at least in the Church are bound to believe it; What then? It follows thence, that God binds them to believe an untruth. Answ. An un­truth in the thing, No untruth to them, except by their own default; because, that howsoever God hath revealed that there are some Reprobates; Yet reveals he to no man, in this life, his own Reprobation: And as the rule of our actions is not Gods secret, but revealed will; so the rule, and mea­sure of Faith is not truth secretted, but truth revealed: S ^t. August. Enchi­rid. ad Laurent. Augustine sticks not to say, that a man may will what is [Page 174]contrary to the will of God, He means his secret will, and yet in so willing Not sinne. For Example, A child in the mortall disease of his father, may desire the life of his fa­ther; such desire the event proves contrary to the will of God; yet is no sinne; because Gods will revealed warrants such desire to us: Let us see, whether we may not find some semblance in the point of Believing: In Hezekiah his sick­ness, Isa. 38. the Lord sends Isaiah with that message: Thou must die. An untruth in the event, and according to Gods secret purpose; yet can we doubt, but Hezekiah therein was bound to give credit to the Prophet? Similiter, To make full the answer: Thus let us conceive; Look as Gods pro­mises are propound to be believed of particulars; so, and no otherwise are we bound to believe them: how are they propounded? Hypothetically, rather, then Ca­tegorically; with limitation, rather then Absolutely; For Example, How am I bound my sinnes shall be forgiven? To wit, Hypothetically, If I believe in Christ, and repent my sinnes: How to believe, I shall be saved? To wit, Hypothetically; if I keep precisely the way that leadeth unto life: separate the Hypothesis, either in mine understanding, or practice, I am not bound to believe the Remission of my sinnes; nay, I am bound not to believe it: For, there is no mandate in the word, that tyes an impeni­tent sinner, so continuing, to believe, that his sinnes are for­given; nay, there is something equivalent to a mandate, en­joyning, in such case, to believe the contrary; inasmuch as God hath revealed, that he will not be mercifull to such an one, as goeth on still in his wickedness. The summe is this; Reprobates are bound to particular faith Hypothetically; Ab­solutely they are not bound: shall we say now, their bind­ing to such belief binds them to believe an untruth? No­thing less: For, it is true, of every particular, If he repent, His sinnes shall be forgiven him: this is ever true, and thus onely are the promises propounded to faith of particulars: And it is never true, that God will pardon any mans sinnes, [Page 175]except he repent, and believe the Gospel: Thus farre by the way, in answer to these Arguments; rather wittily couched, then soundly concluding the purpose: Let us now return to the Apostle, and from him learn. 1. That Confidence in God for righteousness through Christ, is necessary to justi­fication. 2. That justification belongs to all relying upon God in Christ for righteousness: What should I belong? it is the testimony of all the Prophets, saith Peter, given un­to Christ, that through his name, whosoever believeth in him, shall receive remission of sinnes, Acts 10.41. and it is Christs own assertion: that, As, Whosoever believeth on the sonne of God hath everlasting life: So, Whosoever be­lieveth not in him, shall never see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him, See John 3.15, 16, 18.36. Item, 1 John 5.13. Where fitly falls in the question, Whether any confidence may be placed in our works, or gifts of righteousness, for justification and salvation? For better conceiving the truth in this kind, know we, that there is a main odds betwixt these two questions. 1. Whether our confidence, and set­tled hope of salvation rise from our works? and 2. Whe­ther confidence may be placed in our works?

The one for my part, I yield to them, in a sense, pro­fessing my self herein of Lumbards minde; Lumbard l. 3. dist. 26. & Bonavent. ad Loc. Magist. that our hope ariseth, partly, from precedent works, though the term of merit I abhor: Thus conceive it, In hope and confidence, we must consider. 1. The habit, 2. The act, or exercise of it: The habit is meerly of Gods grace infused; the act ariseth in part, from presence and view of our obedience: Bellarm. de justifil. 5. c. 7. The places are pregnant, 2 Tim. 4. 1 Ioh. 3.3. And Bellar­mines reason is not to be condemned; the obtaining of fal­vation, depends chiefly on Gods fidelity; but in part also on our works of obedience: therefore, as hope were not certain, if we should do good works, and God were not faithfull; so neither can it be certain, if God be faithfull, and we neglect good works: And from this doctrine our best Divines are not abhorrent; all good works which are [Page 176]done in true faith, Zanch. in prae­cept. 1. cap. 13, De Spe. avail to confirm faith of the glory that shall be revealed; saith Zanchius, Non inficiamur, &c. We deny not, but that by the gifts of God bestowed on us, our hope of obtaining the good things to come, and of having eternall life, is confirmed: And it is a truth, that Thomas hath (his term being mollified) Spes dicitur ex operibus provenire, quantum ad ipsam rem exspectatam: For I de­mand, from what evidence conclude we, that we shall be saved, but from our obedience? In all the discourses ten­ding to confirm our assurance, whether of faith, or hope; see if the minor must not be framed, out of presence of in­herent righteousness: For instance, How conclude I, that Christ is to me Author of salvation? The proposition we have in Paul; Christ is Author of salvation to all that obey him. Heb. 5.9. The minor, my conscience must yield me, I obey him, else, can I not rightly conclude, that to me Christ is author of salvation: Nullus recte sperat beatitu­dinem, nisi qui deo servivit, vel proponit deo servire, saith Bonaventure truely.

The difficulty is onely, how our hope respects our obe­dience, whether as a cause of salvation, or as an evidence, and signe onely of our having title to salvation. Lumbard qua supra. Thus I think, we may truly resolve; though obedience be a partiall cause of hope, as hath now been said; yet it is an evidence, rather then, in property of speech, a cause of salvation. And in that sense, we may yield to Lumbard his description of Hope, mitigating one term onely: Hope is a certain ex­pectation of future blessedness, arising from Gods grace, and works precedent: and, sine operibus bonis aliquid spe­rare non spes sed praesumptio dici potest. Bern. fol. 31. It is infidelis fiducia, saith Bernard, cùm videlicet in spe peccamus.

The other question nearly concerns the place; Whether confidence for salvation may be placed in our works? Here our Adversaries thus mince it: Bellarm. de justific. lib. 5. cap. 7. The chiefety of our hope, and confidence must be placed in God; yet in bonis meritis, quae verè talia esse compertum sit, fiducia aliqua collocari po­test, [Page 177]modò superbia caveatur: and again, sithence hope may be placed in our merits, if they be true merits, & sobriè id fi­at: handsome cautions, and limits put to such a conclusion. 1. If they be true merits. 2. If it be done without pride, and with moderation: With such impossible, and incom­patible Hypotheses, what conclusion so absurd, but may be holden for true? Yield we, that Adams fall hath not hurt his posterity, by depraving nature, I would easily infer Pe­lagius his conclusion, That by the power of nature, it were possible to fulfill the Law. But, 1. The Hypothesis is im­probable there being no true merits of any meer creature. 2. Yield there were some works of some men perfect; yet so will not the conclusion follow in respect of that frequent intervenience of sins, destroying the value of other works; saith Hilary truly, Spes in misericordia Dei in seculum, Hillar. ennarr. in Psal. 51. & in seculum seculi est: Non enim ipsa illa justitiae opera suffici­ent ad perfectae Beatitudinis meritum, nisi misericordia Dei, etiam in hac justitiae voluntate humanarum demutationum, & motuum vitia non reputet.

Let us see their other limitation; so that pride in such confidence be avoided. There is then belike, an humble kind of confidence in our own works, as if we should say, an humble pride. There be some, saith Bernard, Bernard de Quadrages. serm. 5. that seek life eternal. Non in humilitate, sed tanquam in fiducia suorum meritorum. In his opinion very confidence in our works is a shrewd spice of pride. But let us see what that pride is, that in such confidence they prescribe to be avoided: It is this, When a man thinks he hath his merits of himself, not of Gods grace: In case then a man thankfully acknow­ledge his good works to proceed from Gods grace, it is lawfull to put confidence in them. Hear Bernard, Bern. in An­nunciat. Ser. 3. Si quis gratus est, si quis devotus si quis solicitus, si quis spiritu fer­vens, caveat sibi nè suis fidat meritis, nè suis operibus inni­tatur: alioquin nec hujusmodi quidem animum intrat gratia. I thank God, saith the Pharisee, I am not as others; to Gods grace he ascribes his righteousness, and yet returns emptie of justification.

[Page 178] To come briefly to the point, our conclusion is this; No confidence at all for righteousness, or salvation ought to be placed in any our works, be they never so good, or seeming­ly perfect.

Our first reason is, for that we find the most eminent amongst Gods Saints renouncing all their own works, not onely naturall, but gracious also, and relying themselves onely on Gods mercy in Christ; see Psal. 143. Phil. 3.9, 10. Dan. 9.18. We do not present our supplications before thee, for our righteousness, but for thy great mercies. Shall we say, as they, he speaks as one conceiving it as a matter of best safety, Bellarm. de justif. lib. 5. cap. 7. not of necessity? What then means that so plentifull, and humble confession of sins, in the former part of the prayer? In any reasonable construction, he speaks as a man pressed with conscience of sin so far, as that he ac­knowledgeth confusion to be their onely due portion, if mer­cy succour and relieve him not.

To this we add these reasons, weighty for the purpose, howsoever sleightly passed over by Adversaries; as, 1. That our best works are defiled by our concupiscence, Gal. 5.17. 2. Are defective, and imperfect, according to the rule of the Law of God. 3. Lose their worth, through interrupti­on, and the frequent intercurrence of sins of ignorance, and weakness; would God not too often, by some falls almost presumptuous.

Hereto we adjoyn the consent of Fathers: August. manu­al. c. 22. Tota spes mea (saith Augustine) est in monte Domini mei; mors ejus meri­tum meum, refugium meum, saelus, vita & resurrectio mea; meritum meum miseratio Domini; non sum meriti inops, quamdiu ille miserationum Dominus non defuerit; & si mi­sericordiae Domini multae, multus ego sum in meritis. Shall we say, he remits of his right, and speaks onely out of hu­mility, or as one choosing the sole mercie of God for his safest refuge: Hear him in another place; Vae etiam lauda­bili vitae hominum, August. Confes. l. 9. c. 13. si remotâ misericordiâ discutias eam: Non est quod jam quaeras, quibus meritis speremus bona, prae­sertim [Page 179]cùm audies apud Prophetam; Non propter vos, Bern. in Cant. Ser. 67, & 68. sed propter me ego faciam, dicit Dominus: sufficit ad meritum scire, quòd non sufficiant merita. Idem, Deest gratiae quic­quid meritis deputas: nolo meritum quod gratiam excludat: Horreo quicquid de meo est, ut sim meus, &c.

The same Bernard noting the faults that sometimes insi­nuate themselves into our prayers, Bern. de Qua­drages. Serm. 5. ad calcem. in those that are made for eternall life, pride sometimes useth to creep upon us: Vitam aeternam fortassis aliqui non in humilitate quaerunt, sed tanquam in fiducia suorum meritorum. Nec hoc dico, quin accepta gratia fiduciam donet orandi; sed non oportet, ut in ea constituat quisquam fiduciam impetrandi: Hoc solum confe­runt haec praemissa dona, ut ab ea misericordia quae tribuit haec, sperentur etiam ampliora. Sit ergo oratio—quae fit pro aeterna vita, in omni humilitate praesumens de sola (ut dignum est) miseratione divina.

Propter incertitudinem propriae justitiae, & periculum amittendae aeternae gloriae; [tutissimum] est, Bellarm. qua supra. fiduciam totam in sola Dei misericordia, & benignitate reponere.

Thus rather, Propter imperfectionem propriae justitiae, & periculum amittendae aeternae gloriae, [necessarium] est fiduci­am totam in sola Dei misericordia, & benignitate reponere.

Let us briefly view the reasons they alledge for their pur­pose. They produce Nehemiah, praying remembrance of his good deeds, Neh. 13.22. Ezekias also alledging his sin­cerity, Isa. 38.3. David promising himself retribution (be­cause) he had kept Gods wayes, Psal. 18.20, 21. Many the like might have been heaped up: but how follows the conclusion? Therefore they put confidence in their works? Nay, see Nehemiah in the same place, praying to be spared, according to the greatness of Gods mercy; think we he puts confidence in his works, as true (causes) of salvation, that prayes pardon of his imperfections? Thus briefly let us conceive, that the Saints of God alledging their righte­ousness in prayers, respect not their works, as (matter) of their confidence; see Dan. 9.18. but as inferiour helps of [Page 180]their hope, quatenus they are evidences of their being in the Covenant, and partakers of the promises. That they put confidence in, is Gods mercy, and truth in his promise; the reason of that confidence is their obedience, in respect of presence, not of efficiency: Take one inftance for many, Neh. 1.8. the servant of God prayes for restoring the peo­ple out of captivity; what layes he for ground of his prayer? The word that he spake by Moses, If they turn unto me; I will gather them: Now Lord (saith Nehemiah) we desire to fear thy Name, therefore gather us. Can any think the holy man alledgeth their fear of God, as (matter) of confidence? See how diminutively he speaks of it; it is rather a (desire) to fear, then actuall fearing; and therefore needs mercy to accept it, hath no merit to procure so great a blessing from God. August. de verb. Apost. Ser. 16. To like purpose Augustine; In his quae jam habe­mus, landemus Deum largitorem; in his quae nondum habe­mus, tenemus debitorem: Debitor enim factus est non ali­quid à nobis accipiendo, sed quod ei placuit promittendo:— Illo ergò modo possumus exigere Dominum nostrum, ut dica­mus, Redde quod promifisti, quia fecimus quod jussisti, & hoc tu fecisti, quia laborantes juvisti.

Their second argument, because our works are vera salu­tis causa: we may put confidence in any true cause, which is known fit to bring us to the end wished, and hoped for; such are our works; Ergo. To this argument the answers are divers, amongst our Divines: The Apologie of the Augustane confession seems not to deny, that there is some virtue in the works of the faithfull, procuring unto us eter­nall life. But that virtue they imagine to be extrinsecall, is­suing from the merit of Christ imputed to us; whereby it comes to pass, that the blemishes of our obedience are cove­red, and our works presented as pure, and without spot be­fore God. And sundry others, eminent in the Church of God, think it no heresie to say; that our good works tincta sanguine Christi, make us worthy of eternal life. In which and many the like speeches, I must needs profes [...]e I see no­thing [Page 181]derogatory to the glory of Gods grace or Christs Mediation, nor worthy the tragicall exclamations of many, if they be duely considered: Our Sacrifices, saith Peter are acceptable to God through Jesus Christ, 1. Pet. 2.5. See Reynolds contra Hart. cap. 8. pure and clean, saith Malachy, though not by inherence, yet by ac­ceptation, and by that tincture they receive from Christs bloud and intercession, Rev. 8.

But will it not hence follow, that they are true causes of salvation? Answ. In no wise, as Papists conceive it; name­ly, that ex propria dignitate, and because they satisfie the Law of God: such dignity we acknowledge none inherent in them, nor such perfection as satisfies the Law: The worth they have, is from their die and tincture in Christs bloud; and that is it alone, that makes them capable of reward: so that the term of our confidence is Christs bloud, not our works; into which the whole causality, as I may term it of salvation, in respect of us, is to be resolved.

Others there are, that choose simply and without distin­ction, to deny the assumption; least peradventure the proud heart of man should swell with opinion of its own confer­ring any thing to its own salvation. They are via regni, saith Bernard, non causa regnandi: Causes, if ye will, sine quibus non; necessary antecedents to salvation, no virtuall efficients or procurers thereof unto us: most truly and fitliest to the Popish opinion, according whereto they are made so exact­ly answerable to the justice of the Law, that they need no mercy to cover their defects, no imputation of Christs me­rits, to hide their blemishes from Gods justice: yea, have a worth in them, proportionall to the transcendent weight of glorie.

The Apostle otherwise: Rom. 8.18. The sufferings of this life are not worthy of the glory that shall be revealed: Non si unus omnes sustineat, saith Bernard. Totis licèt animae, Bern. de An­nun. Ser. 1. Euseb. Emess. Hom l. 3. ad Monach & cor­poris laboribus desudemus, totis licèt obedientiae viribus ex­erceamur, nihil tamen condignum merito pro coelestibus bonis compensare, & offerre valebimus, saith Eusebius Emissenus.

[Page 182] We conclude therefore, That no confidence may be pla­ced in our works of righteousness: The whole must relie upon the mercy, and truth of the promiser, and on his Christ, in whom the promises have their accomplishment, 2. Cor. 1.20.

And of the dutie, and object thereof, thus far. His Periphrasis followeth.

Sense Who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.] For the sense of the words: It may be enquired, how the resurre­ction of Christ is ascribed to the Father, whereas it is said, The Sonne hath power to lay down his life, and to take it up again? Joh. 2.19. and 10.18. Answ. The answer rests in that old rule of Augustine; The externall works of the Trinity are undivided, in them all the whole three persons work joyntly, in regard that the same divine virtue is equally residing in all. If it be yet demanded, why most usually the resurrection of Christ is assigned to the Father? Answ. Thus we may conceive, that Christ in state of hu­miliation emptyed himself, Phil. 2.7. Not as loving his glory, but as forbearing for the time, the ordinary mani­festation of his Divine power; inasmuch, that howsoever there was no work of the father, wherein he did not equally communicate, quod ad substantiam operis; yet so little shew thereof was there, in the infirmity of his flesh, that they might seem to be wholly from the father, without any concurrence of Christ incarnate.

Again, It may be demanded, What the reason is, that the Apostle singles out this effect of raising Christ from the dead, to describe the father by? Answ. Some think, to maintain the proportion betwixt the faith of Abraham, and the faith of his seed; that as he respected the power of God raising the dead, in like sort should ours: This is some­what; but, if I be not deceived, there is some farther aym of the Apostle; he speaks (methinks) as if he thought, there were some speciall reason, and ground for confidence in God for justification, in this act of God raising Jesus from [Page 183]the dead: And weigh it well, we shall finde, there is scace any thing more fit to stablish faith, in perswasion of justi­fication, then this: For, when the Lord losed the sorrowes of death, and delivered our surety from bond age thereun­to; doth he not give (evidence) that his justice is fully satisfied for our sins, he fully reconciled unto us? Had not our surety Christ Jesus, paid the utmost farthing due for our sins, he had yet continued under the dominion of death, the wages of our sins: Hence, saith Peter, 1 Pet. 1.3. that the Lord hath begotten us to a lively hope, by the resurrection of Christ from the dead; there being no greater, or more effectuall means to perswade us, of pardon of sins, re­conciliation with God, acceptation to life eternal; then that Christ our surety, and undertaker, is risen from the dead.

There is a kinde of wisdome, and prudence in believing; the Apostle seems here to give us an hint, for the nature and use of it; thus conceives it, It is, when a man fits the consideration of the attributes and actions of God, to the particulars most necessary, and fit for faith to respect, ac­cording to severall occasions: as here, The Apostle pre­scribing confidence in God for justification, fits us with a description of him, by an action best available for confi­dence, in that respect to relye upon; namely, His raising of Jesus from the dead: The like in sundry other places, is observable. Would they humble themselves for their sins? they consider God as terrible, and dreadfull in his judg­ments: would they raise up themselves with comfort? they consider him as a God, that heepeth Covenant and promise as a father of mercies, and God of all consolation: would they stablish hope, in expectation of things passing the course of nature? they consider his endless power able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we can aske, or think.

There is a confused apprehension of the deity, for the most part liveless and ineffectuall; when men ingross only, [Page 184]and indistinctly mediate the Divine nature, without re­ference to particulars, concerning the present occasion.

And another as preposterous, unseasonable, and no less uncomfortable, when men fit their faith, with meditation of that, that is most unseasonable for their present state: God is merciful, saith the presumer; he is just, saith the despe­rate distressed: Both true; he is just and mercifull, saith the Psalmist; but should not faith in wisdome, contemplate what is fittest for the present necessity? This wisdome pray we for.

The last thing in this period remains; The Reason brought to assure us of like favour in like faith, for better confirming the comfort unto us.

Vers 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification] The force of the argument thus con­ceive; God the Father hath delivered his Son to death, for expiation of our sins; he hath raised him which was our surety, to assure us of our justification; doubt not there­fore, but he will justifie thee, believing on him through Christ.

In the words, the Apostle sends us to consider two things, as pillars for faith to rest on for justification. First is, The cause meritorious, Christ death. Secondly, The evi­dence of the value, and worth of his humiliation; His re­surrection from the dead.

This text, saith one, is Brevis & largus; short in words, large in sense: Let us view the particulars: In the first member are these, 1. Who delivered. 2. Who was delivered. 3. Whereto. 4. For what.

For the First: Who delivered: Pater filium; Christus seipsum; Iudas Dominum, saith Austin. The fact one; the motives different: which made Iudas his treason cri­minous, Christs tradition of himself meritorious: I point only at the heads. Who was delivered? Iesus our Lord: A less price, say some, might have sufficed; yea, none at all, had God been so pleased: I think not, considering the [Page 185]endless justice violated, which God in our ransome, inten­ded to preserve and manifest, Rom. 3.

Delivered] why saith he, delivered, rather then crucified? To lead us by the hand to the first cause thereof, the determi­nate councells of the Blessed Trinity, Act. 4.27, 28. I could command Legions of Angells for deliverance, Mat. 26.35. saith our Savi­our to Peter; but how then should the Scripture be fulfilled? how the Fathers purpose, and councels accomplished?

VVhereto?] To death, even the shamefull and cursed death of the cross, Phil. 2.8. That so we might be delivered from the curse of the Law, Gal. 3.13. Incomparable Benig­nity of the Father; unmatcheable compassion, and humility of our blessed Saviour.

For what?] For sins; for our sins; whether we conceive sin as the efficient cause, procuring these things unto our Sa­viour: or tropically intepret; For sins, that is, for expiation of sins, it is not greatly materiall: This latter hath some Auncients approving it, however Socinus laugh at the strange­ness of it: Theodoret, He underwent his passion, Theodoret. ad loc. Vt nostrum debitum exsolveret; not much unlike Ambrose: And that of the Prophet cannot better be expounded, Isai. 53.10. His soul an offering for sin, that is, to expiate sin: The senses are subordinate; sins procured it; by it sins were expiated, and to expiated them, Christ was delivered; see Isai. 53. 1 Pet. 2.24.

For our sins] Our in this case, 2 Cor. 5.21. hath a threefold Antithe­sis. 1. To Christ. 2. To Angells. 3. To Vnbelievers.

For ours not his own: He was holy, harmeless, seperate from sinners knew not sin; per experimentum, as Augustine interprets; see 1 Pet. 2.22, 23, 24. Heb. 7.26. Isai. 53. Augustin. de peccat. Merit, & Remiss. lib. 2. cap. 35. Sine peccato natus est in similitudine carnis peccati; sine peceato vi­xit inter aliena peccata; sine proccato mortuus est, propter no­stra peccata; as Saint Augustine.

Ours, not Angells; Heb. 2.16. In no place he assumes the Angells, but the seed of Abraham: It may be, there was something eminent in their sin, that excludes them; but let [Page 186]us take heed, whiles we seek the reason of our preheminence in the quality of the sinners; we forget the Lords [...], the specialty of his love to man, that only caused it: Nunquid Angelo? Bernard de Passione Do­mini. sed ille non eguit; Nunquid Diabolo? sed ille non resurget, as Bernard.

Ours, that believe; Ioh, 3.16. Not for sins of unbelievers; yes, say some, sufficiently for theirs: that distinction I stand not to examine: The question is this, Whether intentionally, for the sins of any but believers? They shall never be able to prove, that the intention is larger then the efficacy: or, that his death, was not effectuall to procure remission for all, unto whose benefit it was intended.

The heads of this first member we have seen; let us with like brevity, see to what use they serve us.

Ʋse First, They direct us to a right estimate of our sins; a point wherein, alack! how partially blind are the most of us: The matter we think small, wherein we offend; the act and pleasure momentany, transient in a moment: should justice be so strict, as for such triflles, to load us with eter­nall cursing? or rather, should mans malice be so dissolute, as for such trifles, to violate the endless majesty, that loadeth us daily with so many blessings? Learn rather by considera­tion of the necessary remedy, to esteem the quantity of thy perill; whereout nothing could suffice to rid thee, but the death of the Son of God: Agnosce, ô homo, quàm gravia sunt vulnera, Bern. in Natal. Domin. Ser. 3. pro quibus necesse est Dominum Christum vul­nerari; si non essent haec ad mortem, & mortem sempiternam, nunquam pro eorum remedio dei filius moreretur; saith Ber­nard sweetly.

Secondly, As they teach us compunction, so minister they unto us unspeakeable consolation; sicut enim gravem agno­sco morbum, cuitanta apponitur medicina; sic & ex hoc ipso non incurabilem esse conjecto: They know not the excellency of Christ person, nor the worth of his bloud, that question the availableness thereof to purchase redemption: Let strictest justice ballance our sins, with Christs satisfaction, [Page 187]this shall be found infinitely to preponderate.

Some weakly, perhaps will say; of the valew he doubts not, but of the avail for him: Hear the Apostle assuring us, that for (our) sins, not for his (own) he was delivered; even for the sins of all that believe in his name, Act. 10. For (us) he was born, (our) sins he bear, the chastisement of (our) peace was laid upon him: It is no blasphemy to say, he is more ours, then his own; our benefit we are fure more by him, then his own by himself, saith Bernard; Bern. in Epi­phan. Ser. 1. Vtamur no­stro in nostram utilitatem: If we lack what to give for our sins, we have Christs body to give; it is of ours, and it is ours: And as Bernard, so may every believer say; De Te, Domine, suppleo quod minus habe [...] in me.

And of the first member, the cause meritorious of our justification, thus far.

Proceed we to the Second, containing the evidence of the value, that was in his humiliation for righteousness; to wit, his resurrection from death, amplified by the end thereof, our justification.

And was vaised for our Iustification] How for our justifi­cation? To work it, say some; to apply it, say others; to preserve us in it, saith a third; To declare and assure us of it, say the most Iudicious.

It is good advise a Learned Interpreter here gives, Not auxiously to dispute, or enquire, how the Apostle distinguish­eth the effects of Christs Death, and Resurrection, ascri­bing to his death the expiation of sins, to his resurrection, our justification: Touching the thing, I will not be inquisi­tive; but of the sense, it will not be amise a little to enquire.

The first exposition is commonly received amongst our adversaries; and thus they explain themselves: Bellarm de Iustific. l. 2. c. 6. Justificati­on they here understand our internall renovation, and rege­neration, by which we walk in newness of life; and that they ascribe to Christs resurrection, not as to a cause merito­rious; for Christ by his Resurrection merited nothing, being then extra statum merendi: How then? say some, As cau­sa [Page 188]exemplaris, Thomas par. 3a. quest. 56. Art. 2. Bellarm. quâ suprâ Cajetane ad loc. quatenus he hath given us therein a forme of rising in our souls, to newness of life, as he in his flesh, rose to the life of glory.

Say others, His resurrection avails to our justification, ra­ther as an occasion, and help, or motive to faith; for had he not risen from the dead, who would have believed in him, as Author of life? These interpretations, both of them con­tain truthes: It is true, that Christs Resurrection is a pat­tern for us to follow, Rom. 6. True also, that it is an enduce­ment to believe in him, as able to save us; but impertinent to this place: For, 1. In what Scripture finde they Reno­vation, to be called Justification? And, 2. The Apostle is not yet come to treate the point of sanctification. And, 3. How fits the Reason to the Apostles conclusion? Faith shall be imputed to us for righteousness; for Christ rose, to give us a pattern of rising to new life; dissolutae scopae.

To apply it, [...]rsin. Kemnitius. and to confer it upon us, say others: For, it behoved the Mediator, not only to merit, but also to con­fer what he had merited upon us: that also is a truth; but these in explaining themselves, make his resurrection availea­ble only as a cause sine quâ non, to our justification; except he had risen, he could not have conferred his benesits upon us.

To preserve it unto us, saith a third; some such thing we finde, after a sort ascribed to Christs Resurrection, Rom. 8.34. But if we attend the place, to his Resurrection it is assigned remotely; our continuance in grace, following ra­ther from his session at his Fathers right hand, and his inter­cession there made for us.

The last I rathest rest in; conceiving Christs resurrection to avail to our justification, as an evidence assuring us of it; rather then as a cause in any sort, procuring it unto us: By raising Christ from the dead, God the Father shewed, that he accepted the obedience, Keumit. part. 1. de Justificat. U [...]sin. and satisfaction of his Son Christ, for our reconciliation and atonement: Christ was thrust in­to such a prison, as out of which he could never have come forth, except he had paid the utmost farthing: The least [Page 189]sin unsatisfied had for ever detained him, under the dominion of death; but God raised him: Ergo, He hath satisfied: or thus you may conceive it, As when Christ (our surety) was condemned, we in him, and together with him, were condemned: So, when he was discharged, we in him, and together with him, received our discharge from the guilt, and punishment of sin: So that, the point we have here is this, That Christs Resurrection, is to us a pledge of our Justi­fication.

[...]. Amen.