A Key to the Key of Scripture, Chapter 3 · Exposition of verse 27, 28 – Exposition of verse 29, 30
Verſe 27. Where is then the reioycing? It is excluded. By what law? of workes? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Verſe 28. Therefore wee conclude, that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the Law.
THe firſt reaſon is taken from the effect of this manner of iuſtification by faith, remoued from that other by workes, in this forme. If by the doctrine of iuſtification by faith, boaſting be excluded and not by that which requires workes, then wee are iuſtified by faith and not by workes: but by the doctrine of faith, boaſting is excluded, and not by that of workes: therefore we conclude, that a man is iuſtified by faith, without the workes of the law.
The propoſition is omitted, but eaſily collected out of the Apoſtles Enthymem…. The aſſumption is propounded, in a Rhetoricall Dialogiſme, as is eaſie to be ſeene; the concluſion expreſſed in ſo many tearmes, verſe 28.
The conſequencë of the propoſition depends vponupon this ground; that man muſt be iuſtified by ſuch a meane, as whereby he may hauehave no cauſe to glorie in himſelfe. Epheſ. ….9. 1 Cor. 1.30.31.
The truth of which ground, as it is euident by the teſtimonies now alleadged, ſo will it further appeare, by the vvhole proiect of Gods counſaile touching the ſaluation of his Church. Wherein it is euident he choſe ſuch a courſe, as vvhereby the vvhole glory might be his: none, mans: hee choſe vsus before vve vvere, freely, vvithout reſpect to any thing in vsus▪ according to the good pleaſure of his owne vvill; for the glorie of his rich gracenEpheſ. 1.4.: hee made vsus vvithout our ſelues after his glorious Image: permitted; yea, decreed to perm…t our fall, that hee might hauehave merciemercyoRom. 11.32. Gal. 3.22.: and that the claime to ſaluation, might be by meere merciemercy; vvherefore? I demand vvould the Lord that had power to ſtabliſh vsus, as hee did good Angels, ſhut vsus vp vnderunder ſinne? but that hee might make vvay, for the glorie of his merciemercy? he ſent his Sonne to reconcile vsus; made not vsus our owne propitiatours: vvherefore? but that the vvhole glorie might be his? hee called vsus freelypTit. 3.5., of grace inuiting, by his ſpirit opening our hearts to attend, and by the ſame ſpirit drawing vsusqIoh. 6.44.: ordayned meanes in themſelues ſilly and vveake to conuert vsusr1 Cor. 3.: ſanctifies indeede, but in part onelyonly; wherefore? but that, as the Apoſtle ſpeakes, no fleſh might glorie in his preſences1 Cor. 1.29.: all vvhichwhich ioyned to the teſtimonies fore-cited, euidence the ſoundneſſe of the Apoſtles ground: and thus farre furthers vsus in diſcerning the meanes of our iuſtification in generall, that it muſt be ſuch, as vvhere by all occaſion of boaſting may be taken from man.
Come we now to the particular aſſumed; but boaſting, doctrine of workes excludes not; doctrine of Faith excludes, and may wee not then conclude vvith the Apoſtle? that a man is iuſtified by faith, without the workes of the law.
Let vsus a little examine the aſſumption: ſenſe; law of workes: that is, doctrine of workes: that is, teaching that wee are iuſtified by workes. Law of faith, that is, doctrine of faith; as the Hebrew properly ſignifies; for the truth of it, both members are to be ſcanned; firſt, that doctrine of iuſtification by workes excludes not boaſting: ſecondly, that that of faith excludes it.
For the firſt, conſider wee vvhat it is, that by doctrine, requiring vvorkes to iuſtification, is to be performed by him, that will that vvay be iuſtified: and that is, a doing of the whole lawtGal. 5.3. Rom. 10.5., and that by the perſon himſelfe, that lookes for iuſtification. And is not this, to puffe vp the proud heart of man vvith conceit of abilitie to iuſtifie himſelfe? What prouder doctrine then that of Pelagians? teaching that by naturall abilities, the law might perfectly be kept to iuſtification. That of Papiſts, is not all out ſo groſſe; they teach, that nature helped by grace, may doe this: and, that by workes done in grace, ſome iuſtification may be atchieued: they diminiſh boaſting, but exclude it not. It vvere long, to rake vp all they teach, touching power of will in nature: how it deſerues ex congruo, euen before grace receaued. But haply, by that they teach of the neceſſarie aſſiſtance of grace to iuſtification, they amend the matter. Surely little or nothing. For let a man view all they teach touching the efficacie of grace, in this point of iuſtification: hee ſhall finde it to amount to this ſumme onelyonly: that grace doth little more then bring out that power, that is in nature, into act; or heale a little the wound, that ſinne hath made; or confirme weakeneſſe naturall: ſo making nature, to goe cheeke by iole vvith grace, in the act of iuſtifying: and is this to exclude boaſting? and not rather to occaſion it?
Let vsus ſee now vvhether the doctrine of faith excludes it; ſo ſaith the Apoſtle. But conſider vvee how: viz. in as much as it teacheth to goe out of our ſelues for righteouſneſſe; and makes vsus, no more but receiuers of that righteouſneſſe, vvhereby vvee are iuſtified; vvrought by Chriſt, giuen by GOD the Father, receiued by faithvIoh. 1.12., according to this doctrine, vvhat cauſe hath man to boaſt? Perhaps they vvill ſay of this, that he beleeued: and by beleeuing, accepted the righteouſneſſe offered? as if a beggar ſhould boaſt of his vvealth, and aſcribe it to his labour, whereas all hee did was but to receiue, what the li…eralitie of almoners pleaſed to beſtow; yea in the caſe betwixt GOD and vsus, man hath not ſo much to boaſt of, ſith very power to receiue is alſo the gift of God. Epheſ. 2.8.
The concluſion now may vvell be inferred, that therefore a man is iuſtified by faith without workes of the law.
And what hauehave aduerſaries of grace, trow wee, to except againſt this round argument of the Apoſtle? Forſooth they labour by a diſtinction of boaſting,De iustif. lib. 1. cap. 19. to elude all. So Bellarmine: the Apoſtle excludes not all boaſting, but that onelyonly, vvhichwhich ariſeth of workes done by ſole power of freewill; for hee ſaith not, vbi est gloriatio? Where is the boaſting? but vbi est gloriatio tua? Where is thy boaſting? the boaſting wherby thou glorieſt in thy ſelfe, and not in the Lord; now in reſpect of vvorkes done of faith, and ſo by grace, no man can glorie but in the Lord; and that boaſting is not prohibited: for the Apoſtle ſaith, Let him that glorieth, glorie in the Lord vv2 Cor. 10..
The ſumme is this, that boaſting in our ſelues onelyonly is forbidden and not boaſting in the Lord: and that is ſufficiently excluded by this, that they affirme, workes done by power of nature, vvithout aide of grace, to be vnable to iuſtifie.
Anſ. Plauſibly. The diſtinction of boaſting, wee graunt, if they yeeld vsus thus much, that all glorying in our ſelues, is excluded; for wee liſt not to contend about quiddities; though Bellarmines (tua) be not found in the text. And thus propound the Apoſtles ground; a man muſt be iuſtified by ſuch a meanes as vvhereby hee may hauehave no cauſe at all to glorie in himſelfe: but muſt tranſcribe the whole glorie of iuſtification, to the grace of GOD: and hence thus aſſume.
But by doctrine of workes, whether done by ſole power of nature, or mixtly by grace and nature, all boaſting is not excluded; Ergo, that not the meane of iuſtification. Our minor for the firſt part, is granted by aduerſaries; and doe they not ſee, how their mingling of grace and nature, leaues ſtill ſome cauſe of boaſting to our proud nature? Am I a coworker with grace by power naturall, and depends the efficacie of grace, vponupon the aſſent of my will? then ſure in reſpect of my coagencie, and aſſent, be it leſſe or more, I hauehave ſome cauſe to boaſt of my ſelfe, and ſo, all boaſting in my ſelfe is not excluded; but all boaſting in our ſelues, muſt be excluded; therefore all workes vvhatſoeuer whether done by ſole power of nature as Pelagians; or by nature and grace mixtly, as Popiſh Semipelagians now teach, are here excluded from iuſtification.
To conclude this argument: let all ſuch as deſire to informe themſelues, in this weightieſt point, wherein errours are moſt daungerous, bring doctrines on both ſides taught, to this touchſtone. If Popiſh doctrine, here hold current, let them embrace it, if it take away all boaſting from man, hold it firme: but if it puffe vp the proud heart of man, in the leaſt meaſure, as indeed it doth, reiect it as a doctrine of Diuels; and hold the teachers thereof, though Seraphicall, for euer accurſed: it ſerues not the turne, to ſay, they aſcribe Iuſtificatorie vvorkes to grace of God; for firſt, what doe they herein, more then the PhariſeexLuc 18.11.12.: I thanke God (ſaith he) not my ſelfe, that I am thus and thus: and yet is diſmiſſed vvithout iuſtification: and ſecondly, all they aſcribe to grace, is but an aſſiſtance of nature; or a principalitie at moſt, in workes that iuſtifie; and by aſſociating nature with grace, giuegive vsus at leaſt ſome cauſe to boaſt of our ſelues? for ſure, if we be eyther principals, or in the leaſt meaſure adiutours to our iuſtification, vvee hauehave ſome cauſe of boaſting: but it is wholly excluded by the true Doctrine of iuſtification. Therefore wee may well conclude againſt vvorkes; they hauehave no power to iuſtifie in the ſight of GOD. And ſurely were it not that I conſid…r Gods ſecret, though iuſt iudgement, in ſending them ſtrong deluſions; and compaſſionately ponder the pride of nature, both to become nothing in the vvorke of ſaluation; and the ſubtiltie of Popiſh teachers, in ſuiting this doctrine to the humour of nature; I ſhould wonder how any man aduiſedly reading this ſhort Enthymeme of the Apoſtle, could in this point, …erre in iudgement; It was vvell ſaid of one, that Popiſh religion, it is a naturall religion: leaue man to himſelfe, hee falles on Popiſh concluſions, and practiſe: in this one point it is more then euident.
Let Gods children learne, to acknowledge their owne nothingneſſe in this article of iuſtification; that GOD may be all in all. Who ſo vvalkes, after this rule, peace ſhall be vponupon him, and merciemercy, and vponupon the Iſrael of GOD: and if any attempt ſharing with the Lord in this glorie; I teſtifie vntounto him, with the Apoſtle, hee is aboliſhed from Chriſt▪ he is fallen from grace Gal. 5.4.
By faith, &c. It is vſually enquired how faith iuſtifieth: vvhether as an act or vvorke, or organicè, and correlatiue; as an inſtrument, receiuing that, for vvhichwhich wee hauehave eſteeme of righteouſneſſe; and ſo in reſpect of that, vvhereto as an inſtrument, it hath relation: our Diuines hitherto, hauehave ioyntly reſolued of the two latter; and as I take it vponupon good reaſon: for that, otherwiſe righteouſneſſe ſhall be inherent; which hitherto hath been holden an abſurditie; the queſtion wi…l come fitlieſt to be handled, cap. 4.3. and therefore to that place I reſerue it.
By faith without workes: And is not the inference direct enough? therefore by faith onelyonly. The inference is vſuall amongſt our Diuines, both auncient and moderne: and thus wee explane our ſelues; that no grace of God, no worke, eyther of nature or grace in vsus, concurreth, ſo much as inſtrumentally to iuſtification. Reaſon, becauſe none other gift, or act but faith receiues that, for vvhichwhich vve are accounted righteous in the ſight of God.
What ſay our aduerſaries to this collection? forſooth they charge vsus with foyſting in the terme (onelyonly.) Anſ. And is it foyſted in beyond the Apoſtles intention? hauehave wee it not in the equiualent? by faith without workes; onelyonly by faith, are they not equipollents. See Amb. in Rom. 3.9. Hierom. in Rom. 4. Baſil in Concione de h…mil, &c. Fulgent de incarnat: cap. 16.
But how reconcile wee that of S. Iames? cap. 2. not by faith onelyonly; with this of Paul, by faith onelyonly; Iames iuſtified by workes; Paul iuſtified without workes; Anſ. The anſweres are thus; that Paul treateth of iuſtification before God; ſo it is true, faith onelyonly iuſtifieth in the ſight of God; Iames, of iuſtification in foro humano, or before men; and ſo workes iuſtifie: that is, declare to be iuſt: Al: that Paul treateth of the effect or office of faith, in foro Diuino, Iame…, of the qualitie of that faith that iuſtifieth, and her effect before men; and all that Iames ſaith is this, as Ca…tane truely, quod non fide ster…ls, ſed fide foecunda operibus bonis iustificamur. That wee are iuſtified not by a barren faith, but by ſuch a faith, as is fruitfull in good workes: more of this Text of Iames, when by Gods grace we ſhall come to that Epiſtle.
Without workes of the Law, eyther naturall, ceremoniall, or morall; before or after grace, as plentifully is ſhowen, ad verſe 9.
Therefore ſay ſome, without workes of the law, euen done by Chriſt; for the excluſion is vniuerſall; except vvee can euidence a reſtraint. Anſ. Reſtraints to workes done by our ſelues, mee thinks firſt; the whole purpoſe of the Apoſtle, implyeth; for the queſtion is whether a man be to be iuſtified by his owne righteouſneſſe; that is, righteouſneſſe of his owne performance, or by the righteouſneſſe of another: ſecondly, ſee Rom. 10.3.5. and tell me why hee cals the righteouſneſſe of the law, our owne righteouſneſſe? except in regard of our owne performance.
Verſe 29. God, is he the God of the Iewes onelyonly, and not of the Gentiles alſo? Yes, euen of the Gentiles alſo.
Verſe 30. For it is one God who ſhall iustifie circumciſion of faith, and vncircumciſion through faith.
A Second reaſon for iuſtification by faith without workes of the Law. From abſurdities; if by workes of the Law, and not by faith onelyonly; one of theſe two abſurdities vvill follow; that eyther God is God of the Iewes onelyonly, and not of the Gentiles alſo; or elſe that hee is variable in this action of iuſtifying; iuſtifying the Iewes, by works of the law; Gentiles by faith; but God is not the God of Iewes onelyonly, but of Gentiles alſo; and is one; that is, vnvariable in this act of iuſtifying. Ergo.
Is he God of Iewes onelyonly? &c. That is, hee hath now vnderunder the new Teſtament accepted Gentiles, into his couenant of grace. The tenour whereof read Ier. 31.33, &c. But as touching the conſequence of the propoſition, it may be enquired how it flowes? Anſ. Becauſe that vntounto Iewes onelyonly was the Law giuen in writingyPſal. 147. Rom. 9. Rom. 2.14., the Gentiles were foreign, without the Law. If therefore iuſtification be by workes of the Law, Iewes onelyonly ſhall be capable of that bleſſing; and the Gentiles, whoſe God the Lord hath couenanted to be, ſhall lacke this principall bleſſing, promiſed in the couenant; iuſtification. But that is abſurd. For God is one. This oneneſſe as I may terme it, of God, is not numerall, as in other placesz1 Cor. 8., but hath reference, eyther to the vnchangeableneſſe of God, and his keeping one ſteddie, and vnvaried courſe in iuſtifying all; or to the indifferencie, and vnpartiality of his affection towards all, of all ſorts. Within the couenant. If we take it in the firſt ſenſe, they contayne a ſecond abſurdity, iſſuing from the doctrine of iuſtification by workes of law written, vrged by Iewes; in as much as then it will follow, that the Lord doth not, by one meanes iuſtificall. But Gentiles by faith, Iewes by works of the Law; but all are iuſtified by one and ſame meanes; ſith God is one vnchangeable in his courſes.
If wee take it in the other ſenſe, as noting the indifferencie of Gods affection to all in the couenant, it is a reaſon of the clauſe fore-going; viz. that God is God of Gentiles alſo.
Circumciſion, that is, Iewes circumciſed: vncircumciſion, that is, Gentiles vvanting circumciſion. Metonimya adiuncti, as Rom. 2.26.
But that we may here note, is, that the bleſſing of iuſtification belongs to all in the couenant, vvhether Iewes or Gentiles beleeuing: ſee Ier. 31.33.34. Act. 15.8.9 10.11. See Annot. in Ver. 22. Reaſon: God is one.
Note to diſcerne whither wee be within the couenant of Grace, principally is this; if wee hauehave performed our reſtipulation, carying our ſelues in all things, as the people of God. Zach. 13, 9.