Exposition of Romans 4, Exposition · Verse 6, 7, 8

Exposition of Romans 4 · Exposition · Verse 6, 7, 8

p. 45VERS. 6, 7, 8.

6. Even as David alſo deſcribeth the bleſſedneſs of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteouſneſs without works:

7. Saying, Bleſſed are they whoſe iniquities are forgiven, and whoſe ſins are covered,

8. Bleſſed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute ſinne.

TO the example of Abraham, taken from Moſes, is adjoyned the teſtimony of David amongſt the Prophets: And Theodorets reaſon of the choice is not to be contemned; for Abraham lived before the Law; and now he ſhews that David, who lived under the Law, gave Teſtimony to Faith.

The rendring differs: Beza. Piſcator.David deſcribeth the bleſſedneſs of that man: others had rather thus, David ſaith, Bleſſedneſs to be that mans, unto whom, &c. In the iſſue is no great odds. The ſumme of the argument is this;

If David ſay, That bleſſedneſſe is that mans, to whom the Lord imputeth righteouſneſs without works, Then is no man juſtified by works: But David ſaith, Bleſſedneſs is that mans, to whom the Lord imputeth righteouſneſs without works; Ergò, No man is juſtified by works. The minor hath its proof, ver. 6, 7, 8. borrowed from Pſalme 32.

But may ſome ſay, How follows the Propoſition, that if a man be bleſſed that hath righteouſneſs without works imputed to him, then no man is juſtified by works?

Anſw. Thus, as I conceive preſcribing to no man. If bleſſedneſs be onelyonly that mans that hath righteouſneſs without p. 46works imputed; then juſtification cannot be by works; Inaſmuch as bleſſedneſs is his onelyonly that is juſtified, juſtification being a part of bleſſedneſs,

If any Juſticiary ſhall object, That the excluſive particle (onelyonly) 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 onelyonly 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 p. 47Abraham 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; p. 48where 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! p. 49One 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.

p. 50And, 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.Heb 12:6yea, 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 p. 51of 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.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 p. 52by 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, onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 p. 53actours 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 p. 54Tujuſtitia 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) p. 55performance, we have it onelyonly by imputation. And what great abſurdity is it to ſay, (ſave onelyonly 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.

p. 56VERS, 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 onelyonly 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.

p. 57The 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 onelyonly 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.Ps 32In 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.

p. 58That 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 p. 59murther, 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.Heb 4:13uncovered: 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. p. 6029.15. 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.Ps 31ut 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.

p. 61Where 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 p. 62juſt, 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 onelyonly 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 p. 63from 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 onelyonly in remiſsion of ſinns. Their chief reaſon is this; for that juſtification is aſcribed onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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.

p. 64And 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.Ps 31and our releaſe is, they ſay, onelyonly from guilt of eternall puniſhment. The queſtion hath been largely diſcuffed, ad cap. 3.

Here onelyonly 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 onelyonly quoad culpam, & poenam aeternam. Now, where the remiſsion is totall, there is no reſervation of any puniſhment; where partiall, onelyonly 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.Ps 31but 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, foreign! And of this ſecond argument againſt Juſtification by Work, thus far.