Exposition of Romans 4, Exposition · Verse 4
VERS. 4.
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
The applying of theſe verſes to the Apoſtles purpoſe, ſee in the Analyſis.
Senſe To him that worketh] That is, ſay ſome, that (preſumes) of his works: others, that (deſervs) by his works: Thus rather, To him that hath, or brings works to God.
The wages, or reward] What is the wages here mentioned? Paraeus.Some take the Apoſtle to reaſon out of a principle in Civil life, by ſimiltude applyed to this purpoſe; but the Antitheſis bears it not.
Wages] here underſtand Synecdechicè, put for eſtimation of righteouſneſs.
foreign] 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 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.
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 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; 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; onelyonly 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; 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 foreign, 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 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 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 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. 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.
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 onelyonly, 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 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 tanquam pannus menſtruatae mulieris: quomodo enim pura juſtitia, ubi adhuc non poteſt culpa deeſſe? Ours. 1. no better then our Fathers. 2. Not free from fault: therefore, not pure, or perfect.
And, I wonder much, how Papiſts, ſticking ſo cloſe to their diſtinction, of firſt, and ſecond juſtification, can maintain the perfection of inherent righteouſneſs? For, is there a ſecond juſtification, whereby we are made more righteous? it is apparent therefore, that inherent righteouſneſs is never perfected in this life: Perfectio viae, & Patriae.It is idle, when they diſtinguiſh perfection, into that of the Way; and the other, of the Countrey: For, if by it we are juſtified, in via, according to the Law; we muſt by it alſo, be perfected, in via; inaſmuch as no righteouſneſs, but perfect, is approved by the Law.
I conclude therefore, That the righteouſneſs whereby we ſtand juſt, according to the Law, is not inherent righteouſneſs.
Laſtly, If the righteouſneſs, whereby we are thus juſt, ſtand in the habits of faith, hope, charity, patience meekneſs, &c. How is it, that the Lord when he juſtifies an ungodly man believing, is ſaid to count his faith to righteouſneſs, verſ. 3, 4.? perhaps, becauſe that is our righteouſneſs, Ex parte; Apage! Then, when Paul concludes Abraham not to have been juſtified by works, becauſe he was juſtified by faith, his meaning is this: Abraham was juſtified by faith, in ſome part; ergò, by works in no part: How eaſie were it to denie his conſequence. Thus, though in part of Faith, yet he muſt be in part alſo of Works; and ſo the Argument follows not.
And again, The ſtate of the queſtion, ſo largely diſputed in this Epiſtle, betwixt faith and works, muſt be this: Whether we be juſtified in part of Faith? But theſe are abſurd.
2. If therefore faith be counted our righteouſneſs, becauſe it is ſo, In part; Why, (I wonder) Faith, more then Chariey, or Hope? &c. Why ſaith the Apoſtle ſo oft? Faith is counted to Righteouſneſs; never ſo, of Charitie? perhaps, Denominatio fit ex parte potiori? Apage! I dare ſay, by their notes, 1 Cor. 13. they will never abaſe Charity ſo farre, as to give Faith the preheminence, in this point of juſtification.
Perhaps now it will be exſpected, that I ſhould anſwer their objections, in this point; but that hath been already in a great part done, ad cap. 3. and beſides, the grounds now laid, afford anſwer ſufficient.
Proceed we therefore to the next explication: God justifies the ungodly,] that is, makes him righteous, by imputing righteouſneſs: and if the queſtion be, What righteouſneſs? The Righteouſneſs of Chriſt; whether of his life, or death; it is not ſo pertinent here to enquire: For, we are now onelyonly 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. OnelyOnly, it ſhall not be amiſs to ſee, upon what reaſon our Divines thus interpret the word of juſtifying, by making righteous; That acception of the word in Scripture, being ſo rare, that ſcarce in any other place it is found: Their reaſon is this, becauſe the word, when it is taken, to acquit, can in no wiſe fit this place; becauſe the Lord profeſſeth ſo often, He will not juſtifie the wicked, in this ſenſe ſo as to acquit him, or hold him righteous whiles he continues wicked: It ſhould ſeem therefore, that when Paul ſaith, he juſtifieth the ungodly; his meaning is, He makes him righteous that he may acquit him: But what if that ſentence of Moſes be underſtood, with the exception of the Goſpel? Except he repent, and believe the Goſpel: Surely, though the Lord profeſs, He will not clear the the wicked, Exod. 34.7.that are impenitently ſuch; yet we know he teſtifieth in the ſame place, that he will forgive tranſgreſſion, iniquity, and ſinne, to the penitent, and believing.
The laſt thus: God juſtifieth the ungodly, Cajetan.by remitting his ſins; or, in that, that he forgiveth him his ſinnes: But, Is this true? doth God forgive the ſins of the ungodly?
Anſw. Though not to an ungodly man, continuing in his ungod lineſs; yet to an ungodly man, that ceaſeth to be ungodly, Iſa. 1.18, &c. as they all do that believe in Chriſt, for faith purifieth the heart, not onelyonly 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 onelyonly damning ſin is infidelity; inſomuch as if infidelity were not, no ſin ſhould be imputed to condemnation.
But thus far of the firſt argument againſt juſtification by Works, drawn from the example of Abraham. The reſt of this Verſe hath been already explained, ad verſ. 3.