AN ANTIDOTE AGAINST ERROUR, Concerning JUSTIFICATION. OR, The True Notion of JUSTIFICATION, and of JUSTIFYING FAITH, CLEARED By the light of Scripture, and solid Reason, from several Mistakes of the words: which Mis­apprehensions prove the seeds of Dangerous Errours.

By the late Reverend and Learned Divine, THOMAS GATAKER of Pious Memory. In a Discourse on Rom. 3. 28. too precious to be buried in Obscurity.

To which is added, The Way of Truth and Peace: OR, A Reconciliation of the holy Apostles, S. PAVL and S. JAMES, CONCERNING

Justification
  • By Faith without works, Rom. 3. 28.
  • By Works, and not by Faith only, Jam. 2. 21, 24.

By Charles Gataker, Rector of Hoggeston in the County of Bucks.

LONDON: Printed by J. C. for Henry Brome, at the Gun neer the west-end of S. Pauls. 1670.

Imprimatur.

Rob. Grove, R. P. Dno Episc. Lond. à Sacris Domest.

To the Right Honourable, CHARLES Earl of Carnarvon, Lord Dormer, Viscount Ascot, Baron of Wing, and Master of his Majesties Hawks.

My Lord,

THe whole Designe of this Dedication, as to the Ground and End of it, is so clearly transparent to those who know, how Gods Providence hath set me, a weak Labourer in the Lords Vineyard, to work under the shadow of your Lordships protection, that it is a superfluous waste of words and time, to defend the presumption of this Address, which, without mine Apologie, may be reasonably taken for a just expression of my duty. It were moreover an unpardonable tres­pass against your Lordships quick Apprehension, whose vigorous spirit is active and piercing in the observing of Occurrents, if I should make a te­dious Harangue, to discover mine intentions in thus testifying the sense I have, both of the com­mon benefit, which I enjoy together with other sons of the Prophets, who dwell in safety under the sheltring and refreshing shade of your Lord­ships [Page] Patronage, and also of those peculiar obli­gations laid upon me by your Lordships singular favour, the repetition whereof in particular were impertinent, but my publick acknowledgement in general is as decent, as my private remembrance of them is perpetually and indispensably requi­site. I have onely a minde to wish, that the pro­duct of my own Soyl, which I pay as tribute un­to your Lordship, were as agreeable for the work­manship to the divine matter which I handle, as the discourse it self is proper, and (as I humbly conceive) suitable to your Lordships pious incli­nation. For I cannot with silence pass by, what I have seen with huge satisfaction; that as your Lordship hath had a share in Timothy's happiness, in knowing the holy Scriptures from a childe, 2 Tim. 3. 15. which are able to make Thee wise unto salvation: so It hath grown in knowledge, by the advantage of Gods special endowment, a capacious and te­nacious Memory. It is also a blessed and plea­sing Rarity, that in an Age of men sadly degene­rate into Atheism, who endeavour to forget that they are Gods off-spring, and would fain be ta­ken for the Mushrooms of Chance, and are not onely sunk below Beasts in enormous sensuality, but also fallen beyond the apostasie of the Devils in absurd Incredulity, with a perverse ingratitude denying the Lord that bought them, and with a sottish insolencie denying the God that made them; your Lordship in the midst of this corrupt and crooked generation hath continued sted­fast and unmoveable in the belief and profession of the general Principles of Religion, upon which [Page] as a sure Basis all Justice and Civility are founded, and particularly of the Doctrine declared and e­stablished by the Church of England, with an e­qual aversion from Atheistical profaneness, and from new-fangled pretensions to Religion.

Some have observed of us Islanders, that we are very apt to vary our Fashions, and have ascribed our Inconstancie to the changeable temper of our Air, and the unstable complexion of our Climate. I wish our Country-men were not as vainly, and that more dangerously fickle in altering the Opi­nions of their Religion, as they are mutable in the habit and mode of their Apparel. I am sure the fault of this flitting and shifting humour is not chargeable upon the Stars, Skie, Air, or other Ele­ments, which are all the innocent creatures of a good God, and uneffective upon the wills of men. But the shame and misery will light heavie at last upon these unballasted mindes, unstable souls, unwary followers of cunning seducers, or itching affecters of novelty, who delight to wander, but forsake their own mercy, while they trust in lying vanities. To prevent the going astray, or being misled from the way of Truth, and peace of con­science which depends thereon, in one main point of Christian Religion, I have published a Piece of my Father of pious memory; which tho imper­fect, because a mortal disease cut off the thred of his meditation first, and shortly after of his life, drawn forth to fourscore years within a few weeks; yet is (as I suppose) a very useful Foun­dation, on which any Christian exercised in the study of Scripture, may build the same super­structure, [Page] which the Author would have raised, if God had granted him a little longer use of light.

To this I have subjoyned a short Discourse of mine own composure, tending to the explication of S. Paul and S. James their doctrine concerning Justification, for the removal of a stone of offence, the seeming contrariety between the blessed A­postles, which some weak Christians have stum­bled at, and some scoffing enemies of Christiani­ty have taken up, to cast at the head, and wound (if it were possible) the credit of the Gospel. And I hope that the precious Relick premised will adde weight and value to mine Offering, which I tender in all humility first as a Peace-offering to the Church of God; and I present it to your Lordship as a cluster of that Vineyard, whereof I am an unworthy Dresser: devoutly praying that your Lordships benign influence on the Lords in­heritance may be recompensed from on high, with the plentiful distillation of all blessings upon your Lordship, and your Lordships whole Family most worthy of Honour; to which I am resolved, as well as engaged, to remain in all faithful obser­vance,

My Lord,
Your Honours most devout Orator, and most humble Servant, CHARLES GATAKER.

THE PREFACE To the Christian Reader.

BEcause I stand accountble for the increase of Books when the world seems to be overcharged already with the number and bulk of them, even to the wearying of the Readers flesh and spirit; I desire thee with candour to receive this brief Account of my publication of these ensuing Treatises.

The God of truth and of peace (which two Titles are the most resplendent Gems in the Crown of Gods glorious Attributes) hath commanded us to embrace and maintain with e­qual love and zeal the Truth and Peace. zech. 8. 19 Since also both these are the Legacies of our blessed Saviour, bequeathed to his Church by his Testament, sealed with his bloud; certainly every sincere Chri­stian is concerned in both;2 Cor. 4. 1. but the stevvards of the mysteries of God are yet more deeply engaged in the preservation or restaura­tion of both, to their utmost ability. At present, our amazing and distressing thoughts are great for the divisions of Reuben, Judg. 5. 15. (to use the words of Deborah) and the spiritual flames of dissention which (like the late dreadful Fire in the Citie) devour the strength and beauty of our Church, call for the assistance of all hands to quench them. But as in a Conflagration, while some labour to repress the violence, or stop the course of the spreading Fire, others are employ­ed to guard the Goods, and, while they stand with aking hearts for the Calamity, do good service in perserving their neighbours as well as their own Goods from perishing or plunder: so while my Brethren, the blessed sons of peace, are hard at work, in drawing water out of the ever-living spring, the Scripture, which plentifully affords the Word of truth and peace, and applying the same for the allaying of [Page] these consuming flames, (whose endeavours for the peace of Jeru­salem I pray God to prosper) I have undertaken to preserve and re­seue an important Truth concerning Justification, from the attempts made by same to corrupt or obscure this heavenly doctrine. That I might discharge my fidelity in securing the Apostolical doctrine a­vouched by the Church of England from a dangerous blow offered at it, by raising an Objection out of S. James against S. Paul, and then (because Christians are concerned neither to set, nor to leave the holy Apostles at oddes one with another) going about to recon­cile them in an unsound way, to the prejudice of Religion it self; I did lately on a just occasion frame a short Discourse for mine own satisfaction, and for the instruction of others. For I conceive my self, tho by many degrees inferiour to Timothy, yet in some measure to lie under S. Paul's double charge to him, [...] Tim. 6. 20▪ first [...], to keep the precious truth committed to my trust, and then what I have been sufficiently taught and assured of,2 Tim. 2▪ 2. to commit the same unto faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. Thus far I allow Tradition of the faith once delivered to the Saints, tho it be not infallible, unchangeable, and incorruptible, either by the course of nature, or by the promise of grace to any particular Race or Succession of men, yet to be a duty required of Ministers, and a means to propagate the Truth; whether that delivery be transact­ed by word of mouth, which is transient, or by writing, which is permanent, as now I transmit, what I have received. For I count it a special instance of Gods gracious providence to me, not onely that I was born of a Parent eminent for Learning and Piety (the Honour I owe my Father will free me from the guilt of vanity in this modest celebration of his Memory) but also in this, that I was well acquainted with his Doctrine, and particularly in this Head concerning Justification, which he had discussed with a piercing rea­son, and explicated with a happie perspicuity; not leaning to his own understanding, but after an examination of an innumerable variety of Writers on this Argument, making the language of Scri­pture in the common sense of the words the Rule of his Judgment and speaking, that he might speak as the oracles of God. By this religious observing the form of vvholesome vvords, 1 Pet. 4. 11▪ he did dis­entangle to▪ Truth from many thorny Controversies, which have been raised impertinently, but agitated with much heat, to the in­jury of Truth and Peace.

[Page] In the year of our Lord 1640, April 19. he began in the course of his Ministery to unfold that portion of Scripture, Rom. 3. 28. and in process of time, by Gods assistance accomplished his intended explication of the entire Doctrine concerning Justification, with that accurateness of Method, solidity of Reason, and elearness of expression, which was usual to him in such a weighty Argument, and very satisfactory to his judicious Auditors. The rude draughts of his Meditations be kept by him, and they are yet extant. He was urged often to publish them; but according to his modest declining appearance in publike, he was averse from printing what he had preached with a chearful freedom of speech. At last, not so much the importunity of friends, as the love of Truth, which he pitied to see not onely opposed by Old Adversaries, but also assaulted by up­start Enemies, and in danger to be smothered in a crowd of new­fangled Errours, qickned him to set upon a new Work, to recollect his loose Papers, to revise his Notes, to new-model his Treatise, and to fit it for the publick benefit of the Church to posterity. But the Lord had measured his task and his time. An Ague, which turned shortly to a violent and mortal Fever, was the messenger that sum­moned him, and diverted him from communicating his conceptions to the Church,A. D. 1654. to the resigning of his spirit to God. This Piece, tho unfinished, I cannot well permit to perish in the dust: And I publish it now while I have opportunity, (for I am also hasting to the land of forgetfulness) because I conceive it hugely useful to the advance­ment and clearing of the Truth, to the determining of many Con­troversies, which would be easily resolved, if the sense of words, a­bout which men are apt to wrangle, were understood and agreed on, and to the direction of the considering Reader in the way to a good understanding in this Cardinal Point of Christian Religion. For such is igneus vigor, the fiery temper, (as Virgil says) of the hea­ven-born Soul, that a small hint given to an active nimble minde, is like a spark falling on sulphury matter, which is sufficient to light a Candle, or to kindle a Fire, for the enlightning and warming the whole house. So this spark of doctrine communicated to receptive understandings, and cherished with Meditation, may prove a hap­pie introduction to a bright and lasting light of Truth. And it may be accounted no small benefit, that the Author, who intended to do more service for the houshold of faith, did (what his time allowed [Page] him) out of the hard flint strike fire for others to make use of, and to improve. But,Greg. Naz. some will be ready to say, [...] mine affection blindes and transports me. And tho my over-valuing kind­dess for this Fragment may be justifiable by my Relation to the Au­thor, yet I am both too nearly interested to judge [...], sincerely and impartially, and too meanly qalified, to sway other mens judg­ments by mine estimation. I confess all this, and am so far from presuming that I can any ways adde any lustre to my father of pious memory, that I fear, lest this very Work of his be sullied, when it is offered to the world by mine hands. I do therefore invite the Reader onely by the assurance, that this was a Piece of his last un­dertaking, and so having set up this Taper, I let it shine by its own light. So much for the former Treatise, to which in good manners I have given the precedence before mine own.

And of the latter I shall say little besides what I have already intimated. It was a proud Fancie and Motto of one, who being raised from an obscure original, took himself to be the sole Engineer and Artificer of his own Fortune,Dan. 4. 30. like Nebuchadnezzar ascribing his estate to his own Wit and Power for the erecting it, and there­fore gave for his Devise in a Shield, a Spider in the center of a cu­rious Web spun out of his own bowels, with this word, Mihi soli debeo, insinuating that he was indebted to none but himself. I am very far from the arrogancie and ambition of being deemed [...], or to have drawn out my little knowledge by my mine own sole industry. Tho I acknowledge God to be the fountain of wisdom, as he is the Father of lights, and therefore I desire to be taught of God; [...]. yet it will not misbecome me to acknowledge that my fathers instruction, in this point especially of Justification, was the Conduit-pipe whereby I have derived what I now profess from the holy Scripture. For upon the Word of God in Scripture, and not upon the Tradition of my Father, (how learned soever, yet not infallible) do I ground my Faith. But as it is a piece of ingenuity to acknowledge by whom we profit in knowledge, so it is in me a duty of filial respect to confess, that I am indebted to my Father a­lone for that excellent Observation, which was to me Indictum ore alio, unheard-of from any other mouth, concerning the different Questions or Cases in S. Paul and S. James, which after him I have now propounded as a fair way to reconcile the holy Apostles. And [Page] because this hath not been so fully and generally observed, it may now also appear new to others, and on that score suffer contradicti­on, as Christianity it self at the first appearance was rejected for no­velty, tho (as St. Augustine says of it,Aug. de ci­vit. I. 22. c. 7. and I may say the same of this particular) it was Veritas nova consuetudini, non contra­ria rationi; it was a Truth new indeed to custom, but not contrary to reason. I desire therefore the Christian Reader to be so just, as to examine the Discourse with sobriety, before he cast it awaey with scorn; and to be so civil, as to give me leave in an Age too ambitious of latitude and liberty, to enjoy my desired freedom of adhering to the Doctrine of the Church of England, and choosing such a way of Reconciliation as preserves the Truth as well as Peace.

But if any being sensible of some reflexion in my Discourse upon his own Opinion, and impatient of controul, grow so froward, as when he is unwilling to be convinced, and unable to convince me of Errour, (I mean at least in the main matter of my Discourse) he shall go about to raise dark and groundless suspicious against the Author, and in stead of Reasons to disprove his Opinion, cast forth Reproaches to disparage his person; I shall onely say of my Writings; as Ovid did of his Verses, ‘Judicio poterant candidiore Legi;’ they might have been read with a more candid judgement. One Caution more I hope will be taken in good part, That the Reader will not be so dis-ingenuous, as to endeavour to weaken the credit of an Orthodox Doctrine of our Church, which hath no affinity with Se­cular interests, because it hath been asserted by some, that have sow­ed the seeds of Sedition and Schism among us; or to blast the re­putation of his brother who maintains both the Doctrine and Dis­cipline of the Church of England, Philo Jud. Just. Mart. Origen, &c. [...], as the Greek Wri­ters speak, with might and main, as occasion requires, because the Schismaticks (some, not all) are of the same opinion in this point. It were unjustly done, and would be unkindly taken, if any one that holds some disputable point of Divinity in common with the Jesu­ites, should for that accidental concurrence in an Opinion, which is out of distance from things of State and Government, be therefore charged as teinted with the poysonous principles of Rebellion and [Page] Regicide, wherewith the Schools of the Jesuites are deeply infected. And it is yet more unreasonable, that the defence of an important point of Christianity common to men of different Perswasions, be wrested by a Dissenter to breed an ill opinion of the defendant; as if he that defends the Justification of a sinner by Faith onely, must needs be confederate with Rebels and Schismaticks, in denying obe­dience and submission to the Powers sacred in Church and State, which are Gods immediate Ordinances.

But why do I (will some say) surmise that any man can or will be so absurd?

I wish heartily that none were, or be so. But I see too much of this indirect dealing and foul play in the practice of Gladiatory. It is enough, that I would (if possible) prevent the like collateral strokes, when the contending for the Faith exposes me to danger. I will detain my Reader no longer; whom I desire to receive with the right hand, that which is offered with the right hand, and a hearty prayer withal, that God give thee a right understanding in all things.

Thine in the Lord, CHARLES GATAKER.

An Antidote against ERROUR, concerning Justification, &c.

THe Apostle Paul, the undoubted Autor of this E­pistle, tho he made use of another man, one Ter­tius, chap. 16. 22. for the engrossing of it, as Je­remie did Baruk for the writing out of his Pro­phecies, Jer. 36. 4, 18. as he saith of himself, and that qestionles most trulie, in regard of the rest of his copartners in the Apostleship, that he laboured in the exe­cution of that his Office more abundantlie then they all, 1 Cor. 15. 10. so in this particular employment of labouring to instruct and edifie the Churches and faithful people, not onely that then were, but that ar in being at this day, (for unto us are his wri­tings now also beneficial, as-well as they were unto those that then lived, and unto whom they were directed, being intend­ed for a more general good, Chap. 15. 4. 2. Petr. 3. 15.) by wri­ting to them, when he could not be personallie present with them, the same may not without good ground be averred. For we have twice as many more of his Epistles extant at this day, I say not, then of anie one severallie, but then of all his fellow-Apostles joyntlie put together, if that to the Hebrews at least be granted to be his, as by most it is deemed. And yet that he wrote more then have come to our hands, it seems evidentlie to appeer. Nor do I speak of those counter­feit ones that have ben thrust out under his name, those to Se­neca, which Jerome yet attributes too much unto; or that to the Laodiceans, which Stapulensis hath inserted into the body of Pauls Epistles, grounding upon a mistake and mis-interpre­tation [Page 2] of the Apostles words, Coloss. 2. 16. But of one written to the Corinthians before that which we now generallie call the First, himself makes expres mention, 1 Cor. 5. 9. which were it now extant, being written to an whole Church for direction of their demeanure in matter of Church-discipline, would no doubt be as Authentical and Canonical, as that to Philemon, whether a Minister of the Gospel, or an eminent Christian one­lie, about a private busines, the reception of Onesimus his fugi­tive servant.

Now as this our Apostles Epistles are set before those of the rest, James, Peter, John and Jude: so this to the Romans stands in the front, or the first place of his, so disposed by those, who at first gathered the Epistles, then commonlie had and acknow­ledged, together into one Volume, and digested them in that order as now we have them, and which we finde to have ben from time to time ever since generally observed. The reason whereof I conceiv to have ben, not because it was the first that the Apostles wrote: for as those that gathered together the Ser­mons of some of the Prophets, so those that compiled the main Body of these Epistles, did not observ that order in marshalling of them wherein they were written; and it is justly deemed from that passage, Chap. 15. 25, 26. that this Epistle was writ­ten later then some of those that here ensu: nor yet do I con­ceiv it to have gained this precedencie so much, as some other have supposed, in regard of the pre-eminence and soveraign­tie of the place to which it was written, being at that time the hed-Citie of the whole Romane Empire, and the seat of the Emperors constant residence; but principallie rather in regard of the eminencie and excellencie, yea deep profunditie of the Mysteries of the Gospel, more fullie and largelie therein deli­vered then in anie other of them, I may boldlie say; what if I should say, in all the rest of them, were they all put togi­ther? Ad we may hereunto, that the points herein discussed and debated ar pursued and prosecuted with that nervositie of argument and vivacitie of spirit, and the limbs and joynts of the whole discours so aptlie knit togither and artificially rivet­ted into one another,Jo. Picus Count of Miran­dula. that that noble Italian Earl so much re­nowned for his varietie of Lerning, sharpnes of insight, and [Page 3] soundnes of judgement, that he was deemed the Miracle of the Age he lived, in, is reported to have said, that all the humane writings of lerned men & great Schollers that ever he had seen and read, seemed to him in comparison of this one our Apostles Master-piece, as he esteemed it, tanqam scopae dissolutae, as it is in the Proverb, but as besomes without bands.

The main Body of the Epistle divides it self into two parts.

The former part is Dogmatical or Doctrinal, spent mosdie in opening, cleering and confirming the Doctrine concerning the Redemption and Salvation of Mankinde by Christ. Chap. 1—11.

The latter part is Practical or Parenetical, consisting of ma­nie Rules and Directions for the ordering aright of a Christian mans life. Chap. 12. ad finem.

In handling the Doctrine of mans Redemption and Salva­tion by Christ, he layeth down and lays open,

I. The principal parts and branches of it: to wit,

1. Justification, whereby we are freed from the guilt of sin, the condemning power of it, and stand reputed as just in Gods sight. Chap. 1—5.

2. Sanctification, whereby we are clensed from the filth, and commanding power of sin, and have the image of God renew­ed again in us. Chap. 6, 7, and part of 8.

3. Adoption, by vertu whereof we have right to the heaven­ly inheritance. Chap. 8. 13—16.

4. Glorification, whereby we ar put in full possession and fruition of it. Chap. 8. 17. ad finem.

II. The original ground and root from whence all this springs and hath its rise, Gods free Election and Predestina­tion to Grace and Glory, obviouslie propounded, Chap. 8. 29, 30. purposelie prosecuted, Chap. 9—11.

Now because those former are effects and fruits of these lat­ter, and as the root of a plant, and foundation of a fabrick, ly usually out of sight under ground, but the shoots and branches of the one, and the frame of the edifice with the other rise a­bove ground and offer themselvs unto view, so Election and Predestination ly hid of themselvs, and cannot be descried and [Page 4] discovered of us concerning our selvs save by their effects and fruits; the Apostles according to the Rule, a notioribus inchoan­dum, he begins with the former, that thereby as by streams is­suing and flowing down from a spring we may ascend up to the wel-hed, or as by tracing the cours and decurs of a river running down into the Sea, we may be directed unto that brim­les and bottomles Ocean of Gods goodnes, from whence as they had their first rise, so they ar to return and emptie them­selvs into, his glorie being their ultimate end. Chap. 11. 36.

Again, because the apprehension of guilt and wrath is that which is wont most to affright men; nor can there be anie tru peace or sound comfort of ought to a soul, until the discharge thereof he obtained; the Apostle therefore in the first place en­treats of that Branch of Justification, whereby men may be freed from and discharged of that guilt; and makes that the first subject-matter of his Discours; having artificiallie linked it to the later end and close of his Saluation; wherein he had (as the manner of Orators is) endeavoured to insinuate himself into the hearts and minds of those to whom he wrote this Epi­stle, by declaration of his love and affection to them, that the doctrine delivered in it might take the better with them. Chap. 1. vers. 7—15.

Now the onelie means of Justification he affirms to be by Faith in Christ, vers. 16, 17. which to cleer and confirm, he en­deavours to shew that all mankind standing of themselvs guiltie of sin in Gods sight, are therefore liable to wrath.

This to make good, he divides the whole race of mankind into two ranks, Gentiles and Jews.

1. Concerning the Gentiles he prooves that they ar so, from the light of nature, reveiling a Deitie to them, and his wrath against sin; the substance of his Law engraven in their hearts, and the testimonie of their own conscience accusing them of the breach of that Law, so that they carie about with them & with­in them, both a Law whereby they ar to be tried, so that they can not pretend ignorance, and a witnes, who when time shal come, wil give in such evidence against them, that they shal not be able to plead not guiltie. Chap. 1. 18. to 2. 16.

2. Concerning the Jews, who would easilie yeeld it of the [Page 5] Gentiles, but not of themselvs, who they deemed might be sufficientlie cleered, either by the works of the Moral, or rites of the Law ceremonial, he proves the self same, from those hai­nous sinnes that the writings of their own Prophets charge them withal, Chap. 2. 17. to 3. 19. And the force of the Apostles argument (not so commonlie observed) seems herein to con­sist, that if sinne of all sorts were so rife and so rank among that people, who had the greatest light to inform them of the nature and haynousnes of sin, and the strongest means to courb and restrain it in them, it must needs argu an universal corrup­tion and depravation of mans nature, and a very sinful disposi­tion in the whole race of mankind.

Hence the Apostle inferres, drawing all that he had before delivered to an hed, that the whole world, consisting, of Gen­tile and Jew, stands guiltie of sin in Gods sight, Chap. 3. 19. and consequentlie, that no man, be he Jew or Gentile, if he come to be araigned, as a sinner at Gods Tribunal, and there tried by Gods Law, whither written or inbred, can be justified by his works, vers. 20.

Thus having remooved the wrong means of the Justificati­on of a sinner in Gods sight, he proceedeth to establish the right. And that is by such means onelie as God out of his free favor and grace hath assigned: now the means by God as­signed, are the satisfaction to Gods Justice made by Christ with his bloud, and Faith on mans part apprehending and re­lying on him and it. Vers. 21—27.

In prosecution whereof the Apostle layeth down the main causes and means of Mans Justification.

1. The contriving or designing cause, God, vers. 25.

2. The procuring and producing cause, Christ, vers. 24.

3. The purchasing or meritorious cause on Christs part, the ransome paid, vers. 24. and satisfaction therby made with his bloud, vers. 25.

4. The instrumental cause on mans part apprehending him and it, Faith, vers. 25.

5. The impulsive cause of the thing done in general, Gods free favor and meer mercie, vers. 24.

6. The impulsive cause of doing it in this manner and by these means;

[Page 6] 1. The manifestation of Justice, vers. 26. on Gods part.

2. The exclusion of Gloriation on Mans part, vers. 27. 1 Cor. 1. 29-31.

There followeth lastlie hereupon in the words of my Text the Main and Apostolical Determination of the Principal Point, containing in it the Summe and Substance of all; and that tan­qam è cathedra, in a Doctoral manner, peremtorilie delivered, as by necessarie and irrefragable consecution from the premisses resulting;

We conclude therefore that a man is justified by Faith without the Works of the Law.

In the opening whereof to proceed the more closelie and cleerlie, and to remoov such rubs and scruples as we shall meet with in the way, we shall take into consideration these fower heds;

1. What is ment here by the word Justified.

2. What Faith it is by which we ar said to be Justified.

3. How by this Faith man is said to be Justified.

4. How by Faith to be Justified without Works.

For the first of these, what is here ment by the word Justi­fie; or what it is to Justifie, and how the word is here taken, I shal in the first place examine, and endevor to remoov some sen­ses or meanings of the word given by divers, whom I conceiv to be mistaken: and in the next place deliver and endevor to assert what I take to be the right.

Of those whom herein I conceiv to be mistaken, some there are that give the word Justifie here a single, some that give it a double sense.

Of the former sort, to wit, of those that give it a single sense there are two classes or ranks.

The one is of those, who would have the word Justifie here signifie, to make reallie, inherentlie, habituallie, formallie just: that which we commonlie according to the usual phrase of Scripture ar wont to term, to sanctifie, or to make holie. For Justice or Righteousnes, and Sanctitie or Holines, taken in the largest sense, (when not opposed either to other, or where not distinguished either from other) seem both one and the same, [Page 7] and signifie goodnes in general. as Job. 1. 1. Matth. 5. 20, 33. and elswhere.

Thus the Fathers of that Tridentine Councel or Conventicle rather, after many windings and turnings, and ambiguous pas­sages, seem at length to pitch upon; when thus they conclude, Session 6. de Justificat. cap. 7. Vnica Justificationis formalis caussa est Justitia Dei, non qa ipse justus est, sed qa nos justos facit, qa videlicet ab eo donati, renovamur spiritu mentis nostrae, & non solum reputamur, sed vere justi nominamur & sumus, &c. The onlie formal cause of Justification, is the Righteousnes of God, not whereby he is righteous, but whereby he maketh us righteous, to wit, wherewith being by him endowed, we ar renewed in the spirit of our mind, and become not reputed onely, but ar named and ar indeed trulie righteous, receiving righteousnes each one in himself, according to that degree, which the Holie Ghost imparts to each at his pleasure. And Bellarmine therefore (whatsoever he or they seem to say elsewhere) de Justificat. lib. 2. cap 2. maintains this to be the meaning of the Councel there, Formalem causam justifi­cationis esse justitiam inherentem: That the formal cause of Justifi­cation is inherent righteousness. And hence Suarez entituleth his Books, wherein he debates the point of Justification, De Sancti­ficatione, Of Sanctification. Hence that distinction so rife with Popish writers, taken from that place of the Councel of Trent before mentioned, and of which also Bellarmine de Justificat. l. 1. c. 1. concerning a first and a second Justification. Illa qa ex impio justus, ista qa ex justo justior fit. A first, whereby a man is of a bad man made good; a second, whereby he is of a good man made better. The former whereof they say is done by an in­fusion of grace inherent, the latter by exercise of such grace so infused. Which indeed are no other but two degrees of that which we usuallie, and more fitlie, term Sanctification, the one the beginning, the other the growth and progress of it. 1 Pet, 1. 22, 23. and 2. 2 2 Pet. 3. 18.

Now tru it is, 1. That it we respect the Notation or Ori­ginal of the word Justifie, it should signifie to make just, as San­ctifie, to make holie. But if we regard the common use of it, it no more so imports, then as Sanctifie used of God, doth to make holie▪ or magnifie in common use of speech to make great. And [Page 8] it is the Ordinarie use of words, not their Original without it, that must carrie it, and determine what they do import, and how they ar to be understood.

2. It is not improbable that the Hebrew and Greek words which the Latine word Justificare (tho not found in any Classi­cal Author) and our English Justifie, verie rife with us, seem to answer) are sometime, tho verie seldome, taken in Scripture for to make a man inherentlie or habituallie just by a good qalitie in­fused or wrought into him. so Dan. 12. 3. the Hebrew word [...] word for word Justificantes, as Junius and Pagnine render it; or qi justificant, as Calvin; qi justificaverint, as Piscator. that is, as he expounds it, crudientes ad justitiam; such as by instruction bring men to righteousnes; or as our English hath it, convert men to righteousnes: and Calvin therefore is of the mind that [...] and [...] in that place; tho being terms of a divers notion, yet do design the same persons; ex­pounding also the former of them not passively or habituallie, docti, sapientes, or intelligentia praediti, as some do, whom our English following renders it, those that be wise, but as in an active sens (which the form of it requires and the word [...] in the titles of divers Psalms seems to import) doctores, sive e­rudientes, as Piscator also renders it, those that teach and instruct, and by teaching and instructing make men wise, bring them to tru wisdom. So Revel. 22. 11. the Greek word [...], word for word, justificetur, as the next also to it, [...] sanctificetur, seems to be taken in the like manner, whether the particle [...] as implieing continuance onlie be rendred there adhuc as Beza, and our English stil, or as implieing a further growth also, be rendred amplius as Piscator, and Junius in his annotation, magis ac magis, more and more, for the word wil admit either: the whole series of the context seems to carrie it strongly this way, He that deals unjustlie, let him deal stil unjustlie, and he that is filthie, let him stil be filthie, and he that is just, let him stil be just, or be more just; and he that is holie, let him be stil holie, or more holie. Sanctitati amplius studeat, Piscat. as in way of antithesis or opposition, [...] answers to [...] to [...] to [...] to [...], so again on the other side [...] in a fit and apt corre­spondencie [...] answers to [...] tho in a notion di­stinct. And these I conceiv ar the onlie two places in Scrip­ture, [Page 9] where the term of Justifying or those answering it, is thus used.

3. It cannot be denied, but that some of the Antient Fathers have expounded the word [...] in some passages of this our Apostle in the same sens that these men do. So Chrysostom in his eighth Sermon on this Epistle, expounds it in Rom. 4. 5. [...]. he that justifieth the ungodlie, that is, saith he, doth [...]. of ungodlie make him just. So Augustine Ep. 120. c. 20. and in Joan. tract. 3. Qi justificat impius; hoc est, impio facit pium. He that justifies the ungodlie, that is, of ungodlie makes him godlie. And on Psalm 30. Serm. 1. Qis est qi justificat impium? qi facit ex impio justum. Who is it, that justifies the ungodlie? he that makes him of ungodlie just. And serm. 3. Si justificatur impius, ex impio fit justus. If the ungodlie be justified, he is of ungodly made just. Wherein howsoever, I suppose, they misse the right sens of the word in that place, yet their meaning seems sound, to wit, that where God pardons sin, there he purgeth it out too, and that Faith infused purifies the heart, and enableth a man to live righteouslie: and that everie justified person, is sanctified also. so Chrysostom expreslie expounds himself in that place, [...]. That God is able sodainlie not onlie to free a man from penaltie that hath lived in impietie, but to make him righteous too. And Augustine in his in­choate Exposition of this Epistle; Venit gentibus justificatio fidei in Christo, non ut qia justi erant crederent, sed ut credendo justifica­ti, deinceps juste vivere inciperent. Justification of or by Faith in Christ came unto the Gentiles, not that they might believ because they were just, but that by beleiving being justified, or made just, they might thenceforth begin to live justlie.

4. It is a certain and undeniable truth indeed, that all tru believers may be said to be Justified, taking the word Justi­fie in that sens, wherein it imports habitual or inherent righte­ousnes: for all that ar Justified, are also sanctified, 1 Cor. 6. 11. and Christ is made as well sanctification as righteousnes to all those that have interest in him, 1 Cor. 1. 30. Having the Image of God consisting in tru holines and righteousnes reformed and restored in them, Eph. 4. 23, 24. Col. 3. 10. And growing up therein with growths of God, Eph. 4. 15, 16. Col. 2. 19. Whence it is that Abel is called righteous Abel, Math. 23. 35. [Page 10] and Noa a just man in his generation, or the age he lived in, Gen. 6. 9. and Job a just man, fearing God and eschewing evil, Job 1. 1. and Zacharie and Elizabeth just in Gods sight (sin­cerelie righteous, just there where God sees, 1 Sam. 16. 7.) Walking blameleslie (not in some, and not in other some, but) in all the commandements and Ordinances of God, Luke 1. 6.

But as Andradius a Papist and a stif maintainer of the do­ctrine of the Trent Conventicle, whereof also he was a member, in his Orthodox Explications (as he entitleth his work) doth wel observ, lib. 6. fol. 186. Diversae & maxime disjunctae qesti­ones sunt, An ita se res habeat, & utrum ex vocis significatione concludi recte possit. They are two divers and far different qesti­ons, how the things themselves are, and what may be concluded rightlie from the signification of a word, or what it is, that is thereby intimated.

Now that this cannot be the sense and meaning of the word Justifie in this place, it is apparent enough.

For 1. the qestion is here, how a man being a sinner, a trans­gresser, a wicked, an ungodlie one, may come to be justified and discharged of his sins, and acqitted of them at Gods tribunal, Chap. 3. 19, 23. and 4. 5. and 5. 6, 8. and the justification here delt in consequentlie such a justification whereby may be procured a discharge from the guilt of fore passed delinqencies, vers. 25. But this cannot be attained or procured by such a justification as they would have here understood, to wit, by sanctification or inherent holines and righteousnes. For (to let pas the defectiveness of it while we live here) have we never so much of it, and do we never so much with it, it is no more all then du debt, we ow it now to God, as well as formerlie we did, Luk. 17. 10. Rom. 8. 12. 1 Joh. 2. 6. And the payment of one part of a debt wil in no reason discharge a man of the non-payment of an other part; it would be a verie selie and so­rie plea for a tenant sued by his Landlord for the arrear of his rent wherewith for manie yeers past he is behind hand, to plead that he had some qarter or two begun now to pay him, and en­tended thence forward to do it.

2. The justification here spoken of concerns the guilt of sin and the removal of it, vers. 9. 19. as Psal. 103. 12. Whereas [Page 11] such justification as they would have here entended, being no o­ther then sanctification, respects not the guilt, but the filth of sin: the justification here spoken of is of acts of sin past, vers. 23, 24. sanctification is of the present inherent corruption, Ephes. 4. 22, 23.

3. The justification here handled is opposed to crimination and condemnation, Chap. 8. 33, 34. Whereas sanctification is no way opposed unto either of them, but to pollution, corrup­tion, and contamination, 2 Cor. 7. 1. Heb. 9. 13, 14.

4. The Apostle handles these two branches of mans restituti­on from his natural condition apart. As he doth apparentlie distinguish them elswhere. ye ar sanctified, ye ar justified, 1 Cor. 6. 11. so here he handles them distinctlie and severallie, justifi­cation by it self, in Chap. 3, 4 and 5. and sanctification by it self, in Chap. 6 and 7.

And thus much may suffice for the removal of their notion, who would have the word justifie here signifie, to make habitu­allie or inherientlie just.

2. Others would have the word justifie here to import nothing els but to pardon, to remit, to forgive sin, and conseqentlie main­tain justification to consist wholie and entirelie in remission of sins. This divers Protestant writers stiffie maintain, among whom Piscator most directlie and largelie against Eglinus and Lucius, and Wotton in the second Book of the first part of his prolix Treatise of Justification.

And tru it is, 1. that not onlie some of the Antients seem so to say.

And Bernard Epist. 190. Qid est ipsa (peccatorum remissio) nisi Justificatio? What is remission of sinnes it self, but justification? And manie Orthodox Divines of later times ar produced as speaking somewhat to the same purpose, (see Wotton of Justif. part. 1. lib. 2. cap. 3. 6.) who yet by their discourses elswhere seem to have ben otherwise minded, however in eagerness of opposi­tion to that Popish Tenent of justification by inherent righteousnes, sometime they so speak: nor doth the exclusive particle used by them seem to intend anie more then to debarre and keep out the collation of grace inherent or the exercise of it from having [Page 12] anie place or office allowed them in the justification of a sinner, that which Bellarmine himself ingenuouslie acknowledgeth of Calvin, who is most of anie qoted and urged by the Patrones of this Opinion as concurring therein with them. See Wotton where above, Chap. 4. throughout. And Bellarmine of justifica­tion, lib. 2. Chap. 1. Who also himself in his disputes concern­ing Penance, lib. 1. Cap. 10. hath let slip these words, the same with Bernards above, Qid est peccatorum remissio nisi justificatio? What is remission of sins but justification? and yet is far from holding justification to consist wholie and entirelie in a bare re­mission of sinnes.

2. It is no les tru, that justification and remission of sinnes go alwaies togither, and ar never sundred in Gods dealing with those whom he accepts of and is reconciled unto in Christ, Act. 13. 31, 39. Chap. 3. 25. and 4. 7. And that both of them re­spect the guilt of sinne.

But yet that this cannot be the genuine meaning of the word justifie, is as apparent, yea in some regard more apparent, then the former.

For 1. Neither the Hebrew word [...] or [...] used in the old Testament, nor the Greek word [...] made use of in the Greek Version of the old Testament, and from thence by the Penmen of the New, to answer thereunto: (whereas in o­ther antient Greek Autors it is never found so taken but in a far differing sense, as I have elswhere shewed at large) nor the Latine Justificare framed to expres either of them, nor our English term justifie drawn from the Latine, and in ordinarie use with us, do ever so signifie, or ar ever so taken. For the Hebrew of the old Testament, see Gen. 44. 16. Exod. 20. 7. and 23. 7. Deut. 25. 1. 2 Sam. 15. 4. 1 King. 8. 32. 2 Chron. 6. 23. Job 27. 5. and 32. 2. and 33. 32. and 40. 8. Psal. 51. 4. cited Rom. 3. 4. Psal. 82. 3. Prov. 17. 15. and 24. 24. Esay 5. 23. and 43. 9, 26. and 50. 8. alluded to Rom. 8. 33. Esay 53. 11. Jer. 3. 11. Ezek. 16. 51, 52. Dan. 8. 14. and 12. 2. Mic. 6. 11. For the Greek of the new, see Mat. 11. 19. and 12. 37. Luke 7. 29. 35. and 10. 29. and 16. 15. and 18. 14. Rom. 6. 7. 1 Cor. 4. 4. 1 Tim. 4. 16. Tit. 3. 7. [Page 13] Rev. 22. 11. Now take a view of these places (and I suppose verie few, if anie, have escaped me, wherein the term of justify­ing is found in Scripture, beside those under present debate, of Paul, Rom. 2. 13. and 3. 20, 26, 28, 30. and 4. 2, 5. and 5. 1, 9, 16, 18. 1 Cor. 6. 11. Gal. 2. 16, 17, 24. and 5. 4. Act. 13. 39. and of James 2. 21, 24, 25.) take, I say, a view of all these places, and substitute weresoever you find the term justifie, insteed of it pardon, where justification, pardoning, where justified, pardoned, and see if in any of them so rendred anie fit or convenient sense wil thence arise, yea, whether the notion in most of them wil not be verie uncouth, and not inconvenient onlie but even sensles and absurd. To instance in some few, (for to run over all would be over-tedious) read we the words of Judah to Jo­seph, Gen. 44. 16. How should we pardon our selves? read we Moses his of Judges, Deut. 25. 1. They shal pardon the righte­ous, or guiltles, and condemn the wicked, or guiltie: read we Da­vids to God, Psal. 51. 4. That thou maist be pardoned; when thou speakest. Jobs to his Friends, Job 27. 5. God forbid that I should pardon you, till I dye: Christs of wisdoms children, Mat. 11. 19. Wisdome is pardoned of her children: those of his, Mat. 12. 37. By thy words thou shalt be pardoned: those our Apostles concerning himself, 1 Cor. 4. 4. I know nothing by my self; yet am I not therefore pardoned: or concerning our Saviour, 1 Tim. 4. 16. Pardoned in the Spirit. Read, I say, these passages thus (to let the rest pas) and you shall give them a sens clear be­sides, yea far differing from, and in some of them directlie con­trarie to the mind and meaning of the persons by whome they were spoken. Herein therefore Andradius of whome be­fore, is in the right, and keeps within the bounds of truth, when he affirms in his Orthodox explications, above mentioned, lib. 6. fol. 185. That if a man examine all the places in Moses and the Prophets, where the term of justification is used, he shall scarce find anie (he might have said trulie, he shall finde none) where pardon of sin is thereby signified.

And its against reason, to reqire a term to be so taken in this our Apostles discourse in such a sense, as it is no where found used, either in holie Writ, wherein it so often oc­curres, [Page 14] or in ordinarie speech, or in anie prophane writer.

2. That the things themselvs ar divers and distinct eyther from other, it is apparent. For it is an undoubted Axiome, Qae subjecto differunt, inter se differunt. Those things that differ in Subject, that is, the one whereof may be found in some sub­ject, where the other is not, are distinct and divers one from ano­ther. But so it is with these two, remission of sin, and justificati­on. for remission may be where justification is not; and justificati­on may be, where remission is not. If a man have wronged me, I may forgive him, as David did Shimei, 2 Sam. 19. 23. and yet not justifie him in his dealings, 1 King. 2. 8, 9. And where a man is falslie accused of wrong done to another, there may he be justified, and yet nothing remitted, because no wrong at all done: so Deut. 25. 1. Psal. 51. 4. Yea in Gods dealing with the Sonnes of men, tho in regard of a mans state and condition in general, he never remittes sin, where he doth not justifie; yet in regard of some particular acts, he remittes sometime, where he justifies not. Psal. 78. 37, 38. Tho their heart was not up­right with him, (their semblance of repentance was but coun­terfeit, not sound and sincere) yet out of the abundance of his compassion he forgave their iniqitie, and destroyed them not. So far forth remitted it, as not instantlie to destroy them for it. And sometimes he justifies where he remittes not, as he did in ap­proving of Phineaz his act as a just and righteous deed, Psal. 106. 30, 31. And as he is said to justifie the Prophet Esay in the discharge of his Ministrie, Esay 50. 8. Yea, wil you see a manifest difference between these two, by an instance, that may make it plain to the meanest capacitie. A partie offends and wrongs his Neighbor, who therefore intends or attempts to follow the Law against him: if now upon the Parties own submission and bare acknowledgement of his offence, or at the mediation and entreatie of some common friend to them both, the Partie offended is content to let fall his suite, and doth free­lie forgive the wrong; here is remission, but no justification. And if by his Heir or Executor after the wrongeds decesse the Par­tie who did the wrong should be qestioned for it, he could not stand upon his justification, he could onelie plead his pardon. [Page 15] Again, say a man have wronged his Neighbor, but hath made him ful satisfaction for the wrong done him, or if not able to do it himself, hath procured some frend to do it in his behalf, and the Partie wronged having accepted thereof, doth there­upon remit it and seeks no further remedie against him for it, here the Partie that did the wrong, if he should at anie time after be qestioned for it, he may stand upon his justification, and plead not guiltie, because he can plead satisfaction made and ac­cepted: and this latter, not the former, is the verie case be­tween God and man in the justification of a sinner: satisfaction is the main ground of the justification of him, not made by him, but by Christ for him. So even the Papists themselvs in this regard sounder then the Socinians. Bellarmine de justificat. lib. 1. cap. 2. Est hoc loco breviter annotandum, Christum non esse cau­sam justificationis meritoriam, qasi Pater in gratiam sllii nobis pec­cata dimiserit, qomodo saepe reges in gratiam amicorum potentium reos absolvunt; sed qoniam pretium redemptionis exactum persol­vit, & ex rigore justitiae pro nostris omnium sceleribus satisfecit. This is (saith he) breiflie to be here observed, that Christ is not the meritorious cause of justification, as if the Father in favor of the Sonne did forgive us our sinnes, as Kings oftentimes assoil guiltie Persons out of favor to, and at the suit of frends; but because he hath paid an exact price of ransome, and thereby in rigor of justice made satisfaction for the wickednesses of us all. What could a­nie Protestant writer say in this point more? And Calvine (a­mong manie other) albeit that manie parcels and long passages ar produced out of him, from those places, wherin he bends his discours against the former conceipt of justification consisting in an infusion of habitual and inherent holines, as if he restrained it unto, and would have it wholie consist in a meer pardon, and bare forgivenes of sin; yet he places it, where he speaks his mind out more expreslie, in such an absolution as is obtain­ed by a full satisfaction intervening. For so he speaks in his Institutions, lib. 3. cap. 11. Sect. 3. entreating of that place, Act. 13. 38, 39. Vides post remissionem peccatorum justificatio­nem hanc velut interpretationis loco poni; vides apertè pro absolu­tione sumi; vides operibus legis adimi; vides merum Christi bene­ficium [Page 16] esse; vides fide percipi; vides deniqe satisfactionem inter­poni. You see, saith he, after remission of sinnes mentioned, that this justification (to wit, such as we maintain, not such as Po­pish writers manie of them would have ment) is by way of in­terpretation put; you see it is manifestly taken for absolution; you see it is taken away from the works of the Law; you see it is a meer benefit of Christ; you see lastlie that satisfaction is interposed. Which last clause they do not well to clip off, who among ma­nie other, cite this place also of Calvine as patronizing their o­pinion, which we here oppose, in that point. And in the same place, Justificare, nihil aliud est, qam eum qi reus agebatur, tanqam approbata innocentia à reatu absolvere. To justifie is no other, then to assoil the partie qestioned from guilt, as approved innocent, or guiltles, which is another matter then meerlie to pardon. nei­ther is this difference a slight matter or of light weight, and unworthie much regard, since that herein Socinus states the Controversie between the Orthodox Divines, and himself with his adherents, in his Theological Prelections, cap. 15. thus speak­ing; Qaeritur utrum in justificatione nostra per Christum, peccata nostra compensatione seu satisfactione aliqa deleantur, an vero re­missione & condonatione. pleriqe satisfactione interveniente id fieri arbitrantur; nos vero simplici condonatione. The qestion is, whe­ther in our justification by Christ, our sins are done away by some compensation or satisfaction, or by remission and condonation. The most say this is done by satisfaction intervening; but we by simple condonation. And the former way Calvine expreslie takes to, where he delivers herein his mind more fullie.

Thus having discovered and refelled the mistakes of two sorts, who both give the Term of justification a single notion, the one confounding it with sanctification, the other making it all one with remission of sinnes.

I shall now proceed to the examination of some others, who amisse also (as I suppose) give it a double, or a complicate no­tion. and of these also there are two divers parties.

The former is of those that would have justification to consist partlie in remission of sinnes, and partlie in sanctification and the renovation of the inward man. So the Fathers of the Councel [Page 17] of Trent seem at least to determine, where they say, Sess. 6. c. 7. of justificat. Est ipsa justificatio, non solum peccatorum remissio, sed & sanctificatio & renovatio hominis interioris, unde homo ex injusto justus fit. that is, justification it self is not onlie remission of sins, but sanctification also and renovation of the inward man; whereby of unjust a man is made just. And so Bellarmine also de justific. lib. 1. cap. 2. Justificatio impii constat ex remissione peccati, & infusione gratiae. Justification consists of remission of sin, and infusion of grace. Or as some others, remissione peccatorum & in­fusione justitiae sive gratiae sanctificantis. In remission of sinnes and infusion of righteousnes or sanctifying grace. And howsoever Bellarmine charge Calvin with fraudulent dealing in his Anti­dote against the Doctrine of the Councel of Trent, Sess. 6. in say­ing, Caussam Justificationis faciunt duplicem, &c. that the Fathers of that Councel make a twofold cause of Justification, as if we were just, partlie by remission of sinnes, and partlie by spiri­tual Regeneration. Yet the words of that passage above reci­ted seem to intimate no other: and Bellarmine himself besides what out of him before, in Chap. 6. of the same Book before pointed to, terms remissionem peccati & donum renovationis, u­tramque partem Justificationis, Remission of sin, and the gift of renovation, both parts of Justification. concerning which see Wotton more largelie, de Justificat. part. 2. lib. 2. cap. 6. Yea throughout the whole Chapter his main intendement is, as himself propounds it, to prove, from Scripture, Reason, and Autoritie, Justificationem non consistere in sola peccatorum remissi­one, sed etiam in interna renovatione, that Justification consists not in remission of sins onlie, but in inward Renovation also.

Tru it is, that in the restauration and restitution of man fallen from God, and the conversion and reconcilition of man unto God, both these are done, both sin is remitted and the soul is sanctified. But in neither of these (to speak distinctlie and properlie) doth Justification consist, as hath of either ben shew­ed; and if in neither severallie, nor in both of them joyntlie.

2. Others, and those also of our own, would have Justifi­cation to consist, partlie in remission of sinnes, and partlie in im­putation of righteousnes. And I pass by that which Bellarmine [Page 18] in the place before mentioned cites out of Calvin, where having charged him to have dealt fraudulentlie, as before was observed, with those of Trent in saying they made a twofold cause of Justi­fication, whereas they say elswhere that there is one onelie formal cause of Justification; he retorts the charge upon Calvine him­self, who howsoever in that place of his Antidote he affirm, Vnicam & simplicem esse Justificationis caussam, that there is one onlie single cause of Justification; yet elswhere, to wit, in his Institutions, lib. 2. cap. 11. sect. 2. doth in expres words affirm, Justificationem in peccatorum remissione ac justitiae Christi imputatione positam esse; that Justification consists in remission of sins and imputation of Christs righteousnes. Which form of speak­ing manie others of our besides him use. But Calvines mean­ing is not as the Cardinal would have it, that these were two several causes, or two distinct parts of Justification, remission of sinnes, and imputation of Christs righteousnes; but he joines these two together, as two argumenta consentanea, the cause and the effect, the one being the ground and foundation of the other. His words are these, Nos Justificationem simplici­ter interpretamur, acceptionem, qa nos Deus in gratiam receptos pro justis habet; eamqe in peccatorum remissione ac justitiae Christi imputatione positam esse dicimus. We interpret Justification sim­plie, or singlie, acception, or acceptation, whereby God accounts us for just, being received into grace; and we say that it consists in remission of sins and imputation of Christs righteousnes. Tru it is, that Po­lanus, who also cites this place of Calvine, both in his Partiti­ons, lib. 1. and in his Theses de partib. Justificat. tho he say, Justificatio un [...]ca est; Justification is but one; addes, sed ejus partes duae sunt; but of it, or of Justification there are two parts, (which Calvine sayes not) remission of sins and imputation of Christs righteousnes, which latter he defines, ben [...]ficium Dei, a benefit of God, whereby he vouchsafeth, to account as ours Christs obedience, &c. Whereby he sustained the pains of sin for us, even as if we had sustained the same our selves. which words of his implie that imputation to be rather the ground, then anie part of Justification. Leaving Calvine therefore, and those that use the like expressions; we shall applie our selves [Page 19] for the present onelie unto those, who make remission of sins, and imputation of righteousnes two distinct parts of Justifica­tion. So Ludovicus Lucius in his Christian Theologie, Justificatio est tum peccatorum [...]emissio, tum justitiae imputatio; il [...]a, qa Deus omnia credentium peccata corumqe reatum simul & paen [...] propter satisfactionem Christi pro illis condonat eisqe non imputat, haud se­cus ac si nunquam ab eis peccatum fuisset, &c. Ista, qa credentibus perfectam Christi justitiam ac sanctitatem ita acceptam habet, ut propter illam justos ac sanctos reputet, ac si illa ipsis iness [...]t, atqe ab ipsis praestita esset. Justification is both remission of sins, and imputation of righteousnes; that, whereby God pardons all the sins of beleivers for the satisfaction made by Christ for them, as if they had never sinned; this, whereby unto those that believe he ac­counts and accepts the perfect holines and righteousnes of Christ, as if it were in them, and had been performed by them. Yea thus beside others not a few, Bishop Downham of Justification, lib. 1. cap. 4. sect. 16. but with some difference from those other, There ar two parts of Justification; the one the absolving from the guilt of sin and damnation; the other the accepting of a be­leiving sinner as righteous unto life.

And tru it is, that wheresoever God justifies a sinner in and for Christ, there he remittes sinne, and there he imputes righteousnes, Act. 13. 38, 39. Rom. 4. 6, 7.

Howbeit this exposition of the term Justification seems faul­tie as wel as the former: and that two ways.

1. With the most of them, it draws remission of sinnes into the verie nature of Justification; whereas remission of sinne, is a divers and distinct thing from Justification, as hath formerlie ben shewed; and therefore no part of it.

2. With them al, it presumes in the matter of Justification a needles twofold act, the not imputation of sinne, and the impu­tation of righteousnes, as two distinct things; whereas not to impute sinne in consideration of satisfaction made for it, is no other thing then to impute righteousnes to the Partie therein concerned. Since that a man can not be deemed or doomed guiltles or faultles, but he must of necessity be deemed or doom­ed just or righteous; there being no medium or middle state be­tween [Page 20] a delinquent or a guiltie person and one guiltles or just. He that can proov himself no delinquent, but free from fault, must of necessity be justified, acqitted and assoiled as just. See Deut. 25. 1. If nothing but sinne can make a man unjust, then surely the utter absence of sinne must necessarilie make a man just. See Pauls plea, Act. 25. 8.

Hitherto we have endevored to shew, what to justifie, as the Apostle here takes it, and as the word is most commonlie used, is not: we now pass on to shew what it is, and what indeed it properlie imports.

The word Justifie therefore (as our writers do generallie a­gainst the Papists maintain) is forense vocabulum, a term taken from Courts of Justice, and courses or cases of judicature, as ap­pears plainlie from Deut. 25. 1. 1 King. 8. 32. 2 Chron. 6. 23. Psal. 82. 3. Prov. 17. 15. Esay 5. 23. and 43. 9. And it is an act either of the Partie himself qestioned, or of his Advo­cate, or of the Jurie, or of the Judge, or of them all. Of the Partie himself, when he pleads not guiltie, and stands upon his defence, as Paul doth, Act. 25. 8. of the Advocate, when he de­fends and maintains his Client to be not guiltie, as the convert theif pleaded for Christ on the Cross, Luk. 23. 42. of the Jury, when they give in their verdict in behalf of the Party accused as not guilty, as the Pharisees did in the behalf of Paul, Act. 23. 9. of the Judge, when he pronounces him not guiltie, and so cleeres and assoiles him, as Pilate did Christ, Luk. 23. 14, 15. the Advocate justifies by pleading and defending as not faul­tie; the Judge by pronouncing and sentencing as such. and to Justifie conseqentlie, in a judiciarie way, is to discharge from guilt of sin, or declare free from it, either by defence, as an Advo­cate, or by sentence, as a Judge.

Now hence the term of Justifyeng is taken, and used out of such solemnities, applied to other proportionable acts, but re­taining stil its proper and genuine notion, even the same that in those set and solemn courses and cases it had. Thus a man is said to Justifie himself, when he stands upon his own inno­cencie, and maintains his own faultlesnes and integritie, a­gainst such as charge him with ought amisse. So Job 27. 5. Luk. [Page 21] 16. 15. John 8. 46. and others, to justifie a man, when they stand in defence of him, and maintain his honestie and inno­cencie against those that qestion it, and either doubt of it or denie it. So 1 Sam. 19. 4.

To Justifie then in general is to defend, or cleer, acqit or assoil from fault or guilt, from desert of blame or penaltie, and conse­qentlie to proov or approve and pronounce guiltles or just. not to make just, save in such an improper sens, as when we use to say▪ you would make me a theif, or, you would make me a lier, that is, you would aspers me with, or fasten such an imputation upon me. as John sayes, of him that beleives not God, that he makes him a liar, in not giving credit to him, 1 John 5. 10. and, you would fain make such an one an honest man; when our meaning is, you would proov, or approov him, as such. so that as to sanctifie when it is spoken of God, Esay 8. 13. is not to make him holie, as he doth us, Heb. 2. 11. but to acknowledge him so to be; and to glorifie him, Psal. 50. 14. Gal. 1. 23. is not to make him glorious, as he doth us, Rom. 8. 30. but to acknowledge his glorie, and ascribe glorie to him; and to magnifie, is not to make him great, but to acknowledge and set forth his greatnes, Psal. 34. 3. So to justifie is not to make just, but to declare and pro­nounce just. and as a mans righteousnes is said to be taken from him, when he is censured or condemned as unjust, tho he be ne­ver so just, nor be anie whit the les just, because unjustlie so deemed or doomed, Esay 5. 23. Job 27. 5. In a word, as a wicked or guiltie person is said to be made wicked, or guiltie, when he is convicted and condemned as such; so is the righteous or guiltles partie said to be Justified, or made righteous, when he is acqitted and assoiled as such. See both terms so used, Deut. 25. 1. and Job 40. 8. so Job 27. 5. What the Hebrew hath [...] and our English that I should justifie you, The Greek ren­ders it [...], that I should pronounce you righte­ous, and the Latine ut justos judicem vos, That I should judge you righteous, Job 27. 5. [...] the Latine, ut tu justifice [...]is, That thou maiest be justified, as the Greek renders the same, Psal. 50. 4. [...], and here [...] that thou maist appear to be just, Prov. 17. 15. [...] the [Page 22] Greek [...]. He that judgeth the unrighteous righteous, & the righteous unrighteous. and the Latine more expreslie, Qi justificat impium, & condemnat justum. and our English accordinglie, he that justifies the wicked, and condemns the just. yea, so Augustine himself, tho oft elswhere he go the other way, as before hath ben shewed; and in his tractate of the Spirit and Letter, Chap. 26. discoursing of that pas­sage of the Apostle, Rom. 2. 13. Not the hearers of the Law, but the doers of it shal be justified, he tread a while in his wonted track, yet after some forced and far-fetcht expositions given of the words, at length he pitcheth upon this; Aut certè ita dictum est, Justificabuntur, ac si diceret, justi habebuntur, justi deputabuntur; sicut dictum est de qodam, ille autem volens se justi­ficare, id est, ut justus haberetur & deputaretur. unde aliter dici­tur, Deus sanctificat sanctos suos; aliter autem, sanctificetur no­men tuum, nam illud ideo, qia illos ipse facet esse sanctos, qi non erant sancti; hoc autem ideo, ut qod semper apud se sanctum est, sanctum etiam ab hominibus habeatur. Or certainly it is so said, they shall be justified, as if he should say, they shall be accounted, they shall be reputed just; as it is said of one, he willing to justifie himself, Luk. 10. 29. that is, that he might be counted and re­puted righteous. Hence it is otherwise said, God sanctifies his Saints, and otherwise, sanctified be thy name, for that therefore because he makes them to be holie, who before were not holie; but this therefore, that that which is alwaies holie of it self, may also of men be accounted holie.

And that the word Justifie is to be here so taken, appears

1. From vers. 19, 20. for what is there taken from and denied unto works, is here attributed and ascribed unto faith. But of works it is there said that by them no man living can plead not guiltie, or be assoiled at Gods tribunal. And the mean­ing therefore must by necessarie conseqence be that by faith they may.

2. From Chap. 8. 33. Where Justification is opposed to ac­cusation or crimination, that is, charging a man with guilt, and condemnation, or passing sentence against him thereupon, the place taken from Esay 50. 8. and Justification therefore con­seqentlie [Page 23] a discharge thereof.

Howbeit because remission of sinnes is by so manie said either to be the verie same with Justification, or to be at least con­tained in it, I shall endevor further to shew what neer affini­tie and necessarie connexion these two free gifts of God have in the work of mans redemption and reconcilement to God, and yet how they are distinguished the one from the other.

1. Remission of sinne, tho it be not the same with Justificati­on, yet is it a necessarie conseqent of efficacious Justification grounded upon satisfaction tendred and accepted, made and ad­mitted. For as one that hath done a wrong can no way now be justified, but by making full satisfaction to the Partie wrong­ed for the wrong that he hath done, and the offence that he hath committed: So when such satisfaction is made & accepted, and the Partie that did it in regard thereof Justified, that is, thereby thereof discharged; reason and eqity reqires that the offence be remitted, that is, that the Partie wronged cease now to be offen­ded with him, whome he was justlie offended with before.

2. Remission simplie and nakedlie considered in it self, is a work of mercie or favor onlie: whereas Justification, to speak properlie, is a work of Justice, Deut. 25. 1. Psal. 82. 3. yea in the same act, where upon satisfaction in some other kind is from a stranger admitted in the behalf of the delinquent, the wrong is remitted, tho it be a point of favor and mercie in re­gard of him to whome it is done, yet it is a point of Justice in regard of him for whome it is done. if it be done at entreatie and intercession onlie, it is meer mercie and free favor in regard of either; but then, to speak properlie, there is no Justification; if it be done upon a price paid, or valuable consideration per­formed, by a third Partie, it is a matter as well of Justice in re­gard of the one, as of mercy and free favor in regard of the o­ther, and is not then a naked or bare remission, but justification properlie so tearmed. And this is the case of mans justification for the satisfaction made by Christ. Whence that of Bernard,

Gratis hoc qoqe praestitum est: sed gratis, qod ad te attinet; nam qoad Christum, non gratis salvus factus es pro nihilo, sed non de ni­hilo tamen. This also (to wit, the work of thy redemption) [Page 24] was freelie performed. but freelie, so far as concerneth thee; for in regard of Christ, not freelie. thou art saved for nothing, but not saved with nothing: for nothing laid down by thee; but not without a price paid by him.

For as for that which a learned Writer of ours hath of a Judge or Ruler, upon some weightie considerations known to him­self, remitting the penaltie of the Law, and so discharging a guiltie Person as if he were innocent and righteous, not according to Law and Justice, but out of a soveraign and absolute power; as if that were the right meaning of the term of Justifyeng in the Apo­stles discourse, it cannot hold here.

For 1. the Justification here treated of, is such a Justificati­on as wherein there is a special manifestation of Gods Justice, vers. 26. whereas in such case (which in plain terms is no other then meer pardon) there may be an ample declaration of mer­cie, but no such demonstration of justice at all. nor doth that bear anie weight at all with me, which a late Annotator of no smal note doth largelie discourse upon the Apostles passages in this place, wherein he would have the word [...] to signi­fie here not strict justice, but moderation, eqity, grace and mercie in pardon of sinne; and the word [...] or just, conseqentlie, as it is here given unto God, to import a merciful and charitable person; and to be taken no otherwise, then as it is given to Jo­seph, Mat. 1. 19. where it is said of him, that being a righte­ous, that is, a pious and merciful man, he was unwilling to ex­pose or subject Marie to publick and shameful punishment, to execute the rigor of the Law upon her, or to urge it against her: affirming withal for the better support of this Paradox, which Socinus had broached before him in his Treatise de Christo servatore, lib. 1. cap. 1. as a thing worthie the observa­tion, that the word seldome in these books (the writings of the New Testament, I suppose he means) if ever, belongs or is ap­plied to the act of Vindicative or punitive justice. All which is apparentlie cross to the main intent and scope of the Apostle; which is, as Cajetane also wel observes, to shew, that in the justification of a sinner, concurrunt gratia Dei & justitia Dei, both the grace or free favor of God, and the Justice of God also [Page 25] concur; for it were grace alone, if God should remit or pardon sin without payment; which God (saith he) never did nor doth; but gratiae suae inserit justitiam suam, he riveteth into his grace or fa­vor his justice; and this his justice consists in the redemption or ran­some, that is, the price that Christ paid to set us free. And the Scripture therefore saith not that we are justified by grace alone, but by grace and justice together, and both of them of God.

And it seemes to me verie strange, that this learned man should say that the word [...] or just should in these bookes be seldome or never ment of punitive justice. For the Annota­tor himself acknowledges that the word of Justifying here is a juridical term, and as in juridical proceedings, so here there is a Judge, a Client, and a Law, and that the Judge here is God: now a Judge is called a just or righteous Judge, not in regard of shew­ing favor, or moderation and mercie, but in regard of doing Justice eqalie and indifferentlie, according to the strict right of each ones cause that comes to be tried before him. and Justitia forensis, that Justice that is exercised in Courts and courses of judicature, is as well absolutive as punitive, that is, consists as wel in acqitting the guiltles, as in condemning the guiltie, Deut. 25. 1. and Justice is the same in either; and that Gods Justice doth as well appear in the acqitting us for Christ, as in exacting a payment for us from Christ, Esay 53. 7. Albeit the word [...] or righteous, and its conjugates, is not verie freqentlie found in the writings of the New Testament applied to Courts and courses of judicature, because seldome occasion to entreat of them, nor are they over-frequentlie attributed to God, as a Judge, and to his judgement, yet where they are, it is apparent enough, that they have an eye to retributive justice, consisting in the assoiling of the guiltles and doing Justice upon the guiltie. To such manner of judicature had our Saviour Christs words qestionles respect (tho directed to private judgement) and not to anie favorable or eqitable compliance, when he said to his hearers, John 7. 24. Judge not according to sight or outward ap­pearance, but Judge [...], just or righteous judge­ment. Yea, when of himself and the judgement that he wil in his appointed time execute, he saith, John 5. 30. As I hear, so [Page 26] I judge, and my judgement is just. Which place the Annotator himself expounds, as of saving those that believe on him, so of damning those that reject him. And what other sens can the word bear in those passages of Gods people in the Apocalypse, but of vindicative and punitive Justice, when praising God for avenging them on their cruel Persecutors, they say, just and tru are thy wayes, Rev. 15. 3. and just art thou, in that thou hast judged thus. and tru and just ar thy judgements, Chap. 16. 5, 7. and of Christ riding out furnished with his two-edged sword and Iron Scepter, to execute vengeance on the Nations, and tread the wine-pres of Gods wrath among them, he judges and warres [...], in Justice, or with righteousnes? Chap. 19. 11. Let the Annotator consult himself on these places. Or how can he with anie color of reason exclude such Justice, from his own exposition of those words of the Evangelist, 1 John 2. 29. he is righteous; that is, Christ is a most just Judge? which himself also expreslie inserts in the exposition of the same term given to Christ, the just Judge, 2 Tim. 4. 8. tho I suppose there not so necessarilie, because the allusion is there ra­ther to the Judges or Triers at the solemn Olympick games, as the Annotator also well observes. Yea, not to go far for such use of the word, when our Apostle in this Epistle, Chap. 1. 32. saith of the Heathen, who knowing [...], the judgement or just judgement, [...], as it is termed Chap. 2. 5. of God, that those that commit such things ar worthie of death; where it is apparent what Justice or Judgement is intended. Again, where Chap. 3. 4, 5. he saith of God, citing Davids words, Psal. 51. 4. that thou maist be justified; or as the Psal­mist hath it, be just, that is, appear so to be; that the meaning is of punitive Justice, as the drift of Davids speech plainlie de­monstrates, so the Apostle also sheweth evidentlie in his verie next words, where the opposite term [...] is used, is God un­just in taking vengeance? nor can the words be otherwise wel expounded, Chap. 9. 28, 14. where the Apostle citeth a pas­sage out of Esay 10. 21, 22. wherein God threatning to make such a round reckoning with his people, that a poor remnant should remain when the account was cast up, sayes he would [Page 27] do it [...] as the Prophet, [...], that is, in justice or righteousnes, as the Apostle, who also in the same Chapter, de­mandeth whither there be anie injustice or unrighteousnes with God, in dealing thus with the Jews. Lastlie, to conclude with a most conspicuous place, the same Apostle, 2 Thes. 1. 5, 6. as he calleth the judgement of God to be exercised in taking ven­geance on the Persecutors of his people to be [...], a just judgement; so to proov it to be such, for that, saith he, [...], it is a just thing with God so to do: which place how­soever the Annotator contend not to be ment of the last Oecu­menical judgement, yet he cannot denie to be spoken of vindica­tive justice, which the words, [...], to give vengeance or to take it, as we usuallie phrase it, do evidentlie in express terms import. This exception and observation therefore is of no force to weaken the received exposition of the word [...], that is, just or righteous in this place attributed to God, as ta­ken in a notion of retributive justice exercised in condemning the guiltie and assoiling the guiltles.

2. The justification of a sinner as it is here described and de­fended, is such as is transacted and acted not by a meer soveraign and absolute power alone, but in a legal way, and according to Law. whence it is that the Apostle saith that thereby the Law is not infringed or annulled, but established, vers. 31. and as our Saviour himself speakes, not dissolved, but fulfilled, Mat. 5. 17, 18. For the further clearing whereof, we ar to consider that Christ in Scripture is termed not onelie [...], a Mediator, 1 Tim. 2. 5. One that mediates and dealeth between God and us, as a man may do between two persons, that ar at va­riance either with other, by persuasion and intreatie, and ma­king use of his interest in either, endevoring to compose the dif­ference between them, yet not engageing himself for ought to either; but he is said to be also [...] sponsor, a suretie, an un­dertaker, one that engageth himself for the articles agreed up­on in the Covenant of the Gospel between God and Man, Heb. 7. 22. Gods suretie to man for the performance of all the grati­ous promises made on Gods part, which are all of them yea and amen in him, 2 Cor. 1. 20. Mans suretie to God, for the [Page 28] discharge of the debt of all those that have interest in him, and makeing satisfaction to God by doing and enduring in his hu­mane nature, whatsoever could in Justice be reqired to that purpose for their delinqencies and breaches of his Law. Hence that of Esay 53. 6, 7. We all had strayed, had deviated from the rule and directions of Gods Law; for that is the nature of all sinne, 1 John. 3. 4. had turned aside each one to his own way, betaking himself to some one wicked course or other, and the Lord caused the iniqitie (that is, the guilt of our sin, as Psal. 32. 5.) of us all to meet on him. It was exacted, (as Junius a­right renders it) and he answered, that is, undertook, engaged himself, for the discharge of it; as a learned French writer Lewis Cappel wel renders the word) yea he did reallie answer it, as we use to say, of a partie or his suretie upon payment made, or satis­faction given, that he hath answered the debt. For the word here used, even in the form here used, is taken in a notion of answering, Ezek. 14. 3, 6. yea and that of a real kind of answering; as by inflicting there, so by sustaining here; by taking vengeance in the one place, by giving satisfaction in the other, either of wch by the term of payment, we ar wont to expres. Now where ful satisfaction is made and accepted for the the breach or trans­gression of a Law, the Law is not thereby repealed or abrogated, but it is rather thereby manifested to be firm and of force to ob­lige those whom it concerns, either to the strict observation of it, or to a just compensation in some kind or other made for de­fault therein committed. and this hath our Saviour Christ in our behalf exhibited. For howsoever I dare not run out so far as to affirm as manie do, that our Savior suffered the verie self-same torments, partlie in his Agonie and partlie on the Cross, that the damned souls suffer, and those that have interest in the me­rit of his sufferings, should have suffered in Hell; much les that he suffered such an high degree of torments in those few how­ers while he hung on the Cross, as did in the intension and ex­tremitie thereof ad pondus for weight answer and was adeqate unto all those penalties, made up into one Mass, and compri­sed in one lump, that unto all eternitie the whole multitude of Gods elect, for all whose sinnes he satisfied, were to have [Page 29] endured, the power of his Deitie supporting and enabling his humane nature thereunto: since that Christs humane nature, in which the satisfaction was to be made, and was made, being but a finite creature, could not be capable of admitting such an infinite weight of torment, as such a masse of endles suffering must of necessity have amounted unto. albeit for the allay hereof, that were allowed,Dr. Feild of the Church, l. 5. c. 17. which a learned man of eminent parts from Picus and Scotus suggests, that unto the sinnes of the penitent, because they are broken off by repentance, an in­finit penaltie is not du: which yet seems to want sound ground of proof from Gods word; wherein the Apostle speaking of the sinnes of the faithful, who had now cast off the service of sinne, saith in general, theirs not excluded, the stipend of sin, (or the pay du to it, a militarie term) is death; and that eternal death is intended, appeares by its opposite, everlasting life, said there to be Gods Donative, as Tertullian wel renders it, being a term of the like nature with the former, that is, his larges or free gift: such as the Roman Generals besides their pay used to confer upon their Souldierie: and tho granted would hard­lie withdraw weight enough, to make a finite creature capable of it within so narrow a stint of time, as some three howrs could make up. I conceiv, that keeping our selves within the bounds of Christian sobriety in this profound mysterie, we may safely say, that Christs humiliation through the whole cours of his life, and his sufferings as wel in Soul as in Bodie, in his whole humane nature consisting of both neer upon his death, together with his death in that manner inflicted and sustained, the eminencie of the person being even God as wel as Man, that was content to expose and abase himself unto al this, Phil. 2. 6-8. being duelie weighed, was such and so great as God deemed in Justice eqivalent unto, and wel worthie to weigh down, whatsoever was reqisite to the discharge of the debt of all those that had interest therein. For as for that which the same Autor subjoins, and some other also have therein con­curring with him, that the worth and excellencie of Christs per­son, was onlie to make the passion availeable to manie, but was not at all to dispens with the continuance nor the grievousnes [Page 30] of his pains; and that if it might dispens with anie degree of extremitie of punishment due to sin, it might dispens also with two, and so conseqentlie with all; seems to ty and stint Gods justice to over-strict terms; and the worth and value of Christs sufferings to such a precise rate, as their private estimation shal deem fit to assign it. As on the other side they seem to raise it to an higher estimate then there appears good ground for, and to control Gods wisdome in the disposing the means of procu­ring mans justification in such manner as he hath designed, and in such a measure of sufferings and humiliations as he assigned Christ to undergo, who stick not to affirm, that the least drop of Christs bloud was of so infinite a valew, as was sufficient to make a ful satisfaction to Gods Justice for the discharge of the sinnes of the whole World. Which if it were tru, then the bloud shed in the Circumcision of our Saviour had been suffici­ent to have answered Gods Justice, and to have made a ful com­pensation to whatsoever the law of God could in utmost rigor have reqired on the part of all that had ever transgressed it. And so all that Christ afterward either did or endured, and his death it self the upshot of all had been superfluous and needles; which how it will consist with the wisdome of God, and love to his Sonne, I shall leave to be deemed by others of deeper reach then my self. Howsoever Christ having of his own accord become our suretie, and undertaken the discharge of our debt, and it being at the choise of the Creditor or Partie wronged, even according to Law to reqire satisfaction of the debt, or com­pensation of the wrong done, either from the Debtor and delin­quent himself, or from his Suretie, as it is a favor and mercie in God to forbear the exacting it of us, who were [...] of no abilitie, unable utterlie to perform it, Rom. 5. 6. so it is not against, but according to his Law, even that Law unto which we were obnoxious for the breach of it, to exact of our suretie a ful compensation for all our transgressions.

In a word, that Justification is an act of Justice and not a matter of free favor or meer mercie alone, appeers evidentlie from the verie term to Justifie, whence it is deduced, whither we consider it, in its native notion, or in its ordinarie use.

[Page 31] For 1. In its native notion and proprietie the word [...] in Hebrew, and [...] in Greek, as also whatsoever term we can frame in Latine or English to answer in anie du analogie unto either of these two, it doth and must include a notion of Justice in it. For howsoever we trulie affirm that neither of those, the Hebrew or Greek term do necessarilie intimate a making just, save in such sens as hath formerlie ben hinted, and might therefore in Latine be rendred by the word justare, derived from justus, in the same form and sens with probare from probus, which signifies not to make allowed or sound, but to proov or approov as such, as wel as by the word justificare, which tho not found in the Antient Latine Autors, but framed in latter times by Christian writers to express those Hebrew and Greek terms, yet is now grown into common use, whereas that other is not: yet as wel the one term as the other, will as those it answers to be, bear in the forehed of it, a notion not of favor or mercie, but of Justice and right. and it is not unworthie the ob­serving, that howsoever the word [...] in Scripture and Christian writers be used in reference to the Hebrew [...] in the better sens for to assoil and acqit, yet among the Antient Greeks (as I have elswhere evidenced and evinced) that term was used onlie in the wors sens for to cast or condemn, and to ex­ecute or punish, because in such cases Justice is presumed or pre­tended at least to be done on persons so dealt with; and we shal find the word therefore in Heathen writers not distinguished onlie from pardon, but opposed thereunto, as in that cited by a learned French Divine out of Dio. [...] Guil. Ri­vet de justif. part: 1. c. 2. lect. 3. Such Cities as willinglie yeilded, obtained pardon, but such as stood out had Justice done on them, or were punished. So that of Justice there is still an intimation in the term, whither way so­ever it be taken.

2. In its ordinarie and vulgar use there is no other matter in­timated, then of Justice and right, not of favor or affection. nor as we have formerlie shewed, is either the Hebrew or Greek term ever taken in anie such notion of favor and relaxation of Justice and right in the Bookes of Scripture: nor in our com­mon [Page 32] speech do we intend or understand anie such matter, when we either say, or hear others say, You justifie your self; and You justifie him, and, Ile justifie such an one, and the like. And to say then that the word in this place and this discours is to be so taken, without some good proof from the Text it self, is but petitio principii, a begging of that that is at present in debate.

I wil adde a few not unfit Considerations or Observations on­lie, and so leave this hed.

1. That we must distinguish between these two things, to be in the state of Justification, and to be actuallie or occasionally justified.

1. To be in a state of justification, is to be in a justifiable con­dition, when a man is so disposed, and the case stands so with him, that he may be trulie justified, that is, he may justlie be defended, maintained, assoiled, declared, pro­nounced, discharged as not guiltie, as faultles upon anie oc­casion, or as occasion shal reqire: for there is not always a present use or need of justification. As a man ought at al times to be patientlie disposed, to be continuallie of a patient disposition; but there is no acting or exercise of it, save upon some special occasion. Patientiae in prosperis nullus est usus, saith Gregorie, There is no use of patience in times of prosperitie; when all goes with a man according to his own hearts desire. So tho a man be, and it meerlie concern him so to be, alwaies, and at al times, in a state of justification, in a justifiable condition, yet is there no use of justification, until he be qestioned, and unles somewhat be objected against him. To affirm a man to be an honest, or a just, or a wise, or a lerned man, when no man makes qestion of him, or averres ought to the contrarie, is to commend him, not to justifie him; but when his honestie, or his integritie, or his wisdome, or his lerning shal be qestioned or controverted, doubted of, or denied, then to vindicate his ho­nestie, integritie, wisdome, or lerning is to justifie him. How­beit then a man may be said to be in a state of justification, even when no such thing is, if he be so qalified as that it may be justlie and trulie upon good ground done, when occasion shal reqire. Thus God is always justifiable, because ever in all things just, Psal. 92. 15. and 145. 17. But is then said to be [Page 33] justified, when the Justice and eqity of his courses is qestioned, Rom. 3. 4. Ezeck. 18. 23.

2. To be actually and occasionally Justified, is for one upon such occasions emergent, to be defended, maintained, approved, and sentence passed in his behalf, against those, that shall charge him with ought, Esay 50. 8. Rom. 8. 33. 1 King 8. 32.

Thus then upon a mans entrance into the state of grace, ha­ving right to and interest in the satisfaction made by Christ, he is presentlie discharged of and freed from the guilt of all his fore passed transgressions, and put into a state of Justification, and he is so now disposed, it stands so with him, he is in that state and condition, that he may be justified, whensoever occasi­on thereof shal be, Tit. 3. 5, 7. but then may God be said actuallie or occasionallie to justifie such, when against Satans ac­cusations, or wicked mens aspersions, he cleers them and gives sentence against the calumnies of their Adversaries in their be­half, Rom. 8. 33. he commended Job to Satan, Job 1. 8. he justified him against Satan, Job 2. 3.

2. That it is one thing to be made or constituted just, and an­other thing to be Justified. And a man who before was not just, cannot trulie be Justified, unles he be first made or constituted just. for

1. Tho the word Justifie do not signifie in proprietie or com­mon use to make just, as hath formerlie ben shewed, yet a man that hath done a wrong and is a delinquent, that he may be Ju­stified, must be made just, not inherentlie just, for tho he were so, yet were not that sufficient to cleer him from the guilt of his fore passed unjust act. a man that hath played the theif, albeit afterward he become formallie just, that is, tho by wholesome advice and good admonition he be brought to repent of his former thievish courses, and thenceforth become a new man, a tru man; yet wil not that discharge him from the guilt of his theft formerlie committed; but he must so be made just, that is, guiltles and blameless, as that he may answer the rigor of Law and of Justice, ere he can trulie be justified: (for it is the guilt of the offence that Justification regards) and this cannot be done but by a plenarie satisfaction for the [Page 34] wrong done and the offence formerlie committed, exhibited and accepted. and this is that justice or righteousnes that the A­postle intimates, when he saith, that by the obedience of one (to wit, of Christ) manie are made or constituted, [...], just, or righteous, Rom. 5. 19. not formallie or habituallie, but relativelie, in reference to the Law, and the guilt of sinne arising from it. On which place Calvine, Hinc colligimus Christum, eo qod Patri satisfeceret, justitiam nobis comparass [...]. Hence we gather, that Christ by making satisfaction to the Father hath procured or purchased Justice or righteousnes for us.

2. That which is exhibited whither by doing or suffring, or both in way of satisfaction and so accepted, being such as makes a plenarie compensation for an offence formerlie com­mitted; because it utterlie extinguisheth and abolisheth the wrong, so taketh it away, as if it never had ben; it justly pro­cures a guiltlesnes, a blamelesnes unto the delinqent, in whose behalf it is performed; and makes him therefore to be reputed in the eye of Law and Justice, as now no delinqent, but as guiltles, faultles and just: there being no medium between these two just and unjust, nor between guiltles and just. see Deut. 25. 1. this guiltlesnes therefore is justlie termed justice; and the partie conseqentlie by plea thereof upon anie emergent occa­sion may be trulie justified. and such guiltlesnes a [...]cheived by Christs satisfaction made to Gods Law and his Justice, makes the partie unto whom the same is imputed, and who hath in­terest therein, trulie named and justlie deemed just, and to be in the state of justification, or in a justifiable condition. 2 Cor. 5. 21. and this is that, not the satisfaction it self, but the guiltlesnes thereby procured, that is so oft in his argument termed justice or righteousnes, called the Justice of God, Rom. 1. 17. and 3. 21, 22. and 2 Cor. 5. 21. not, as some, for that the satis­faction was made by Christ, who is God, but because contrived, prepared, propounded, and appointed us by God, for God as the partie wronged, and Christ as the partie satisfying, for the wrong, are in this argument distinguished, Rom. 3. 24, 25. and 2 Cor. 5. 19, 21.

3. That everie tru Christian hath a two-fold justice or [Page 35] righteousness; the one in reference to the guilt of sinne, arise­ing from transgression of the Law; 1 John 3. 4. Rom. 4. 15. and 5. 13. 1 Cor. 15. 56. the other in reference to the filth of sinne, being a pollution and depravation of the Soul, de­priving it of that purity and integritie wherein at first it was created, Matth. 15. 18, 19. 2. Cor. 7. 1. Eph. 4. 22-24. and that these two are to be distinguished is apparent, for that divers things and acts that do not in their own nature pollute or de­file, yet by a special Law prohibited, do in the use of them by vertu of that inhibiting Law produce guilt. Now in re­gard of this latter justice or righteousnes, consisting in a free­dome from the filth of sinne, the faithful ar trulie and sincere­lie, but imperfectlie just, or righteous, Job 1. 1. and 9. 3, 15, 21. and 23. 10. Luk. 1. 6. in regard or the former, consisting in a freedome from the guilt of sin, they ar fullie, compleatlie, perfectlie just or righteous, 1 John 1. 7. the one is the righte­ousnes of sanctification, the other the righteousnes of justifi­cation: that in this life at least, uneqallie shared; this eqallie imparted to each, being in common accepted for and imputed unto all. Whence that of Luther, AEqè justus latro in cru [...]e, at­qe ipsa beata Virgo Maria, that The convert theif on the Cross was all out as just, or righteous, as the blessed Virgin Marie, Christs Mother.

4. That there is a twofold Justification,

1. General, in regard of all sin whatsoever in general;

2. Particular, in regard of some special or particular crime. And a man that is just and justifiable in regard of some parti­cular offence, yet may not be justifiable in general. So Job charged by his frends with gros hypocrisie, oppression and cru­eltie, Job 22. 5-9. stands stiflie in justification of himself, Chap. 23. 10. and 27. 5. and yet in general acknowledgeth that he could not be justified, nor answer for one act of a thousand, should God cal him to a strict account, Chap. 9. 2, 3. and a man that is unjust and cannot be justified in general, yet may be just and justifiable in regard of some particular. So David, tho in the general he declines Gods strict dealing in way of judica­ture with him, Psal. 143. 2. yet in particular, upon false im­putations [Page 36] cast upon him, he appealeth solemnlie thereunto, Psal. 7. 3, 4, 8, 9. and 38. 19, 20. yea the wickedest man in the world, and the Devil himself, may thus be legallie just and tru­lie justified, because in that particular guiltles, when some cri­minal act shall be wrongfullie charged on him, that was never committed by him. But it is general justification, that is en­treated of and intended in this place.

And thus we have endevored to shew what the word Justi­fie doth preciselie denote in this place.

The Use whereof brieflie may be;

1. To inform us aright concerning the distinct notion and nature of divers graces of God, that tho they be knit and linkt one to an other, hang all on one string or chain, are all fruits of Gods favor towards us in Christ, concur all together in and with all those that are reconciled to God in Christ; yet are things of a several and distinct nature and notion, Sanctificati­on is one thing, Justification an other, and Remission of sinne a third, as hath been shewed. And yet again so far forth to re­concile and qalifie the differences of divers of those that seem to mistake, and misexpound the word here used, that not­withstanding this their mistake, they may not maintain anie error therefore in matter of faith: onelie they use some words and Phrases improperlie; and misexpound some places; but o­therwise say nothing but what is orthodox and agreeable to the analogie of faith.

Yea to remoov some groundles controversies between us and the Papists, and cleer some mistakes and misunderstandings on either side. while the Papists charge us to hold, that a man is made formallie, habituallie, inherentlie holie and righteous by Christs holines and righteousnes imputed unto us, as if a black-Moor, saith Bellarmine, De justifi­cat. l. 2. c. 7. were made white by casting a white garment upon him, whereas we say no such matter. and with­all he acknowledgeth, that, if when our writers say, that Christs righteousness is imputed unto us, their meaning were no other but this, that Christs merits are imputed unto us, be­cause they ar given unto us, and we may tender them unto God for the discharge of our sinnes, in regard that Christ hath [Page 37] taken upon him the burden of making satisfaction for our sinnes, and of reconciling us to God his Father, they held no­thing therein but what is right; tho (saith he) the manner of speaking that they use, is vetie seldome or never found either in the Scriptures or the Antient Fathers. And the truth is, that precise form of speaking can hardlie be found in Scripture; nor is that justice whereby we ar said to be justified, called, as we have observed, the justice of Christ; but the justice of God. But yet the same Bellarmine elswhere confesseth,Lib. e [...]d. C. 10. that Christ is rightlie called our Justice, or Righteousnes, First, because he worketh righteousnes in us: and secondlie, because he hath made satisfaction to his Father for us, and that his satisfaction he doth bestow on us, and communicate unto us, when he ju­stifies us, that he or it may wel be called our satisfaction, and our righteousnes. For tho (saith he) by righteousnes inherent in us, we ar trulie just or righteous, and ar trulie so termed; yet do we not thereby make satisfaction to God for our faults and for eternal damnation du thereunto; but both that inherent righteousnes, and the remission of the fault and eternal penal­tie thereto du, ar the effect of Christs satisfaction, which as the Councel of Trent saith, is in Justification bestowed on us, and ap­plied unto us. Nor were it at all absurd on this wise to say, that Christs righteousnes and merits are imputed unto us, since that they ar so conferred on us and applied unto us, as if we had sa­tisfied God our selves. Speaks he not as much as anie Protestant doth, or can do, in this point? yea it may be somewhat more then some will approov of: so that herein and hitherto the Pa­pists, so manie of them at least as herein agree with him, and most Protestants concurre: (howsoever in other points con­cerning the merit and worth of works and satisfaction made by them for venial sins, to be expiated otherwise by Purgatorie pe­nalties, and some other the like differences we keep far asun­der) and much time and pains ar spent and wasted on either part, by them on the one side, in contending against such an imputation of Christs righteousnes, as none of ours ever dreamed of; and by manie of ours on the other side, in confusing what they deliver of Justification, when as by that term they mean [Page 38] not Justification, strictlie so termed, but Sanctification impro­perlie by them so stiled; and so the Air onelie is to no purpose between them both beaten, while the one either wil not see, or marks not what the other means.

A second Use may be to minister much comfort to everie sound and tru-hearted Christian:

1. Against the temtations and accusations of Satan, and of the wicked of this World. The Devil is stiled as the temter, so the accuser of the Brethren, Revel. 12. 10. and the wicked of the world are over-prone to traduce them as evil doers, 1 Pet. 2. 12. but the tru Christian may with the Prophet Esay, Chap. 50. 8. and the Apostle Paul, Rom. 8. 33. bid defiance to either, God wil defend him against either. If Satan shal offer to traduce him with God, or to accuse him unto God, as he did Job, or worldlie men censure him for an Hypocrite and a for­malist, as Jobs frends did him, God himself wil vindicate him as wel against the one as the other: Job 2. 3. and 42. 7, 8. he wil bring forth his righteousnes as the light, and make his cause or case as clear as the noon-day, Psal. 37. 6. everie toung that enforms ought against him, shal it self be cast and condemned, Esay 54. 17. what accuser or accusation can pre­vail to the conviction or condemnation of him, whome Christ sues for, whome God assoils? Rom. 8. 33, 34.

2. Against the remainders of sinne and corruption within him, considering that notwithstanding them, he may be, and is, if he have interest in Christ, in the state of justification, for justificati­on regards not the filth but the guilt of sinne; and tho justifica­tion be never severed from sanctification, yet is sanctification here but imperfect; whereas justification is grounded upon that that brings a perfect discharge of guilt with it, 1 John 1. 7.

3. Against the fear of Gods indignation and wrath. for being justified by Christs bloud, saith the Apostle, we shal much more by him be saved from wrath, Rom. 5. 9. where the partie is pro­nounced faultles, there offence must needs cease, and vengeance much more, Esay 54. 9, 10.

4. Against the rigor of Gods justice. for justification is an act of justice, nor can God in justice condemn those whom he hath [Page 39] assoiled as guiltles in and for Christ, Rom. 8. 1. God is not like Pilate, who though he pronounced Christ guiltles, yet for all that would scourge him, condemn him, and give him up to be crucified, Luk. 23. 14. 16, 22. John 19. 6, 16. yea injustice it were to exact that from anie of those who have interest in Christ, for which he had received satisfaction from Christ their suretie before, Esay 53. 6, 7.

5. Against their want of worth, in regard of manie other of far more eminent parts of pietie and sanctimonie. for howso­ever in regard of those graceful parts, that excellent lustre of inherent holines, that renders them, as wel gratious in the sight of God, as conspicuous in the eyes of men, there is as vast dif­ference and as distant degrees between Saint and Saint here be­low upon the earth, as there is between Star and Star aloaft in the Heavens; 1 Cor. 15. 41. yet as in remission of sin, so in justification, and in Christs satisfaction the ground of either, the meanest, weakest and poorest Christian hath an eqal share with the most eminent and excellent. And therein doth eithers bles­sednes principallie consist, Psal. 32. 1, 2.

6. Against condemnation and sentence of judicature, tho just­lie past here upon him, and deservedlie inflicted. for notwith­standing that also, having his peace made with God, and re­conciled to him in Christ, he shal with the penitent and faith­ful Theif on the Cross, for Christs satisfaction, stand discharged and be pronounced guiltles at Gods tribunal, nor shal his igno­minious suffering exclude him from entrance into the place of his eternal rest and blis, no more then the like did his and our suretie Christ Jesus, after his satisfaction finished and ac­cepted, which not for himself, but for him and al Gods elect, was by him both undertaken and exhibited, Heb. 12. 2. Luk. 23. 43.

Having thus dispatched the first Hed, which we propounded to be handled, concerning the right meaning of the term Justi­fie here used; we shal proceed now to the second, to wit, what Faith, or what act of Faith it is, whereby we ar said here to be justified.

And herein following the same Methode, that we did in [Page 40] the former, we shall endevor to shew,

1. What act of Faith it is not, and 2. what it is.

In the former I am encountred with two erroneous (as to me seems) mistakes and extreams, the one falling short of the tru nature of justifying Faith, or that act of faith whereby we ar said to be justified; and the other, as in opposition it usuallie falls out, going as far beyond it, as the other comes short of it.

The former error or mistake is of those, who by Faith wil have here understood nothing els but a general beleif, or assent of the mind to the truth of Gods word in general, or at least, to the doctrine of the Gospel in special, concerning salvation by Christ, to wit, that Jesus Christ is the onlie Saviour and Re­deemer of Mankind. that which is commonlie termed Histori­cal Faith, but of some learned writers rather by a fitter term Dogmatical Faith, because it respects not so much the Historie of the Scripture in general, or of Christs life and death in par­ticular, as the doctrine contained in the word, or that more specially concerning Christ laid down in the Gospel.

Some difference indeed I find herein, between the Papists, and those of ours, the one makeing Gods word in general the object of this Faith, the other restraining it to the promises of the Gospel. but the difference is not great, and this latter is in­cluded in the former. Now tru it is, and must of necessity be granted, that this Dogmatical Faith, or such an act of Faith as it implies, is a necessarie antecedent of justifying Faith, and layeth a ground and foundation for it. But that it is the ve­rie justifying act of Faith, with most of our writers and teach­ers I cannot admit and condescend unto; yet not because that the Popish partie mostlie maintain it, (for even the Papists hold manie truths in common, both with us and other orthodox Christians.) nor because the most of ours oppose and impugn it, (for we make no meer mans or mens judgement the ground of our faith,) but because I deem it unsound and repugnant to Gods word.

My reasons ar these.

1. That Faith, which the Devils and damned Spirits may have, cannot be justifying Faith, or the justifying act of Faith. [Page 41] For justifying Faith is a most pretious Pearl, 2 Pet. 1. 1. a special gift, Eph. 2. 8. and grace of God, as the word [...] im­ports, Philip. 1. 29. And being so, it is consqentlie such an endowment, as those damned Spirits have not, nor ar capable of. But this beleif either of the word of God in general; or of the doctrine of the Gospel concerning Salvation by Christ in particular, even the Devils themselves may have, and have. That there is a God, the Devils, saith James, beleiv, and tremble, Jam. 2. 19. they beleiv there is a God, and beleiving that, beleiv withal that he is a tru God, and that his word is tru; did they not beleiv it, they would not tremble. and indeed what is the reason why wretched Atheists, wors herein then the Devil, tremble not at Gods word, but because they beleiv not that there is a God, or that the word is the word of a God, or that it is a word of truth? yea even the Devils, as they beleiv a God, so they beleiv a Christ too. So themselvs professe, I know who thou art; (say they, speaking to Christ) even that holie one of God, Mark 1. 24. and again, What have I to doe with thee, Jesus, the Sonne of the most high God? Mark 5. 7. and yet further, if this be not sufficient, thou art [...], the Christ, or that Christ, the Sonne of God, Luk. 4. 41. what more in this kind could, or did Peter say? Matth. 16. 16. compare Peters confession there, and the Devils here, and see if not in substance onlie, but in terms also, they be not the verie same. Hereunto might be added, that Act. 16. 17. where the Spirit of divina­tion in the Damsel possessed therewith, avouches of Paul and Silas, These men are the servants of the most high God, who shew unto you the way of salvation. he confesseth that the doctrine taught by them, was the way whereby God had appointed that men should be saved. It is apparent hereby that even the Divels may have, yea and have that faith, which these men affirm to be justifying faith; and which yet in truth it cannot be.

But against this Argument some exceptions have ben given me by some: which I shal endeavor to remoov.

The first exception taken by a young Divine having some employment in the Citie about the time, when I delt in this argument, was this, that it followed not, because the Devil thus [Page 42] spake of or unto Christ, that therefore they beleived him to be so as they said. they might speak it in a colloging way, as did the Herodians, Mat. 22. 16. when coming to tempt and entan­gle him, they say, Master we know that thou art tru, and teachest the way of God trulie without respect of or regard unto the person of anie. which yet it may justlie be doubted, whether in truth they beleived. and so may it be of what the Devils are related to have said.

For answer whereunto I shal not stand to discusse what like­lyhood hereof there is, whether the speech of the one and the other be alike; or whether the Devils came at those times, when those things were uttered by them, on purpose, as the He­rodians did, to tempt and entangle Christ.

But I answer directlie,

1. That it canot be, but that the Devils must needs know as much as there they do confes. To make it evident by an in­stance. suppose the Grand Signior or Turkish Emperour, hold­ing (as at this day he doth) in captivity the subjects of divers Christian Princes and States not a few, some one of those Prin­ces, whose subjects he so holds, should undertake an expediti­on, wherein he would go himself in person, for the deliverie of his subjects so deteined, enter upon his territories, defeat him, subdu him, release his captives and set them at libertie, take the Captiver of them captive, and lead him in triumph; were it now possible but that the tyrant thus dealt with should know, that this Prince, who had done all this, were the delive­rer of his people? It is the verie case here. The Divel, the Prince of darknes, the God of this world, held in thraldome and servitude the greatest part of the world; our blessed Sa­vior comes, he defeats him, Luke 10. 18. dispossesseth him, John 12. 31. disarmes him, rifles him, Luk. 11. 21, 22. rescues men dailie out of his hands and bands, Colos. 1. 13. leads him captive, Eph. 4. 8. triumphs over him, Colos. 2. 15. and is it possible that this spiritual tyrant so defeated, disarmed, dispossest, despoiled, bereaft of his prey and purchase, captived, triumphed, should not know and beleiv this Jesus Christ by whom all this was done, to be the Savior and redeemer of [Page 43] mankind? it is a thing utterlie impossible and scarce credible, that anie man should make qestion at all of it.

But 2. to put this out of qestion; what some scriptures say that the Devils acknowledged, others of them expreslie say that they knew. so Mark 1. as vers 24. it is related how the Divel in the man possest said to Christ, I know who thou art; so vers 34. it is said of those fiends which Christ cast out, that he would not suffer the Divels, (not [...] to say, but [...]) to speak; becaus they knew him. they professed not onlie to know him, but they knew him indeed. and more fullie yet, Luk. 4. 41. when they made that confession of him before mentioned, it is said, Christ rebuked them, and would not suffer them to speak, because they knew him to be the Christ. so that this first ex­ception is of no force, since that what the Devils professed to know, the Evangelists expreslie affirm that they knew.

A second exception is, that the Divels could not be justifyed, tho they had the same kind of faith, or the same act of faith, whereby men are justifyed, because there is no promise made unto them, salvation was never tendred on anie such condition to them, as unto mankind it is.

To this I answer, 1. that the qestion is not, whither the Di­vels should or could be justified, if they had that faith or act of faith, whereby men ar said to be justifyed. but the qestion is, whither they have, or may have, or are capable of such a faith, for the nature of it, as that is, which those have, who have in­terest in Christ, and whereby they are justified. and the force of the argument depends not upon the denial of the former, but upon the denial of the latter. To make this plain by an in­stance of the like. suppose some should maintain that the re­pentance spoken of by the Apostle, 2 Cor. 7. 10. where he saies, godlie greif breeds repentance unto salvation never to be repented of, were nothing els but a sorrow for sin, or a regret and remors onlie arising from the apprehension of evil ensu­ing thereupon, shame and confusion in regard of men, death and damnation in regard of God. and to disproov this conceit, a man should reason in this manner. That repentance which the Divels themselves may have, cannot be that wholesome [Page 44] and saving repentance, which the Apostle speaks of. But the Divels may have an inward remors and sorrow for sin in re­gard of those evils that for it have befaln them and ly heavie upon them, and unto all eternitie shal so do. and it is not therefore that repentance of which the Apostle there speaks. The qestion here would not be whither the Divels might be saved if they could repent, but whither they ar capable of such a repentance as godlie greif produceth and works unto salva­tion in men; and the stresse of the argument would rest upon the denial not of the former, but of the latter. And in like manner is it here, the pith of the argument consists not in this, whither the Devils should be justifyed or no, if they had such a faith as men have whereby they ar justified; which is not af­firmed, nor is at all qestioned, but whither they have, or can have such a faith as the Apostle here speaks of, and whereby he affirms that men may be and ar justified; and this onlie is that that is here denied. And trulie unto me it seems as strange to affirm, that the Devils have or may have, that verie same faith, (that pretious pearl, that verie same gift and grace of Gods Spirit) whereby they ar justifyed, tho not for the work, but for the object of it, as hereafter shall be shewn; as to say the Devils have or may have that kindlie and godlie greif for sin as sin, not for the evil ensuing it, but for the evil that is in it, & the sincere and genuine repentance springing from the same, which the Apostle there speaks of: since that the one is a special gift and grace of Gods Spirit, as well as the other: and look what is spoken of the one in this kind, to wit, of Repentance, Act. 5. 31. and 11. 18. 2 Tim. 2. 25. the verie same is said of faith in the places before mentioned.

2. For the removal of this exception more fullie; consider we, that tho it be tru, that there is no such promise or tender of salvation on anie such condition made unto the Devils and damned spirits: yet the tender of salvation and justification upon this act of faith is made to all mankind in general, with­out exception of anie, Mark 16. 15, 16. Go forth into all the world, saith our Saviour, and preach the Gospel unto everie crea­ture. He that beleiveth and is baptised, shal be saved. If then it [Page 45] can be made out, that some men that ar not justified, nor sa­ved, some wicked ones remaining unjustified, unsanctified, yet notwithstanding may have the faith by these men maintained to be here ment, to wit, a beleif onlie of the truth of the doctrine of the Gospel, that Christ is the Savior and Redeemer of man­kind; then this exception must necessarilie fall to the ground.

And so I pas to a second argument, which may thus be fra­med: That faith which wicked, ungodlie, irregenerate, un­sanctified men, so remaining may have, yea and sometimes have had, cannot be justifying faith, nor the faith spoken of by the Apostle in this place. But this beleif of the Gospel, that Christ is the Sonne of God, the Savior and Redeemer of mankind, some have had, have known and beleived it, who yet coutinu­ed stil, wicked, ungodlie, irregenerate, unsanctified. and this cannot therefore consequentlie be the faith here spoken of. For the proof of the Proposition, I shal not so much insist or rest upon the necessarie conjunction of this faith and repentance the one with the other, in regard of Gods ordinance; and tho by means of his appointment there is a necessarie connection of Justification and Sanctification;See Peter Alliacen­ses ad Sent. lib. 4. qaest. 1. art. 3. conclus. 1. which as some of the Schole­men have observed, might otherwise have ben severed; so that justification might have ben, where sanctification were not, had God ben pleased so to dispose it. and sanctification might have ben without justification, if God had restored our first Pa­rents to their original condition,See Ger. Vossius Defens. Grot. de satisfact. advers. Raven­sperg. cap. 2. 8. freelie remitting their offence without anie satisfaction; as by his absolute power he might have done. for I dare not say as some do, that God may not as wel without breach of his justice, remit a wrong done him by his creature and vassal, as a man may an injurie offered to him by his fellow & fellow-servant, howsoever in his wisdome he hath de­creed and determined to dispose things otherwise; which yet di­vine determination, disposition and ordinance were sufficient ground to make the proposition good. But the main stress of my proof I shal lay upon this, that therefore faith & repentance can­not be severed, faith and holines cannot be sundred, in regard of the verie nature and propertie, the condition and qalitie of this faith it self; for that this faith, whereby a man is justified, is an [Page 46] holie habit, or disposition, and the act issuing from it, an holie act; termed therefore a most holie faith, Jude 20. nor in regard of the objects of it, because it is conversant and exercised about holie things, God, and Christ, and the goodnes & mercie of God in Christ; but because it is an holie disposition in the soul, whereby the heart is purified, Act. 15. 9. and the partie possest of it is sanctified, Act. 26. 18. such faith is a fruit of regeneration, a limb or a branch of sanctification, which it self is either a fruit or a branch of Regeneration. either a fruit or a sprig, I say, because regeneration may be considered two ways, either as an act of God working in us, or as a change thereby wrought upon us. Conceiv we this by the like concerning conversion. conversion may be taken two ways, either as an act of God working in us, or a change thereby wrought upon us. and we shall find both together mentioned, Jer. 31. 18. Convert me, O Lord; there is the act of God working in him; and I shall be converted, there is the change thereby wrought upon him. In like manner may Regeneration be considered, either as an act of God working in, or on a man, Jam. 1. 18. 1 Pet. 1. 3. and so sanctifica­tion is an effect or fruit of it, or as a change wrought thereby upon him, 1 Pet. 1. 22, 23. and so it is a principal branch of regeneration; whereof one main arm is illumination, re­specting the minde and understanding, and sanctification re­specting the wil and affections an other, shooting out and di­viding it self into many sprigs, as sincere repentance, the filial fear, the tru love of God, and the like; all which and among the rest this faith unfeigned, 1 Tim. 1. 5. being branches of sanctification, ar all holie dispositions, and the acts issuing from them of no other nature or qalitie then the disposition, or first act, as the School termes it, from which they proceed. Seeing then that the habit of this faith, whereby anie ar justified, is an holie disposition, such as makes the soul and person possest with it holie, that purifies and sanctifies him that hath it, and the acts of it conseqentlie such as proceed from an holie heart and a sanctified disposition; it must needs follow, that no wicked man, no unregenerated and unsanctified person, while he so continues, can have the faith by the Apostle here intended.

[Page 47] And thus much shall suffice for the proof of the propo­sition: I shal now proceed to the proof of the assumption.

That a man may beleiv the doctrine of the Gospel, that Je­sus Christ is the Sonne of God, and the Saviour of mankind, and yet be never a whit the holier, but remain stil irregenerate and unsanctified, is apparent. For first the Devils, as hath ben said and shewed before, know and beleiv all this, and that now doubtles, as undoubtedlie as anie man living doth or can do, and yet are no whit at all the holier for all that, but remain stil as evil as ever they were. yea manie wicked men, limmes of the Devil have done the same. And here why should I not name Balaam for one? for did not Balaam know Christ? yes un­doubtedlie, how could he els have Prophesied of him? he had an heavenlie revelation, a revelation from God concerning Christ; that might be said of him, that Christ himself said of Peter, Mat. 16. 17. Flesh and bloud did not reveil this mysterie unto him, but God himself that is in heaven: tho he were not blessed, as Peter, nor sanctified therefore, as he was. But hear we Balaams own words, Num. 24. 15-17. Balaam the son of Beor, the man whose eyes were opened, who heard the words of God, and knew the know­ledge of the most High, and saw the visions of the Almightie, he saith, I shal see him, but not now; I shall behold him, but not nigh. (as if he had said, The time shal come, when I shal see the Messias, the Savior of Israel; I shall one day behold him, but afar off; so as I shal not be the better for my sight of him, it will be little to my comfort.) There shal come a Star out of Ja­cob; and a Rod, or a Scepter shal arise, or stand up out of Israel, &c. a plain Prophecie of Christ, as all confes, and is generallie acknowledged. Yea mark we how far he proceeds, Chap. 23. 10. Let me dye, or, Oh that I might dye, (saith he) the death of the righteous; and that my last end might be like unto his. Ba­laam would never have thus spoken, had he not beleived, that if he did take the same cours that Gods people did, who trusted in the Messias, and yeilded themselvs up to be ruled whollie by him, he might be saved by him, as they were. but for all that his beleif he would not, nor did condescend so to do. But leave we him, and proceed to some other instances. [Page 48] What is the sin against the Holie Ghost, of which our Saviour Christ saith, Matth. 11. 31, 32. All manner of sinne and blasphemie shal be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemie against the Holie Ghost, shal not be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in the world to come? Is it not almost generallie by most Divines acknowledged, that this irremissible sin, is a sin always joy­ned with knowledge? and what knowledge? not a bare spe­culative or notional knowledg, but a beleif of the truth of the Gospel, accompanied with a malicious opposition there­uuto. No man therefore can commit that sin, but such an one as knows and beleives the doctrine of the Gospel, which yet he malitiouslie opposeth, and conseqentlie must needs have that Faith, which these men would have to be justifying faith. It was somtime the speech of a Reverend Divine, that if Paul had had Peters knowledge when he opposed the Faith of Christ, or Peter Pauls malice, when he abjured his Master; they had both them committed that unpardonable sin. But Paul did what he did in ignorance, and Peter what he did, out of weaknes: and both repented of what they had done; which none of those that have committed that sin, ever do. Heb. 6. 6. In which place further the Apostle plainly intimates, vers, 4. 6. that men that have ben illightned, (with what, think we means he, but with the knowledge of Evangelical truths?) and have partaked of the Holie Ghost, (of the common graces of the Spirit) and tasted of the heavenlie gift and the good word of God, (as those compared to the seed sowen on stonie ground, that receiv the word with joy, and beleiv for a time, Matth. 13. 20. Luk. 8. 13. and the powers of the world to come, may▪ yet, not fal onlie, but fall utterlie away; (as those also in the Gospel, Luk. 8. 13.) yea not fall whollie off onlie, but sin in despite of Gods Spirit, Chap. 10. 26, 29. and so sin, that it's a thing impossible for them to be restored again by repentance, Chap. 6. 6. and what sin it is that is there so deciphered, is no great difficultie to determine▪ which albeit I dare not say that Judas committed; (for it seems avarice, not malice, that run him hedlong into that guilt of impietie, little imagining, it may be, but that his Master would rid himself wel enough [Page 49] out of their hands, unto whom he had betraied him, as he had sometime before done the like, Luk. 4. 29, 30. John 8. 59. and 10. 39. and himself go away with their money the whiles) yet it is verie likely, that he beleived that concerning his Ma­ster to be tru, that he preached unto others. Howsoever, the former instances shewing that wicked ones so continuing may have such a beleif of the truth of the Gospel, declare the same not to be the faith here spoken of.

But pas we on to a third argument. That faith which a re­probate or a castaway may have, one that is not of the number of Gods elect, cannot be justifying faith, or the faith of which the Apostle here speaks▪ for justifying faith, is a grace proper and peculiar to Gods Elect; and is by the Apostle therefore termed, [...], the faith of Gods Elect. But a man may know and beleiv the doctrine of the Gospel concerning Christ and Salvation by him, and yet be a castaway, none of the Elect. so the Apostle Peter, 2. Pet. 2. 20-22. implies, that men who have known the Lord Jesus Christ, and by the knowledge of him abandoned their former worldlie defilements, yet after­ward returning thereunto, like a Dog to take in again his vomit, or a Sow washed to wallow again in the mire; may be in worse, more irrecoverable state & condition then ever before even as the Apostle to the Hebrews, Chap. 6 4, 5. above mentioned, as there is no possible means of restoring them again by repentance.

4. That faith, whereby a man is justified, is such a faith as brings a man home to Christ, such as causeth a man to come to him, pitch upon him, adhere unto him. So our Saviour, John 6. 36. He that comes to me shal not hunger, and be that beleivs in me shall not thirst. which words of our Saviour plainlie shew, that that faith, whereby a man receivs anie benefit from Christ, is such a faith, as carries him unto Christ. But a man may be­leiv Christ to be the Savior and Redeemer of mankind, and yet not in that maner come to him, as to pitch himself upon him, and adhere to him. nor need we go far for an instance, we have one in that verie Chapter, when Christ had fed a great multi­tude with a verie smal qantitie of food, This, say they, certainlie is that Prophet that should come into the world, John 6. 14. That [Page 50] Prophet, what Prophet, think we, ment they, but the Prophet spoken of by Moses? Deut. 18. 15. he that was to be their Sa­vior and Redeemer, the Christ, Act. 3. 22. and yet for all that, albeit they were willing enough to follow him to be fed, vers 26. yet they would not come to him, that they might be sa­ved by him, John 5. 40. and what was the reason why they would not? their credit and reputation, and other the like car­nal and worldlie respects lay in the way between them and Christ, which kept them off from comming so to Christ as to adhere unto him, tho they professed verilie to apprehend and beleive him to be the Messias.

Lastlie, justifying faith is such a faith whereby we imbrace, entertain, receiv, admit Christ, not into our houses, but into our hearts; and whereby conseqentlie we are united unto Christ, so as that he is said to be in us, and we in him. To as manie as received him, saith he, he gave this priviledge to become the sonnes of God, even to those that beleiv in his name. Where to receiv him, is to give him entertainment, not so much in their houses, which Matthew, Zacheus, and others of them also did, as in their hearts: according to that of the Apostle, that Christ may dwel in your hearts by faith, Ephes. 3. 17. whence it is that they that ar in the faith, ar said to have Christ in them. Ex­amine your selvs, saith the Apostle, whether ye be in the Faith: do you not know that Christ is in you? 2 Cor. 13. 5. thereby im­plying, that if they be in the faith, then Christ is in them. For howsoever I conceiv not the term of beleiving on Christ, for our justification or faith in his bloud, as the Apostle terms it here, vers. 25. doth in the proper and peculiar notion of it signifie a receiving of Christ to be our King, Priest and Pro­phet, or to contain and comprehend all Evangelical Duties; yet it doth necessarilie implie an acceptance of him to be not our suretie, Savior and Redeemer onely, but our Soveraign Lord also, and as our Priest our Prophet. Since we cannot with anie good ground relie on him or trust him for the dis­charge of us from the guilt of our sinnes, unles we be content to receiv, and do willinglie embrace him, on such terms as God offers him, and as he offers himself unto us▪ and on no other [Page 51] terms then these is he offered unto anie. But a man may beleiv that Christ is the Savior of the world, yea that he cannot be sa­ved but by Christ, and yet for all that may refuse to receiv him and yield himself up unto him, because he mislikes the conditi­ons on wch he is tendred unto him, or delay to do it at present, in hope that he may timelie enough do it hereafter. As when a companie of Rebels ar up in arms against their Leige Lord, and a Proclamation of pardon and impunitie is published by him unto all such of them, as will lay down their arms, put themselvs upon his mercie, acknowledge their offence, and by solemn oath engage themselvs to du allegiance and constant o­bedience for the future; albeit that they all know him to be their lawful Soveraign, and beleiv that he will be as good as his word, to all that so accept of it, nor know which way to escape, but that first or last they shal be surprised, if they do stand out, and have execution done upon them; yet there may be divers among them that will chuse rather to persist in their rebellious courses, or refuse at least to yeeld themselvs up to him, and to accept of his gratious offer, either out of a stout­nes of stomack, and a stifnes of self-wil, or out of an extream malice and inveterate hatred against the person of their Prince, or out of a strong affection to some advers partie, or out of a fond conceit that they may keep for some good space of time out of the way, undiscovered and unsurprised, or that when they perceiv themselvs neer to be attached, they may then by a tender of themselves attain the benefit of the offer, there be­ing no limitation of time mentioned in it. In the same man­ner: altho a man do beleiv that Jesus is the Savior of mankind, and that there is no way for him to attain salvation but by Christ, yet for all that may he refuse to receiv Christ for his Lord and Savior, or to accept of salvation by Christ, because he mislikes the conditions, upon and under which Christ and sal­vation by Christ is offered and tendred unto him, and without which it cannot be had. But what ar those terms, that ar so necessarilie reqired, and with so much difficultie received? why, these ar: If any man wil come after me, saith our Savior, [...], let him utterlie denie himself, Matth. 16. 24. [Page 52] and, If a man hate not Father and Mother, and Wife and Children, and Brothers and Sisters, his nearest relations, his dearest affections onlie, be as willing to part with them and leave them, when they shal stand in the way between him and Christ, as if he did hate them and were wearie of them, but over and beside all this [...], even his own life, his soul, himself also, he cannot be my Disciple, Luk. 14. 26. and, he that [...], doth not renounce all that ever he hath, ibid. v. 33. yea all that ever he is, he is not for Christ, he must not be his own man anie more, but he must in resolution at least be Christs alone, whollie at his command, wil and disposal. and is not this, think we, durus sermo, a hard saying, as they somtime said, to flesh and bloud? is not this self-denial a shrewd pil to swallow? who, say they, can hear it? who can endure the verie hearing of it? John 6. 60. but much more may it be said here, who can endure to admit it? [...], This word or saying, that Christ came to save sinners, it is a sure saying, such as we may write and rest upon it, we may with good ground afford cre­dit unto it, yea and it is withal a verie acceptable saying, a say­ing worthie of all acceptance, 1 Tim. 1 15. and indeed who would not accept of such a gratious offer? would not willing­lie and gladlie entertain such tidings, the glad tidings of salva­tion, and of salvation not temporal, but eternal? See Esay 52. 7. Nahum 1. 15. Rom. 10. 15. yea but what is the reason then, that this so acceptable message finds so little ac­ceptance in the world, that so few do accept of it? that when this Savior came unto his own, he found so sorie welcome a­mong them, his own refused to receiv him? John 1. 11. It is not in the thing offered; that no damned wretch in Hel would refuse to accept; but it is in the terms whereupon the offer is made and tendred, which mans corrupt nature wil in no wise condescend unto. Man by nature is so wedded to his own wil, his corrupt heart is so fast glewed to his lewd, but beloved, yea best beloved lusts, that he wil rather part with life, and soul, and self, then endure to hear of a divorce from them, that ar dearer to him then himself. Do we not hear wicked wretches [Page 53] somtimes say, such a sinne they cannot leav, they wil not leav, tho they be damned for it? Christ, saith the Apostle, was con­secrated of God, for this purpose, that he might become the Autor of eternal salvation to all those that obey him, Heb. 5. 9. yea that yeild obedience to him in all things, that do whatso­ever he enjoynes them, John 15. 14. And wil we see how avers mans nature is to this obedience, to this absolute, this universal obedience? tho it be most tru, that our Savior saith, (how can he say other then such, who is truth it self?) that his yoak, the yoak that he would have us to draw in, is not harsh and hard, but [...] good and gentle; and his burden, the burden that he would impose upon us, and have us to bear, is not heavie and cumbersome, but light, Matth. 11. 36. it is so in its self, in its own nature; it was so at the first unto mans created nature; it would be so unto us, were it not for our cor­rupt nature; had we but a love and a likeing unto it. See Prov. 3. 17. and 8. 8, 9. 1 John 5. 3. yet such is the perversnes and untowardnes of mans crooked and crosgraind wil, that it wil not by anie fear or force be wrought or brought to a yeilding thereunto. so that wel may that of Solomon be applied unto it; That which is crooked cannot be made streight, Eccles. 1. 15. The Apostles words, Rom. 8. 7. ar verie pregnant to this purpose: if the genuine notion of them were wel observed, and rightlie expressed, which is not easie to be done. [...], saith he, which some render, the wisdome of the flesh. but [...] and [...], tho springing from the same root, ar in notion, far asunder; as may appear by that of Synesius in Dio­ne, [...] they come neer­er home, that render it, the mind of the flesh. but the word [...], or mind, as the word [...], or concupiscence, is of a middle notion, and may be used, yea must be taken there­fore in a different sens according to the nature of the subject, whereunto it is applied. See Gal. 5. 17. The word [...] therefore here applied to the flesh, signifies not mind simplie, but a stout or haughty mind, as the word most freqentlie signifies, and is in the best Autors verie commonlie used; and the words ensuing implie as much. The words may well then be thus rendred, The stoutnes, or hautines of the flesh, of mans carnal [Page 54] heart or mind, (and there is an Emphasis also in the word flesh, which of it self hath an intimation of infirmitie and weaknes, Gen. 6. 3. Heb. 5. 7. yea sometime of a pliable and yeild­ing disposition, apt to receiv anie but slight impression, Ezek. 36. 26. 2 Cor. 3. 3. that such a sorie peice of flesh as mans heart is, should be so stif, and so stubborn) is enmitie against God; not avers to him, but enmitie it self against him; standeth out in such defiance against him, and whatsoever he willes and enjoins, that it neither doth submit it self, nor can be subjected unto his law, or brought under and kept in anie order thereby, yea that the verie prohibitions and comminations of the Law, ar so far from abating the heat and force of mans corruption, that they ar to mans untoward spirit, but as water to qick lime; that water whose nature and propertie is of it self to allay heat, to qench fire, yet being powred upon qick lime, until it have got the masterie of it, doth but set the heat and fier that lay hid in it a working and boiling, whereas it lay qiet, unseen and insensible before; they cause that corruption that seemed to be ded before, begin to revive, to grow ful and fierce, to bestir it self, and break out with much violence and outrage, and sinne to become excessively sinful, [...]. Rom. 7. 5, 8, 9, 13. Ad unto all that hath been said, of the difficultie of self-denial, the strong bent of the heart unto its own evil lusts, and its stifnes of opposition unto Gods word and wil, the deceitfulnes of sinne and Satan in an other kind, those wiles, whereby they suggest unto the soul of it self so loath to denie it self, so unwilling to part with & leav its beloved lusts, to turn over a new leaf, and engage, or inslave himself rather, as he esteems it, to the rigid observance of a strict tenor of life; that for the present so to do is altogether needles, it may be done timelie enough, and well enough hereafter; he may follow the world, and take his pleasure, pursu his own courses, and persist in his own waies, as long as he sees good, and hath libertie and abilitie so to do; and afterward, when by age or cross oc­currents he is so restrained that he cannot do as he did and de­sires stil to do if he could, when he is arrested upon his sick, or lies upon his deaths-bed, he may then seasonablie begin to [Page 55] think on those things, which he hath now no minde to, which his minde at present goes so much against; and the applieng of himself thereunto wil stand him then in as much steed, as if he had put himself to such a tedious task before, & undergone such a toilsome pennance all his life long. And many doubtles build­ing on such vain imaginations, and gulling their own souls with such groundles hopes, as like Castles in the ayer, they thence raise and erect to their own ruine, refuse to receive Christ so tendred unto them, albeit they beleiv him to be the onlie Savior of mankind, and no salvation to be had without him.

And thus much may suffice for refutation of the former mistake of those who hold the Dogmatical Faith, that is, the beleif of the truth either of the word of God in general, or of the Gospel in special, that Jesus Christ is the Savior and Re­deemer of mankind, to be that Faith whereby we ar said here to be justified.

There remain some few Testimonies of Scripture to be an­swered, that ar wont to be produced for the proof of that te­nent either by the Papists, or our own writers.

Now for the proof of this, that justifying faith is no other then a firm assent to the truth of Gods word in general, Bellarmine produceth onlie one place of Scripture, to wit, the Apostles words, Hebrews. 11. 1. Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, and the argument, or, evidence of things not ap­pearing. This he calls his first argument, tho it have no second, as elswhere he doth the like. And in the prosecution of his argument from this place he spends a whole Chapter, de justifi­cat. lib. 1. cap. 6. wherein he takes for granted that the A­postle in these words gives an exact definition of justifying faith: and the instances that after he gives concerning the cre­ation of the world by Gods word, and the destruction of it by a floud, &c. shew that this faith is a beleif of the word of God in general, as wel of Historical relations, as of doctrinal in­structions, and of comminations as of promises.

Unto all which we may thus answer.

1. It is not denied that the Apostle in this Chapter doth at [Page 56] large commend and set forth the strange and admirable power, efficacie and excellencie, of that tru lively and saving faith which he had before mentioned, Chap. 10. 38. but that he intends to deliver in those first words an exact definition of faith so far forth as it justifies, or either there or in the in­stances ensuing, to point out that special act of faith whereby it doth justifie, that is, is a mean of assoiling a man from the guilt of his sinnes, is more then the Cardinal is able to make good. and indeed who almost would be so absurd as to say, that anie man should be so justified by beleeving that God made the world of nothing? (the truth whereof some yet among us have of late flatlie denied, and have not forborn to publish their flat denial and disapprooving of it in print) tho tru it is, that by that self same faith we beleiv as wel the worlds creati­on by God, as mans redemption by Christ; and ar thereby as firmly assured of the one as of the other.

2. Nor doth it follow that Noa was assoiled from his sins, and became an heir of that righteousnes that is according to faith, by beleeving that the whole world should by a deluge be destroied: tho by the same faith he beleived also that he and his should be saved from destruction in that universal deluge by means of the Ark, which by Gods appointment and according to direction received from him he thereupon to that end built.

3. Yea to return Bellarmines argument upon himself, whereby he would proov that the justifying act of faith is not such as we would have it to be, to wit, fiducia, a fiducial trust or reheng on Christ and Gods promise of justification and sal­vation by Christ; because such a faith produceth not fear, but produceth hope and expelleth fear: whereas that act of Noa's faith, whereby he beleived that the deluge would undoubtedlie come, bred in him that fear, that caused him to build the Ark. For as the warning given of the floud, notwithstanding the im­probability and in humane reason incredibilitie, yea impossibili­tie of it in natural power, yet certainlie apprehended and un­doubtedly beleived upon Gods word, relating & revealing it to him, produced fear in him, even as the comminatorie prediction of Ninevies destruction delivered by Jonas from God, and by [Page 57] the Ninevites beleived, bred a fear thereof in them, Jon. 3. 5. so the promise of deliverance made withal unto him at the same time by God, being as certainlie beleived and relied on, bred in him an hopeful expectation of the undoubted perform­ance of it, and was the principal motive of his building the Ark, which otherwise to have attempted had ben a most vain and foolish project, and would have prooved of none effect.

4. Hereunto might be added, that the Apostle Peter seems to implie, that that deliverance from the deluge had somewhat typical in it, 1 Pet. 3. 20, 21. and as in that promise to Abra­ham, for the performance whereof his trusting upon God is said to be imputed unto him for righteousnes, Gen. 15. 5, 6. had beside the expression of the numerositie of his issue in ge­neral mentioned also, Gen. 13. 16. an intimation withal of that blessed or blessing rather, Act. 3. 26. Seed, Gen. 3. 15. and 22. 18. Jesus Christ in special, by whome all that relie on him and trust to him were to be justified and saved; and the possession of the Land of Canaan mentioned in the Covenant that God at the same time plighted with him, Gen. 15. 8-18. was a type of the right unto and interest in the heavenlie in­heritance procured and purchased for all the faithful by Christ, Heb. 3. 18, 19. and 4. 1-11. and 6. 20. and 9. 12, 24. and 10. 19, 20. so that temporal deliverance promised to Noa, from the destruction by the deluge, proceeding from the special favor and grace of God to him, Gen. 6. 8. might wel be a type of that spiritual deliverance from the power of sinne and Satan, which Noa no doubt beleived to be attained by the pro­mised seed, on whom by relieng he became heir of that righte­ousnes that is according to faith in him.

5. That the Apostle speaks of the faith of Gods people in general, whither ordinarie, and that either Historical of mat­ters as wel alreadie past, the creation, v. 3. as future, the depar­ture out of Egypt, v. 22. or Dogmatical, concerning God and his goodnes, v. 6. or extraordinarie, that of miracles, v. 33, 34. is apparent by the varietie of instances given by him, as Bellar­mine also himself grants, and would hence proov, that faith in all these instances, yea that faith in general, is but one and the [Page 58] same, which if it were tru, then everie one that hath justifying faith, should have a power of working miracles also: which is directlie contrarie both to our Saviors intimations, Matth. 7. 22, 23. and 17. 20. and the Apostles, 1 Cor. 12. 9, 10, 29, 30. tho it be not denied that some general notion of faith be found in each of them.

Lastlie, albeit that Historical or Dogmatical faith, or that act of faith, whereby the truth of the Historie or Doctrine of the word in general, or that of the Gospel in particular is beleived, be of necessitie conjoyned with, or antecedent unto that act of saith whereby a beleiver is justified, it doth not thence follow that these two therefore ar one and the same. no more then the slavish fear ariseing from a meer apprehension of wrath and greatness, is the same with the filial fear, ariseing from ap­prehension of Gods mercie and goodnes; Psal. 130. 3. Jer. 31. 39, 40. because the one is to the other, tanqam a [...]us ad silum, as the needle to the thred, it goes before to make way for it, and helps to introduce it: or that faith and hope ar one and the same, because the one is the foundation of the other, nor ar they in time severed the one from the other.

I shal not need to examine anie of Bellarmines other argu­ments; for this place of Scripture is not the principal onlie, but the onlie one produced by him to proov that the assent to the word of God in general, is that whereby we ar said to be justi­fied. and the rest proov no more then this, that such a faith is reqisite to justification and salvation, and that without it a man cannot be justified or saved: whereas the qestion is not, whither all that ar justified have such a beleif of Gods word in general, or of the Gospel in particular; which no man denies; but wither such a beleif, be that faith or that act of faith wherby we ar justified; which is that alone that is here qestioned, Yea the rest of his Scriptures, as himself acknowledgeth, ar intended onlie to disproov the particular application of the promise to be the justifyeng act of faith; whereof more anon, when we have done with some others of our own, who of the Dogmatical Faith or beleif of the doctrine concerning Christ, approov and affirm the same, that of the beleif of the word in general Bel­larmine doth.

THE PUBLISHER Of this Posthumous Peice of Work, TO THE READER.

IT is a fruitless wish for me to utter, Oh that I were not enforced to adjoyn this Epilogue, ‘Desiderantur caetera.’

The rest is wanting, and wil be wanted. It wil be fitter for me to say, Placeat homini, qod placuit Deo. Let not that dis­content man, which pleased God. And it seemed good to the Lord of the Vineyard to interrupt this faithful Servants labour with an acute disease, which supervening to age, which is an incurable sickness, put a period to his life; which was his day or season of work. He was not idle in the former part of the day, but took this business in hand at his verie evening, which man that knows not his time, could neither fore-see, nor put off.Eccl 9. 12. And now this unfinished Peice of his must stand, as an imper­fect Table begun to be wrought by Apelles or Titian (famous in their Generations) which no surviving or succeeding Artist, wil adventure to accomplish with a less-skilful hand. But yet we ar not at an irrecoverable loss, since we have stil the living Oracles of Gods word, which are the original truth, whereof humane discourses are extract Copies and besides common Rea­son,Luk. 11. 1 [...] we may by humble and earnest pra [...]e [...] obtain the assistance of Gods holie Spirit for the improvement of Reason in the [Page] prosecution of what is not here exprest. And tho this discourse be abruptly broken off, before it fully explain what faith is, yet we may from the Negative part, which cuts off all Notions pretending to that Title, conclude the affirmative, that justify­ing faith is an affiance in Christ, or in God through Christ, and for Christs sake, for absolution from our sinnes, and so conse­qentlie for eternal salvation: and the justifying act of faith is to trust to, on, or in Christ, commonly called beleiving in or on him, by a speech somewhat improper, yet not without example in Exotick Authors.Bud. in Comment. Fides non modo cre­dulitatem, sed & fidu­ciam signi­ficat, [...] pro confi­dete, sumi­tur. Aes­chin. con [...] ▪ Cetesiph. [...] Diod. Sicul l. 26. [...]. Aristot. Politic. Tyr [...]orum esse notat, [...]. Latini pariter in eodem sensu usurpa [...] [...]edere. Val. Max. l. 6. Nemo debet nimium fortun [...] cr [...]dere. Virg. celog. 2. Nimium [...]crede coloti. i. e. confide, Serv. But if our Interpreters had ben so lucky, as insteed of beleiving on God, and on Christ, to have rendred the word [...] by trusting, (as e. g. John 14. 1. we read the words of our Savioor to his Disciples, Ye beleiv in God, be­leiv also in me, but we may very wel read thus, Ye do trust, or, Do yee trust in God, or on God, trust also in me, or on me) use would have made the term familiar, and the thing it self ob­vious to the understanding, and it would have prevented many hot but impertinent contentions about words. But mine infir­mities wil not permit me to enlarge in the explication of the nature of faith, which is a common Theam, but deserves exact handling. I entreat the Christian Reader to accept this final portion of heavenlie Treasure rescued from the dust, since the earthen vessel, by which it was conveyed to us, is broken by death, and crumbled into his primigenial Dust.

—Si qid novisti rectius hisce,
Candidus imperti: si non; his utere mecum. Hor.
FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.