Antidote Against Error Concerning Justification

Imprimatur.

THE PREFACE To the Christian Reader.

B Ecause 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 God's glorious Attributes) hath commanded us to embrace and maintain with equal love and zeal the Truth and Peace. Since also both these are the Legacies of our blessed Savior, bequeathed to his Church by his Testament, sealed with his blood; certainly every sincere Christian is concerned in both; but the stewards 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, (to use the words of Deborah ) and the spiritual flames of dissention which (like the late dreadful Fire in the City) 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 labor 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 neighbors 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 these consuming flames, (whose endeavors 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 odds one with another) going about to reconcile them in an unsound way, to the prejudice of Religion itself; 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, though by many degrees inferior to Timothy, yet in some measure to lie under S. Paul 's double charge to him, first 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to keep the precious truth committed to my trust, and then what I have been sufficiently taught and assured of, 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, though 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 God's gracious providence to me, not only that I was born of a Parent eminent for Learning and Piety (the Honor 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 happy 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 wholesome words, 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.

In the year of our Lord 1640, April 19. he began in the course of his Ministry to unfold that portion of Scripture, Rom. 3. 28. and in process of time, by God's 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 public, he was averse from printing what he had preached with a cheerful freedom of speech. At last, not so much the importunity of friends, as the love of Truth, which he pitied to see not only opposed by Old Adversaries, but also assaulted by upstart Enemies, and in danger to be smothered in a crowd of newfangled Errors, 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 public 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, to the resigning of his spirit to God. This Piece, though 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 mind, is like a spark falling on sulphury matter, which is sufficient to light a Candle, or to kindle a Fire, for the enlightening and warming the whole house. So this spark of doctrine communicated to receptive understandings, and cherished with Meditation, may prove a happy 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 household of faith, did (what his time allowed him) out of the hard flint strike fire for others to make use of, and to improve. But, some will be ready to say, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 mine affection blinds and transports me. And though 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , sincerely and impartially, and too meanly qalified, to sway other men's judgments by mine estimation. I confess all this, and am so far from presuming that I can any ways add any luster 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 only 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, 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 arrogancy and ambition of being deemed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 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 itself at the first appearance was rejected for novelty, though (as St. Augustine says of it, 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 reflection in my Discourse upon his own Opinion, and impatient of control, grow so froward, as when he is unwilling to be convinced, and unable to convince me of Error, (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 instead of Reasons to disprove his Opinion, cast forth Reproaches to disparage his person; I shall only say of my Writings; as Ovid did of his Verses,

they might have been read with a more candid judgment. One Caution more I hope will be taken in good part, That the Reader will not be so dis-ingenuous, as to endeavor 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as the Greek Writers speak, with might and main, as occasion requires, because the Schismatics (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 Jesuits, 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 poisonous principles of Rebellion and Regicide, wherewith the Schools of the Jesuits are deeply infected. And it is yet more unreasonable, that the defense 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 only, must needs be confederate with Rebels and Schismatics, in denying obedience and submission to the Powers sacred in Church and State, which are God's 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.

An Antidote against ERROUR, concerning Justification, &c.

T He Apostle Paul, the undoubted Autor of this Epistle, though he made use of another man, one Tertius, chap. 16. 22. for the engrossing of it, as Jeremiah did Baruk for the writing out of his Prophecies, Jer. 36. 4, 18. as he saith of himself, and that qestionles most truly, in regard of the rest of his copartners in the Apostleship, that he labored in the execution of that his Office more abundantlie then they all, 1 Cor. 15. 10. so in this particular employment of laboring to instruct and edify the Churches and faithful people, not only 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 any 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 evidently to appear. 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 Paul's Epistles, grounding upon a mistake and mis-interpretation of the Apostles words, Coloss. 2. 16. But of one written to the Corinthians before that which we now generally call the First, himself makes express 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 only, about a private business, 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 commonly had and acknowledged, together into one Volume, and digested them in that order as now we have them, and which we find to have ben from time to time ever since generally observed. The reason whereof I conceive 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 observe 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 conceive it to have gained this precedency so much, as some other have supposed, in regard of the pre-eminence and sovereignty of the place to which it was written, being at that time the hed-City of the whole Roman Empire, and the seat of the Emperors constant residence; but principally rather in regard of the eminency and excellency, yea deep profundity of the Mysteries of the Gospel, more fully and largelie therein delivered then in any other of them, I may boldly say; what if I should say, in all the rest of them, were they all put together? 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 joints of the whole discourse so aptlie knit together and artificially rivetted into one another, that that noble Italian Earl so much renowned for his variety of Lerning, sharpness of insight, and soundness of judgment, that he was deemed the Miracle of the Age he lived, in, is reported to have said, that all the human writings of learned men & great Scholars 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 itself into two parts.

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

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

In handling the Doctrine of man's 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 God's sight. Chap. 1—5.

2. Sanctification, whereby we are cleansed 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, God's free Election and Predestination to Grace and Glory, obviouslie propounded, Chap. 8. 29, 30. purposely 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 fabric, lie 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 themselves unto view, so Election and Predestination lie hid of themselves, and cannot be descried and discovered of us concerning our selves 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 well-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 bottomless Ocean of God's goodness, from whence as they had their first rise, so they ar to return and empty themselves into, his glory 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 any true 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 Salvation; wherein he had (as the manner of Orators is) endeavored 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. verse. 7—15.

Now the only means of Justification he affirms to be by Faith in Christ, verse. 16, 17. which to clear and confirm, he endeavors to show that all mankind standing of themselves guilty of sin in God's 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 proves that they ar so, from the light of nature, reveiling a Deity to them, and his wrath against sin; the substance of his Law engraven in their hearts, and the testimony of their own conscience accusing them of the breach of that Law, so that they carry about with them & within them, both a Law whereby they ar to be tried, so that they cannot pretend ignorance, and a witness, who when time shall come, will give in such evidence against them, that they shall not be able to plead not guilty. Chap. 1. 18. to 2. 16.

2. Concerning the Jews, who would easily yield it of the Gentiles, but not of themselves, who they deemed might be sufficiently cleared, either by the works of the Moral, or rites of the Law ceremonial, he proves the self same, from those heinous sins 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 commonly observed) seems herein to consist, that if sin 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 man's nature, and a very sinful disposition in the whole race of mankind.

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

Thus having removed the wrong means of the Justification of a sinner in God's sight, he proceedeth to establish the right. And that is by such means only as God out of his free favor and grace hath assigned: now the means by God assigned, are the satisfaction to God's Justice made by Christ with his blood, and Faith on man's 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, verse. 25.

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

3. The purchasing or meritorious cause on Christ's part, the ransom paid, verse. 24. and satisfaction thereby made with his blood, verse. 25.

4. The instrumental cause on man's part apprehending him and it, Faith, verse. 25.

5. The impulsive cause of the thing done in general, God's free favor and mere mercy, verse. 24.

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

1. The manifestation of Justice, verse. 26. on God's part.

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

There followeth lastly hereupon in the words of my Text the Main and Apostolical Determination of the Principal Point, containing in it the Sum and Substance of all; and that tanqam e cathedra, in a Doctoral manner, peremtorilie delivered, as by necessary 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 four heds;

1. What is meant 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 meant by the word Justify; or what it is to Justify, and how the word is here taken, I shall in the first place examine, and endeavor to remoov some senses or meanings of the word given by divers, whom I conceive to be mistaken: and in the next place deliver and endeavor to assert what I take to be the right.

Of those whom herein I conceive to be mistaken, some there are that give the word Justify 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 Justify here signify, to make really, inherentlie, habituallie, formallie just: that which we commonly according to the usual phrase of Scripture ar wont to term, to sanctify, or to make holy. For Justice or Righteousness, 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, and signify goodness in general. as Job. 1. 1. Matth. 5. 20, 33. and elsewhere.

Thus the Fathers of that Tridentine Council 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 only formal cause of Justification, is the Righteousness 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 only, but ar named and ar indeed truly righteous, receiving righteousness each one in himself, according to that degree, which the Holy 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 Council 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 Council 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 fitly, 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 true it is, 1. That it we respect the Notation or Original of the word Justify, it should signify to make just, as Sanctify, to make holy. But if we regard the common use of it, it no more so imports, then as Sanctify used of God, doth to make holy▪ or magnify in common use of speech to make great. And it is the Ordinary use of words, not their Original without it, that must carry 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 Latin word Justificare (though not found in any Classical Author) and our English Justify, very rife with us, seem to answer) are sometime, though very seldom, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 righteousness; or as our English hath it, convert men to righteousness: and Calvin therefore is of the mind that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in that place; though 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 sense (which the form of it requires and the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 true wisdom. So Revel. 22. 11. the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , word for word, justificetur, as the next also to it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sanctificetur, seems to be taken in the like manner, whether the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as implieing continuance only be rendered there adhuc as Beza, and our English still, or as implieing a further growth also, be rendered amplius as Piscator, and Junius in his annotation, magis ac magis, more and more, for the word will admit either: the whole series of the context seems to carry it strongly this way, He that deals unjustlie, let him deal still unjustlie, and he that is filthy, let him still be filthy, and he that is just, let him still be just, or be more just; and he that is holy, let him be still holy, or more holy. Sanctitati amplius studeat, Piscat. as in way of antithesis or opposition, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 answers to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , so again on the other side 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in a fit and apt correspondency 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 answers to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 though in a notion distinct. And these I conceive ar the only two places in Scripture, 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 non-Latin alphabet 〉 in some passages of this our Apostle in the same sense that these men do. So Chrysostom in his eighth Sermon on this Epistle, expounds it in Rom. 4. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . he that justifieth the ungodlie, that is, saith he, doth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 godly. 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 miss the right sense 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 every justified person, is sanctified also. so Chrysostom expressly expounds himself in that place, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . That God is able sodainlie not only to free a man from penalty that hath lived in impiety, 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 believe because they were just, but that by believing being justified, or made just, they might thenceforth begin to live justly.

4. It is a certain and undeniable truth indeed, that all true believers may be said to be Justified, taking the word Justify in that sense, wherein it imports habitual or inherent righteousness: for all that ar Justified, are also sanctified, 1 Cor. 6. 11. and Christ is made as well sanctification as righteousness to all those that have interest in him, 1 Cor. 1. 30. Having the Image of God consisting in true holiness and righteousness 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. 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 Zechariah and Elizabeth just in God's sight (sincerely righteous, just there where God sees, 1 Sam. 16. 7.) Walking blameleslie (not in some, and not in other some, but) in all the commandments 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 well observe, lib. 6. fol. 186. Diversae & maxim disjunctae qestiones sunt, An ita se res habeat, & utrum ex vocis signification concludi recte possit. They are two divers and far different qestions, how the things themselves are, and what may be concluded rightly 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 Justify in this place, it is apparent enough.

For 1. the question 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 God's tribunal, Chap. 3. 19, 23. and 4. 5. and 5. 6, 8. and the justification here dealt in consequently such a justification whereby may be procured a discharge from the guilt of fore passed delinqencies, verse. 25. But this cannot be attained or procured by such a justification as they would have here understood, to wit, by sanctification or inherent holiness and righteousness. 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 formerly we did, Luk. 17. 10. Rom. 8. 12. 1 Joh. 2. 6. And the payment of one part of a debt will in no reason discharge a man of the non-payment of another part; it would be a very selie and sorry plea for a tenant sued by his Landlord for the arrear of his rent wherewith for many years past he is behind hand, to plead that he had some qarter or two begun now to pay him, and intended thence forward to do it.

2. The justification here spoken of concerns the guilt of sin and the removal of it, verse. 9. 19. as Psal. 103. 12. Whereas such justification as they would have here intended, 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, verse. 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 man's restitution from his natural condition apart. As he doth apparentlie distinguish them elsewhere. ye ar sanctified, ye ar justified, 1 Cor. 6. 11. so here he handles them distinctly and severallie, justification by itself, 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 justify here signify, to make habituallie or inherientlie just.

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

And true it is, 1. that not only some of the Ancients seem so to say.

And Bernard Epist. 190. Qid est ipsa (peccatorum remissio) nisi Justificatio? What is remission of sins itself, but justification? And many 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 elsewhere seem to have ben otherwise minded, however in eagerness of opposition to that Popish Tenent of justification by inherent righteousness, sometime they so speak: nor doth the exclusive particle used by them seem to intend anymore then to debar and keep out the collation of grace inherent or the exercise of it from having any place or office allowed them in the justification of a sinner, that which Bellarmine himself ingenuouslie acknowledgeth of Calvin, who is most of any 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 Bernard's above, Qid est peccatorum remissio nisi justificatio? What is remission of sins but justification? and yet is far from holding justification to consist wholly and entirelie in a bare remission of sins.

2. It is no les true, that justification and remission of sins go always together, and ar never sundered in God's 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 sin.

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

For 1. Neither the Hebrew word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 used in the Old Testament, nor the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 ancient Greek Autors it is never found so taken but in a far differing sense, as I have elsewhere shown at large) nor the Latin Justificare framed to express either of them, nor our English term justify drawn from the Latin, and in ordinary use with us, do ever so signify, 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. Isaiah 5. 23. and 43. 9, 26. and 50. 8. alluded to Rom. 8. 33. Isaiah 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. Rev. 22. 11. Now take a view of these places (and I suppose very few, if any, 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 justify, instead of it pardon, where justification, pardoning, where justified, pardoned, and see if in any of them so rendered any fit or convenient sense will thence arise, yea, whether the notion in most of them will not be very uncouth, and not inconvenient only but even senseless 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 ourselves? read we Moses his of Judges, Deut. 25. 1. They shall pardon the righteous, or guiltless, and condemn the wicked, or guilty: read we David's to God, Psal. 51. 4. That thou mayest be pardoned; when thou speakest. Jobs to his Friends, Job 27. 5. God forbid that I should pardon you, till I die: Christ's of wisdoms children, Mat. 11. 19. Wisdom 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 myself; yet am I not therefore pardoned: or concerning our Savior, 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 sense clear besides, yea far differing from, and in some of them directly contrary to the mind and meaning of the persons by whom they were spoken. Herein therefore Andradius of whom 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 any (he might have said truly, he shall find 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 nowhere found used, either in holy Writ, wherein it so often occurs, or in ordinary speech, or in any profane writer.

2. That the things themselves ar divers and distinct either from other, it is apparent. For it is an undoubted Axiom, 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 justify him in his dealings, 1 King. 2. 8, 9. And where a man is falsely 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 God's dealing with the Sons of men, though in regard of a man's state and condition in general, he never remittes sin, where he doth not justify; 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 justify the Prophet Isaiah in the discharge of his Ministry, Isaiah 50. 8. Yea, will you see a manifest difference between these two, by an instance, that may make it plain to the meanest capacity. A party 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 offense, or at the mediation and entreaty of some common friend to them both, the Partie offended is content to let fall his suite, and doth freely 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 only plead his pardon. Again, say a man have wronged his Neighbor, but hath made him full satisfaction for the wrong done him, or if not able to do it himself, hath procured some friend to do it in his behalf, and the Partie wronged having accepted thereof, doth thereupon remit it and seeks no further remedy against him for it, here the Partie that did the wrong, if he should at any time after be qestioned for it, he may stand upon his justification, and plead not guilty, because he can plead satisfaction made and accepted: and this latter, not the former, is the very 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 themselves 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 rigor 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 Son did forgive us our sins, as Kings oftentimes assoil guilty Persons out of favor to, and at the suit of friends; but because he hath paid an exact price of ransom, and thereby in rigor of justice made satisfaction for the wickednesses of us all. What could any Protestant writer say in this point more? And Calvin (among many other) albeit that many parcels and long passages ar produced out of him, from those places, wherein he bends his discourse against the former conceit of justification consisting in an infusion of habitual and inherent holiness, as if he restrained it unto, and would have it wholly consist in a mere pardon, and bare forgiveness of sin; yet he places it, where he speaks his mind out more expressly, 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 aperte pro absolutione sumi; vides operibus legis adimi; vides merum Christi beneficium esse; vides fide percipi; vides deniqe satisfactionem interponi. You see, saith he, after remission of sins mentioned, that this justification (to wit, such as we maintain, not such as Popish writers many of them would have meant) 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 mere benefit of Christ; you see lastly that satisfaction is interposed. Which last clause they do not well to clip off, who among many other, cite this place also of Calvin 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 justify is no other, then to assoil the party qestioned from guilt, as approved innocent, or guiltless, which is another matter then meerlie to pardon. neither is this difference a slight matter or of light weight, and unworthy much regard, since that herein Socinus states the Controversy between the Orthodox Divines, and himself with his adherents, in his Theological Prelections, cap. 15. thus speaking; Qaeritur utrum in justification nostra per Christum, peccata nostra compensatione seu satisfaction aliqa deleantur, an vero remission & condonatione. pleriqe satisfaction interveniente id fieri arbitrantur; nos vero simplici condonatione. The question 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 Calvin expressly takes to, where he delivers herein his mind more fully.

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 sins.

I shall now proceed to the examination of some others, who amiss 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 partly in remission of sins, and partly in sanctification and the renovation of the inward man. So the Fathers of the Council 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 itself is not only 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 justify. lib. 1. cap. 2. Justificatio impii constat ex remission peccati, & infusione gratiae. Justification consists of remission of sin, and infusion of grace. Or as some others, remission peccatorum & infusione justitiae sive gratiae sanctificantis. In remission of sins and infusion of righteousness or sanctifying grace. And howsoever Bellarmine charge Calvin with fraudulent dealing in his Antidote against the Doctrine of the Council of Trent, Sess. 6. in saying, Caussam Justificationis faciunt duplicem, &c. that the Fathers of that Council make a twofold cause of Justification, as if we were just, partly by remission of sins, and partly 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 intendment is, as himself propounds it, to prove, from Scripture, Reason, and Autoritie, Justificationem non consistere in sola peccatorum remission, sed etiam in interna renovatione, that Justification consists not in remission of sins only, 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 distinctly and properly) doth Justification consist, as hath of either ben shown; and if in neither severallie, nor in both of them joyntlie.

2. Others, and those also of our own, would have Justification to consist, partly in remission of sins, and partly in imputation of righteousness. And I pass by that which Bellarmine 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 elsewhere that there is one only formal cause of Justification; he retorts the charge upon Calvin himself, who howsoever in that place of his Antidote he affirm, Vnicam & simplicem esse Justificationis caussam, that there is one only single cause of Justification; yet elsewhere, to wit, in his Institutions, lib. 2. cap. 11. sect. 2. doth in express words affirm, Justificationem in peccatorum remission ac justitiae Christi imputatione positam esse; that Justification consists in remission of sins and imputation of Christ's righteousness. Which form of speaking many others of our besides him use. But Calvin's meaning is not as the Cardinal would have it, that these were two several causes, or two distinct parts of Justification, remission of sins, and imputation of Christ's righteousness; 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 remission ac justitiae Christi imputatione positam esse dicimus. We interpret Justification simply, 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 Christ's righteousness. Tru it is, that Polanus, who also cites this place of Calvin, both in his Partitions, lib. 1. and in his Theses de partib. Justificat. though he say, Justificatio un • ca est; Justification is but one; adds, sed ejus partes duae sunt; but of it, or of Justification there are two parts, (which Calvin says not) remission of sins and imputation of Christ's righteousness, which latter he defines, ben • ficium Dei, a benefit of God, whereby he vouchsafeth, to account as ours Christ's obedience, &c. Whereby he sustained the pains of sin for us, even as if we had sustained the same ourselves. which words of his imply that imputation to be rather the ground, then any part of Justification. Leaving Calvin therefore, and those that use the like expressions; we shall apply ourselves for the present only unto those, who make remission of sins, and imputation of righteousness two distinct parts of Justification. So Ludovicus Lucius in his Christian Theology, 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 righteousness; that, whereby God pardons all the sins of believers 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 holiness and righteousness 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 believing sinner as righteous unto life.

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

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

1. With the most of them, it draws remission of sins into the very nature of Justification; whereas remission of sin, is a divers and distinct thing from Justification, as hath formerly ben shown; and therefore no part of it.

2. With them all, it presumes in the matter of Justification a needles twofold act, the not imputation of sin, and the imputation of righteousness, as two distinct things; whereas not to impute sin in consideration of satisfaction made for it, is no other thing then to impute righteousness to the Partie therein concerned. Since that a man cannot be deemed or doomed guiltless or faultles, but he must of necessity be deemed or doomed just or righteous; there being no medium or middle state between a delinquent or a guilty person and one guiltless 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 sin can make a man unjust, then surely the utter absence of sin must necessarily make a man just. See Paul's plea, Act. 25. 8.

Hitherto we have endeavored to show, what to justify, as the Apostle here takes it, and as the word is most commonly used, is not: we now pass on to show what it is, and what indeed it properly imports.

The word Justify therefore (as our writers do generally against the Papists maintain) is forense vocabulum, a term taken from Courts of Justice, and courses or cases of judicature, as appears plainly from Deut. 25. 1. 1 King. 8. 32. 2 Chron. 6. 23. Psal. 82. 3. Prov. 17. 15. Isaiah 5. 23. and 43. 9. And it is an act either of the Partie himself qestioned, or of his Advocate, or of the Jury, or of the Judge, or of them all. Of the Partie himself, when he pleads not guilty, and stands upon his defense, as Paul doth, Act. 25. 8. of the Advocate, when he defends and maintains his Client to be not guilty, as the convert thief 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 guilty, and so cleeres and assoiles him, as Pilate did Christ, Luk. 23. 14, 15. the Advocate justifies by pleading and defending as not faulty; the Judge by pronouncing and sentencing as such. and to Justify conseqentlie, in a judiciarie way, is to discharge from guilt of sin, or declare free from it, either by defense, 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 still 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 Justify himself, when he stands upon his own innocence, and maintains his own faultlesnes and integrity, against such as charge him with ought amiss. So Job 27. 5. Luk. 16. 15. John 8. 46. and others, to justify a man, when they stand in defense of him, and maintain his honesty and innocence against those that question it, and either doubt of it or deny it. So 1 Sam. 19. 4.

To Justify then in general is to defend, or clear, acqit or assoil from fault or guilt, from desert of blame or penalty, and conseqentlie to proov or approve and pronounce guiltless or just. not to make just, save in such an improper sense, as when we use to say▪ you would make me a thief, or, you would make me a liar, that is, you would aspers me with, or fasten such an imputation upon me. as John says, of him that believes 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 sanctify when it is spoken of God, Isaiah 8. 13. is not to make him holy, as he doth us, Heb. 2. 11. but to acknowledge him so to be; and to glorify him, Psal. 50. 14. Gal. 1. 23. is not to make him glorious, as he doth us, Rom. 8. 30. but to acknowledge his glory, and ascribe glory to him; and to magnify, is not to make him great, but to acknowledge and set forth his greatness, Psal. 34. 3. So to justify is not to make just, but to declare and pronounce just. and as a man's righteousness is said to be taken from him, when he is censured or condemned as unjust, though he be never so just, nor be any whit the les just, because unjustlie so deemed or doomed, Isaiah 5. 23. Job 27. 5. In a word, as a wicked or guilty person is said to be made wicked, or guilty, when he is convicted and condemned as such; so is the righteous or guiltless party 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and our English that I should justify you, The Greek renders it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that I should pronounce you righteous, and the Latin ut justos judicem vos, That I should judge you righteous, Job 27. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Latin, ut tu justifice • is, That thou mayest be justified, as the Greek renders the same, Psal. 50. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , and here 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that thou mayest appear to be just, Prov. 17. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . He that judgeth the unrighteous righteous, & the righteous unrighteous. and the Latin more expressly, Qi justificat impium, & condemnat justum. and our English accordingly, he that justifies the wicked, and condemns the just. yea, so Augustine himself, though oft elsewhere he go the other way, as before hath ben shown; 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 shall be justified, he tread a while in his wonted track, yet after some forced and far-fetched expositions given of the words, at length he pitcheth upon this; Aut certe ita dictum est, Justificabuntur, ac si diceret, justi habebuntur, justi deputabuntur; sicut dictum est de qodam, ill 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 justify 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 holy, who before were not holy; but this therefore, that that which is always holy of itself, may also of men be accounted holy.

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

1. From verse. 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 guilty, or be assoiled at God's tribunal. And the meaning therefore must by necessary 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 Isaiah 50. 8. and Justification therefore conseqentlie a discharge thereof.

Howbeit because remission of sins is by so many said either to be the very same with Justification, or to be at least contained in it, I shall endeavor further to show what near affinity and necessary connection these two free gifts of God have in the work of man's redemption and reconcilement to God, and yet how they are distinguished the one from the other.

1. Remission of sin, though it be not the same with Justification, yet is it a necessary conseqent of efficacious Justification grounded upon satisfaction tendered 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 offense 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 offense be remitted, that is, that the Partie wronged cease now to be offended with him, whom he was justly offended with before.

2. Remission simply and nakedlie considered in itself, is a work of mercy or favor only: whereas Justification, to speak properly, 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, though it be a point of favor and mercy in regard of him to whom it is done, yet it is a point of Justice in regard of him for whom it is done. if it be done at entreaty and intercession only, it is mere mercy and free favor in regard of either; but then, to speak properly, 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 properly so termed. And this is the case of man's 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) was freely performed. but freely, so far as concerneth thee; for in regard of Christ, not freely. 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 weighty considerations known to himself, remitting the penalty of the Law, and so discharging a guilty Person as if he were innocent and righteous, not according to Law and Justice, but out of a sovereign 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 God's Justice, verse. 26. whereas in such case (which in plain terms is no other then mere pardon) there may be an ample declaration of mercy, but no such demonstration of justice at all. nor doth that bear any weight at all with me, which a late Annotator of no small note doth largelie discourse upon the Apostles passages in this place, wherein he would have the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to signify here not strict justice, but moderation, eqity, grace and mercy in pardon of sin; and the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 public 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 worthy the observation, that the word seldom 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 Cajetan also well observes, to show, 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 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 ransom, 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 seems to me very strange, that this learned man should say that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or just should in these books be seldom or never meant 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 showing favor, or moderation and mercy, but in regard of doing Justice eqalie and indifferently, 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 well in acqitting the guiltless, as in condemning the guilty, Deut. 25. 1. and Justice is the same in either; and that God's Justice doth as well appear in the acqitting us for Christ, as in exacting a payment for us from Christ, Isaiah 53. 7. Albeit the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or righteous, and its conjugates, is not very freqentlie found in the writings of the New Testament applied to Courts and courses of judicature, because seldom occasion to entreat of them, nor are they over-frequentlie attributed to God, as a Judge, and to his judgment, yet where they are, it is apparent enough, that they have an eye to retributive justice, consisting in the assoiling of the guiltless and doing Justice upon the guilty. To such manner of judicature had our Savior Christ's words qestionles respect (though directed to private judgment ) and not to any favorable or eqitable compliance, when he said to his hearers, John 7. 24. Judge not according to sight or outward appearance, but Judge 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , just or righteous judgment. Yea, when of himself and the judgment that he will in his appointed time execute, he saith, John 5. 30. As I hear, so I judge, and my judgment 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 sense can the word bear in those passages of God's people in the Apocalypse, but of vindicative and punitive Justice, when praising God for avenging them on their cruel Persecutors, they say, just and true are thy ways, Rev. 15. 3. and just art thou, in that thou hast judged thus. and true and just ar thy judgments, 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 God's wrath among them, he judges and wars 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , in Justice, or with righteousness? Chap. 19. 11. Let the Annotator consult himself on these places. Or how can he with any 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 expressly inserts in the exposition of the same term given to Christ, the just Judge, 2 Tim. 4. 8. though I suppose there not so necessarily, because the allusion is there rather to the Judges or Triers at the solemn Olympic 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the judgment or just judgment, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , as it is termed Chap. 2. 5. of God, that those that commit such things ar worthy of death; where it is apparent what Justice or Judgment is intended. Again, where Chap. 3. 4, 5. he saith of God, citing David's words, Psal. 51. 4. that thou mayest 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 David's speech plainly demonstrates, so the Apostle also showeth evidently in his very next words, where the opposite term 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is used, is God unjust in taking vengeance? nor can the words be otherwise well expounded, Chap. 9. 28, 14. where the Apostle citeth a passage out of Isaiah 10. 21, 22. wherein God threatening to make such a round reckoning with his people, that a poor remnant should remain when the account was cast up, says he would do it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as the Prophet, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, in justice or righteousness, as the Apostle, who also in the same Chapter, demandeth whither there be any injustice or unrighteousness with God, in dealing thus with the Jews. Lastly, to conclude with a most conspicuous place, the same Apostle, 2 Thes. 1. 5, 6. as he calleth the judgment of God to be exercised in taking vengeance on the Persecutors of his people to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , a just judgment; so to proov it to be such, for that, saith he, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , it is a just thing with God so to do: which place howsoever the Annotator contend not to be meant of the last Oecumenical judgment, yet he cannot deny to be spoken of vindicative justice, which the words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to give vengeance or to take it, as we usuallie phrase it, do evidently in express terms import. This exception and observation therefore is of no force to weaken the received exposition of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, just or righteous in this place attributed to God, as taken in a notion of retributive justice exercised in condemning the guilty and assoiling the guiltless.

2. The justification of a sinner as it is here described and defended, is such as is transacted and acted not by a mere sovereign 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, verse. 31. and as our Savior himself speaks, not dissolved, but fulfilled, Mat. 5. 17, 18. For the further clearing whereof, we ar to consider that Christ in Scripture is termed not only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 entreaty, 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sponsor, a surety, an undertaker, one that engageth himself for the articles agreed upon in the Covenant of the Gospel between God and Man, Heb. 7. 22. God's surety to man for the performance of all the gracious promises made on God's part, which are all of them yea and amen in him, 2 Cor. 1. 20. Mans surety to God, for the discharge of the debt of all those that have interest in him, and making satisfaction to God by doing and enduring in his human nature, whatsoever could in Justice be required to that purpose for their delinqencies and breaches of his Law. Hence that of Isaiah 53. 6, 7. We all had strayed, had deviated from the rule and directions of God's Law; for that is the nature of all sin, 1 John. 3. 4. had turned aside each one to his own way, betaking himself to someone 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 well renders the word) yea he did really answer it, as we use to say, of a party or his surety 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 w ^ch by the term of payment, we ar wont to express. Now where full 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 Savior Christ in our behalf exhibited. For howsoever I dare not run out so far as to affirm as many do, that our Savior suffered the very self-same torments, partly in his Agony and partly 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 hours while he hung on the Cross, as did in the intension and extremity 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 eternity the whole multitude of God's elect, for all whose sins he satisfied, were to have endured, the power of his Deity supporting and enabling his human nature thereunto: since that Christ's human 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 mass of endless suffering must of necessity have amounted unto. albeit for the allay hereof, that were allowed, which a learned man of eminent parts from Picus and Scotus suggests, that unto the sins of the penitent, because they are broken off by repentance, an infinite penalty is not du: which yet seems to want sound ground of proof from God's word; wherein the Apostle speaking of the sins of the faithful, who had now cast off the service of sin, saith in general, theirs not excluded, the stipend of sin, (or the pay du to it, a military term) is death; and that eternal death is intended, appears by its opposite, everlasting life, said there to be God's Donative, as Tertullian well 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 though granted would hardly 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 conceive, that keeping ourselves within the bounds of Christian sobriety in this profound mystery, we may safely say, that Christ's humiliation through the whole cours of his life, and his sufferings as well in Soul as in Body, in his whole human nature consisting of both near upon his death, together with his death in that manner inflicted and sustained, the eminency of the person being even God as well as Man, that was content to expose and abase himself unto all this, Phil. 2. 6-8. being duelie weighed, was such and so great as God deemed in Justice eqivalent unto, and well worthy 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 excellency of Christ's person, was only to make the passion available to many, but was not at all to dispens with the continuance nor the grievousnes of his pains; and that if it might dispens with any degree of extremity of punishment due to sin, it might dispens also with two, and so conseqentlie with all; seems to ty and stint God's justice to over-strict terms; and the worth and value of Christ's sufferings to such a precise rate, as their private estimation shall 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 God's wisdom in the disposing the means of procuring man's 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 Christ's blood was of so infinite a value, as was sufficient to make a full satisfaction to God's Justice for the discharge of the sins of the whole World. Which if it were true, then the blood shed in the Circumcision of our Savior had been sufficient to have answered God's Justice, and to have made a full compensation to whatsoever the law of God could in utmost rigor have required on the part of all that had ever transgressed it. And so all that Christ afterward either did or endured, and his death itself the upshot of all had been superfluous and needles; which how it will consist with the wisdom of God, and love to his Son, I shall leave to be deemed by others of deeper reach then myself. Howsoever Christ having of his own accord become our surety, and undertaken the discharge of our debt, and it being at the choice 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 Surety, as it is a favor and mercy in God to forbear the exacting it of us, who were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of no ability, unable utterly 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 surety a full compensation for all our transgressions.

In a word, that Justification is an act of Justice and not a matter of free favor or mere mercy alone, appears evidently from the very term to Justify, whence it is deduced, whither we consider it, in its native notion, or in its ordinary use.

For 1. In its native notion and propriety the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Hebrew, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Greek, as also whatsoever term we can frame in Latin or English to answer in any du analogy unto either of these two, it doth and must include a notion of Justice in it. For howsoever we truly affirm that neither of those, the Hebrew or Greek term do necessarily intimate a making just, save in such sense as hath formerly ben hinted, and might therefore in Latin be rendered by the word justare, derived from justus, in the same form and sense with probare from probus, which signifies not to make allowed or sound, but to proov or approov as such, as well as by the word justificare, which though not found in the Antient Latin 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 well 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 mercy, but of Justice and right. and it is not unworthy the observing, that howsoever the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Scripture and Christian writers be used in reference to the Hebrew 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the better sense for to assoil and acqit, yet among the Antient Greeks (as I have elsewhere evidenced and evinced) that term was used only in the worse sense 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 shall find the word therefore in Heathen writers not distinguished only from pardon, but opposed thereunto, as in that cited by a learned French Divine out of Dio. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Such Cities as willingly yielded, 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 ordinary and vulgar use there is no other matter intimated, then of Justice and right, not of favor or affection. nor as we have formerly shown, is either the Hebrew or Greek term ever taken in any such notion of favor and relaxation of Justice and right in the Books of Scripture: nor in our common speech do we intend or understand any such matter, when we either say, or hear others say, You justify yourself; and You justify him, and, I will justify such an one, and the like. And to say then that the word in this place and this discourse is to be so taken, without some good proof from the Text itself, is but petitio principii, a begging of that that is at present in debate.

I will add a few not unfit Considerations or Observations only, and so leave this hed.

1. That we must distinguish between these two things, to be in the state of Justification, and to be actually 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 truly justified, that is, he may justly be defended, maintained, assoiled, declared, pronounced, discharged as not guilty, as faultles upon any occasion, or as occasion shall reqire: for there is not always a present use or need of justification. As a man ought at all times to be patiently disposed, to be continually 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 Gregory, There is no use of patience in times of prosperity; when all goes with a man according to his own hearts desire. So though a man be, and it meerlie concern him so to be, always, and at all times, in a state of justification, in a justifiable condition, yet is there no use of justification, until he be qestioned, and unless somewhat be objected against him. To affirm a man to be an honest, or a just, or a wise, or a learned man, when no man makes question of him, or avers ought to the contrary, is to commend him, not to justify him; but when his honesty, or his integrity, or his wisdom, or his learning shall be qestioned or controverted, doubted of, or denied, then to vindicate his honesty, integrity, wisdom, or learning is to justify 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 justly and truly upon good ground done, when occasion shall reqire. Thus God is always justifiable, because ever in all things just, Psal. 92. 15. and 145. 17. But is then said to be justified, when the Justice and eqity of his courses is qestioned, Rom. 3. 4. Ezekiel. 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, Isaiah 50. 8. Rom. 8. 33. 1 King 8. 32.

Thus then upon a man's entrance into the state of grace, having right to and interest in the satisfaction made by Christ, he is presently 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 shall be, Tit. 3. 5, 7. but then may God be said actually or occasionallie to justify such, when against Satan's accusations, or wicked men's 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 truly be Justified, unless he be first made or constituted just. for

1. Tho the word Justify do not signify in propriety or common use to make just, as hath formerly ben shown, 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 though he were so, yet were not that sufficient to clear him from the guilt of his fore passed unjust act. a man that hath played the thief, albeit afterward he become formallie just, that is, though by wholesome advice and good admonition he be brought to repent of his former thievish courses, and thenceforth become a new man, a true man; yet will not that discharge him from the guilt of his theft formerly committed; but he must so be made just, that is, guiltless and blameless, as that he may answer the rigor of Law and of Justice, ere he can truly be justified: (for it is the guilt of the offense that Justification regards) and this cannot be done but by a plenary satisfaction for the wrong done and the offense formerly committed, exhibited and accepted. and this is that justice or righteousness that the Apostle intimates, when he saith, that by the obedience of one (to wit, of Christ) many are made or constituted, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , just, or righteous, Rom. 5. 19. not formallie or habituallie, but relativelie, in reference to the Law, and the guilt of sin arising from it. On which place Calvin, 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 righteousness for us.

2. That which is exhibited whither by doing or suffering, or both in way of satisfaction and so accepted, being such as makes a plenary compensation for an offense formerly committed; because it utterly 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 guiltless, faultles and just: there being no medium between these two just and unjust, nor between guiltless and just. see Deut. 25. 1. this guiltlesnes therefore is justly termed justice; and the party conseqentlie by plea thereof upon any emergent occasion may be truly justified. and such guiltlesnes a • cheived by Christ's satisfaction made to God's Law and his Justice, makes the party unto whom the same is imputed, and who hath interest therein, truly named and justly 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 itself, but the guiltlesnes thereby procured, that is so oft in his argument termed justice or righteousness, 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 party wronged, and Christ as the party satisfying, for the wrong, are in this argument distinguished, Rom. 3. 24, 25. and 2 Cor. 5. 19, 21.

3. That every true Christian hath a twofold justice or righteousness; the one in reference to the guilt of sin, 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 sin, being a pollution and depravation of the Soul, depriving it of that purity and integrity 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 righteousness, consisting in a freedom from the filth of sin, the faithful ar truly and sincerely, 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 freedom from the guilt of sin, they ar fully, compleatlie, perfectly just or righteous, 1 John 1. 7. the one is the righteousness of sanctification, the other the righteousness 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, AEqe justus latro in cru • e, atqe ipsa beata Virgo Maria, that The convert thief on the Cross was all out as just, or righteous, as the blessed Virgin Marie, Christ's 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 offense, yet may not be justifiable in general. So Job charged by his friends with gros hypocrisy, oppression and cruelty, 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, though in the general he declines God's strict dealing in way of judicature with him, Psal. 143. 2. yet in particular, upon false imputations 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 truly justified, because in that particular guiltless, when some criminal act shall be wrongfully 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 endeavored to show what the word Justify doth precisely denote in this place.

The Use whereof briefly may be;

1. To inform us aright concerning the distinct notion and nature of divers graces of God, that though they be knit and linked one to another, hang all on one string or chain, are all fruits of God's 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 another, and Remission of sin a third, as hath been shown. 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 any error therefore in matter of faith: only they use some words and Phrases improperlie; and misexpound some places; but otherwise say nothing but what is orthodox and agreeable to the analogy of faith.

Yea to remoov some groundless controversies between us and the Papists, and clear some mistakes and misunderstandings on either side. while the Papists charge us to hold, that a man is made formallie, habituallie, inherentlie holy and righteous by Christ's holiness and righteousness imputed unto us, as if a black-Moor, saith Bellarmine, were made white by casting a white garment upon him, whereas we say no such matter. and withal he acknowledgeth, that, if when our writers say, that Christ's righteousness is imputed unto us, their meaning were no other but this, that Christ's merits are imputed unto us, because they ar given unto us, and we may tender them unto God for the discharge of our sins, in regard that Christ hath taken upon him the burden of making satisfaction for our sins, and of reconciling us to God his Father, they held nothing therein but what is right; though (saith he) the manner of speaking that they use, is vetie seldom or never found either in the Scriptures or the Antient Fathers. And the truth is, that precise form of speaking can hardly 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 elsewhere confesseth, that Christ is rightly called our Justice, or Righteousness, First, because he worketh righteousness in us: and secondly, 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 well be called our satisfaction, and our righteousness. For though (saith he) by righteousness inherent in us, we ar truly just or righteous, and ar truly so termed; yet do we not thereby make satisfaction to God for our faults and for eternal damnation du thereunto; but both that inherent righteousness, and the remission of the fault and eternal penalty thereto du, ar the effect of Christ's satisfaction, which as the Council 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 Christ's righteousness and merits are imputed unto us, since that they ar so conferred on us and applied unto us, as if we had satisfied God ourselves. Speaks he not as much as any 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 many of them at least as herein agree with him, and most Protestants concur: (howsoever in other points concerning the merit and worth of works and satisfaction made by them for venial sins, to be expiated otherwise by Purgatory 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 Christ's righteousness, as none of ours ever dreamed of; and by many of ours on the other side, in confusing what they deliver of Justification, when as by that term they mean not Justification, strictlie so termed, but Sanctification improperlie by them so styled; and so the Air only is to no purpose between them both beaten, while the one either will not see, or marks not what the other means.

A second Use may be to minister much comfort to every sound and true-hearted Christian:

1. Against the temptations and accusations of Satan, and of the wicked of this World. The Devil is styled 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 true Christian may with the Prophet Isaiah, Chap. 50. 8. and the Apostle Paul, Rom. 8. 33. bid defiance to either, God will defend him against either. If Satan shall offer to traduce him with God, or to accuse him unto God, as he did Job, or wordly men censure him for an Hypocrite and a formalist, as Jobs friends did him, God himself will vindicate him as well against the one as the other: Job 2. 3. and 42. 7, 8. he will bring forth his righteousness as the light, and make his cause or case as clear as the noon-day, Psal. 37. 6. every tongue that enforms ought against him, shall itself be cast and condemned, Isaiah 54. 17. what accuser or accusation can prevail to the conviction or condemnation of him, whom Christ sues for, whom God assoils? Rom. 8. 33, 34.

2. Against the remainders of sin 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 sin; and though 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 God's indignation and wrath. for being justified by Christ's blood, saith the Apostle, we shall much more by him be saved from wrath, Rom. 5. 9. where the party is pronounced faultles, there offense must needs cease, and vengeance much more, Isaiah 54. 9, 10.

4. Against the rigor of God's justice. for justification is an act of justice, nor can God in justice condemn those whom he hath assoiled as guiltless in and for Christ, Rom. 8. 1. God is not like Pilate, who though he pronounced Christ guiltless, 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 any of those who have interest in Christ, for which he had received satisfaction from Christ their surety before, Isaiah 53. 6, 7.

5. Against their want of worth, in regard of many other of far more eminent parts of piety and sanctimony. for howsoever in regard of those graceful parts, that excellent luster of inherent holiness, that renders them, as well gracious 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 Christ's 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 blessedness principally consist, Psal. 32. 1, 2.

6. Against condemnation and sentence of judicature, though justly past here upon him, and deservedlie inflicted. for notwithstanding that also, having his peace made with God, and reconciled to him in Christ, he shall with the penitent and faithful Thief on the Cross, for Christ's satisfaction, stand discharged and be pronounced guiltless at God's tribunal, nor shall 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 surety Christ Jesus, after his satisfaction finished and accepted, which not for himself, but for him and all God's 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 Justify here used; we shall 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 Method, that we did in the former, we shall endeavor to show,

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

In the former I am encountered with two erroneous (as to me seems) mistakes and extremes, the one falling short of the true 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 will have here understood nothing else but a general belief, or assent of the mind to the truth of God's 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 only Savior and Redeemer of Mankind. that which is commonly termed Historical Faith, but of some learned writers rather by a fitter term Dogmatical Faith, because it respects not so much the History of the Scripture in general, or of Christ's 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 making God's 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 true it is, and must of necessity be granted, that this Dogmatical Faith, or such an act of Faith as it implies, is a necessary antecedent of justifying Faith, and layeth a ground and foundation for it. But that it is the very justifying act of Faith, with most of our writers and teachers I cannot admit and condescend unto; yet not because that the Popish party mostlie maintain it, (for even the Papists hold many truths in common, both with us and other orthodox Christians.) nor because the most of ours oppose and impugn it, (for we make no mere man's or men's judgment the ground of our faith,) but because I deem it unsound and repugnant to God's 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. For justifying Faith is a most precious Pearl, 2 Pet. 1. 1. a special gift, Eph. 2. 8. and grace of God, as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 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 belief 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, believe, and tremble, Jam. 2. 19. they believe there is a God, and believing that, believe withal that he is a true God, and that his word is true; did they not believe it, they would not tremble. and indeed what is the reason why wretched Atheists, worse herein then the Devil, tremble not at God's word, but because they believe 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 believe a God, so they believe a Christ too. So themselves profess, I know who thou art; (say they, speaking to Christ) even that holy one of God, Mark 1. 24. and again, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, the Son of the most high God? Mark 5. 7. and yet further, if this be not sufficient, thou art 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the Christ, or that Christ, the Son 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 only, but in terms also, they be not the very 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 show 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 Devils 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 shall endeavor to remoov.

The first exception taken by a young Divine having some employment in the City about the time, when I dealt in this argument, was this, that it followed not, because the Devil thus spake of or unto Christ, that therefore they believed 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 true, and teachest the way of God truly without respect of or regard unto the person of any. which yet it may justly be doubted, whether in truth they believed. and so may it be of what the Devils are related to have said.

For answer whereunto I shall not stand to discuss what likelihood 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 directly,

1. That it cannot be, but that the Devils must needs know as much as there they do confess. To make it evident by an instance. suppose the Grand Signior or Turkish Emperor, holding (as at this day he doth) in captivity the subjects of divers Christian Princes and States not a few, someone of those Princes, whose subjects he so holds, should undertake an expedition, wherein he would go himself in person, for the delivery of his subjects so detained, enter upon his territories, defeat him, subdu him, release his captives and set them at liberty, 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 very case here. The Devil, the Prince of darkness, the God of this world, held in thralldom 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 daily 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, dispossessed, despoiled, bereaft of his prey and purchase, captived, triumphed, should not know and believe this Jesus Christ by whom all this was done, to be the Savior and redeemer of mankind? it is a thing utterly impossible and scarce credible, that any man should make question at all of it.

But 2. to put this out of question; what some scriptures say that the Devils acknowledged, others of them expressly say that they knew. so Mark 1. as verse 24. it is related how the Devil in the man possessed said to Christ, I know who thou art; so verse 34. it is said of those fiends which Christ cast out, that he would not suffer the Devils, (not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to say, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) to speak; because they knew him. they professed not only to know him, but they knew him indeed. and more fully 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 expressly affirm that they knew.

A second exception is, that the Devils could not be justified, though they had the same kind of faith, or the same act of faith, whereby men are justified, because there is no promise made unto them, salvation was never tendered on any such condition to them, as unto mankind it is.

To this I answer, 1. that the question is not, whither the Devils should or could be justified, if they had that faith or act of faith, whereby men ar said to be justified. but the question 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 says, godly grief breeds repentance unto salvation never to be repented of, were nothing else but a sorrow for sin, or a regret and remors only 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 Devils themselves may have, cannot be that wholesome and saving repentance, which the Apostle speaks of. But the Devils may have an inward remors and sorrow for sin in regard of those evils that for it have befallen them and lie heavy upon them, and unto all eternity shall so do. and it is not therefore that repentance of which the Apostle there speaks. The question here would not be whither the Devils might be saved if they could repent, but whither they ar capable of such a repentance as godly grief produceth and works unto salvation in men; and the stress 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 justified 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 only is that that is here denied. And truly unto me it seems as strange to affirm, that the Devils have or may have, that very same faith, (that precious pearl, that very same gift and grace of God's Spirit) whereby they ar justified, though 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 godly grief 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 God's 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 very same is said of faith in the places before mentioned.

2. For the removal of this exception more fully; consider we, that though it be true, that there is no such promise or tender of salvation on any 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 any, Mark 16. 15, 16. Go forth into all the world, saith our Savior, and preach the Gospel unto every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved. If then it 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 meant, to wit, a belief only of the truth of the doctrine of the Gospel, that Christ is the Savior and Redeemer of mankind; then this exception must necessarily 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 belief of the Gospel, that Christ is the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of mankind, some have had, have known and believed it, who yet coutinued still, wicked, ungodlie, irregenerate, unsanctified. and this cannot therefore consequently be the faith here spoken of. For the proof of the Proposition, I shall not so much insist or rest upon the necessary conjunction of this faith and repentance the one with the other, in regard of God's ordinance; and though by means of his appointment there is a necessary connection of Justification and Sanctification; which as some of the Schoolmen 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, freely remitting their offense without any satisfaction; as by his absolute power he might have done. for I dare not say as some do, that God may not as well without breach of his justice, remit a wrong done him by his creature and vassal, as a man may an injury offered to him by his fellow & fellow-servant, howsoever in his wisdom 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 shall lay upon this, that therefore faith & repentance cannot be severed, faith and holiness cannot be sundered, in regard of the very nature and property, the condition and qalitie of this faith itself; for that this faith, whereby a man is justified, is an holy habit, or disposition, and the act issuing from it, an holy act; termed therefore a most holy faith, Jude 20. nor in regard of the objects of it, because it is conversant and exercised about holy things, God, and Christ, and the goodness & mercy of God in Christ; but because it is an holy disposition in the soul, whereby the heart is purified, Act. 15. 9. and the party possessed of it is sanctified, Act. 26. 18. such faith is a fruit of regeneration, a limb or a branch of sanctification, which itself 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 mind and understanding, and sanctification respecting the will and affections another, shooting out and dividing itself into many sprigs, as sincere repentance, the filial fear, the true 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 holy dispositions, and the acts issuing from them of no other nature or qalitie then the disposition, or first act, as the School terms it, from which they proceed. Seeing then that the habit of this faith, whereby any ar justified, is an holy disposition, such as makes the soul and person possessed with it holy, that purifies and sanctifies him that hath it, and the acts of it conseqentlie such as proceed from an holy 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.

And thus much shall suffice for the proof of the proposition: I shall now proceed to the proof of the assumption.

That a man may believe the doctrine of the Gospel, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and the Savior of mankind, and yet be never a whit the holier, but remain still irregenerate and unsanctified, is apparent. For first the Devils, as hath ben said and shown before, know and believe all this, and that now doubtless, as undoubtedlie as any man living doth or can do, and yet are no whit at all the holier for all that, but remain still as evil as ever they were. yea many wicked men, limbs 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 else have Prophesied of him? he had an heavenly revelation, a revelation from God concerning Christ; that might be said of him, that Christ himself said of Peter, Mat. 16. 17. Flesh and blood did not reveil this mystery unto him, but God himself that is in heaven: though he were not blessed, as Peter, nor sanctified therefore, as he was. But hear we Balaam's 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 Almighty, he saith, I shall see him, but not now; I shall behold him, but not nigh. (as if he had said, The time shall come, when I shall see the Messias, the Savior of Israel; I shall one day behold him, but afar off; so as I shall not be the better for my sight of him, it will be little to my comfort.) There shall come a Star out of Jacob; and a Rod, or a Scepter shall arise, or stand up out of Israel, &c. a plain Prophecy of Christ, as all confess, and is generally acknowledged. Yea mark we how far he proceeds, Chap. 23. 10. Let me die, or, Oh that I might die, (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 believed, that if he did take the same cours that God's people did, who trusted in the Messias, and yielded themselves up to be ruled wholly by him, he might be saved by him, as they were. but for all that his belief he would not, nor did condescend so to do. But leave we him, and proceed to some other instances. What is the sin against the Holy Ghost, of which our Savior Christ saith, Matth. 11. 31, 32. All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in the world to come? Is it not almost generally by most Divines acknowledged, that this irremissible sin, is a sin always joined with knowledge? and what knowledge? not a bare speculative or notional knowledge, but a belief 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 believes 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 sometime the speech of a Reverend Divine, that if Paul had had Peters knowledge when he opposed the Faith of Christ, or Peter Paul's 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 weakness: 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, verse, 4. 6. that men that have ben enlightened, (with what, think we means he, but with the knowledge of Evangelical truths?) and have partaked of the Holy Ghost, (of the common graces of the Spirit) and tasted of the heavenly gift and the good word of God, (as those compared to the seed sown on stony ground, that receive the word with joy, and believe for a time, Matth. 13. 20. Luk. 8. 13. and the powers of the world to come, may▪ yet, not fall only, but fall utterly away; (as those also in the Gospel, Luk. 8. 13.) yea not fall wholly off only, but sin in despite of God's 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 difficulty 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 impiety, little imagining, it may be, but that his Master would rid himself well enough out of their hands, unto whom he had betrayed 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 very likely, that he believed that concerning his Master to be true, that he preached unto others. Howsoever, the former instances showing that wicked ones so continuing may have such a belief 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 God's elect, cannot be justifying faith, or the faith of which the Apostle here speaks▪ for justifying faith, is a grace proper and peculiar to God's Elect; and is by the Apostle therefore termed, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the faith of God's Elect. But a man may know and believe 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 wordly 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 Savior, John 6. 36. He that comes to me shall not hunger, and be that beleivs in me shall not thirst. which words of our Savior plainly show, that that faith, whereby a man receivs any benefit from Christ, is such a faith, as carries him unto Christ. But a man may believe Christ to be the Savior and Redeemer of mankind, and yet not in that manner 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 very Chapter, when Christ had fed a great multitude with a very small qantitie of food, This, say they, certainly is that Prophet that should come into the world, John 6. 14. That Prophet, what Prophet, think we, meant 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, verse 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 wordly respects lay in the way between them and Christ, which kept them off from coming so to Christ as to adhere unto him, though they professed verily to apprehend and believe him to be the Messias.

Lastly, justifying faith is such a faith whereby we embrace, entertain, receive, 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 many as received him, saith he, he gave this privilege to become the sons of God, even to those that believe in his name. Where to receive him, is to give him entertainment, not so much in their houses, which Matthew, Zacchaeus, and others of them also did, as in their hearts: according to that of the Apostle, that Christ may dwell 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 yourselves, 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 conceive not the term of believing on Christ, for our justification or faith in his blood, as the Apostle terms it here, verse. 25. doth in the proper and peculiar notion of it signify a receiving of Christ to be our King, Priest and Prophet, or to contain and comprehend all Evangelical Duties; yet it doth necessarily imply an acceptance of him to be not our surety, Savior and Redeemer only, but our Sovereign Lord also, and as our Priest our Prophet. Since we cannot with any good ground rely on him or trust him for the discharge of us from the guilt of our sins, unless we be content to receive, and do willingly embrace him, on such terms as God offers him, and as he offers himself unto us▪ and on no other terms then these is he offered unto any. But a man may believe 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 receive him and yield himself up unto him, because he mislikes the conditions on w ^ch he is tendered unto him, or delay to do it at present, in hope that he may timelie enough do it hereafter. As when a company of Rebels ar up in arms against their Liege Lord, and a Proclamation of pardon and impunity is published by him unto all such of them, as will lay down their arms, put themselves upon his mercy, acknowledge their offense, and by solemn oath engage themselves to du allegiance and constant obedience for the future; albeit that they all know him to be their lawful Sovereign, and believe 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 shall be surprised, if they do stand out, and have execution done upon them; yet there may be divers among them that will choose rather to persist in their rebellious courses, or refuse at least to yield themselves up to him, and to accept of his gracious offer, either out of a stoutness of stomach, and a stifnes of self-will, or out of an extreme malice and inveterate hatred against the person of their Prince, or out of a strong affection to some adverse party, 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 perceive themselves near 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 believe 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 receive 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 tendered unto him, and without which it cannot be had. But what ar those terms, that ar so necessarily required, and with so much difficulty received? why, these ar: If any man will come after me, saith our Savior, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , let him utterly deny himself, Matth. 16. 24. and, If a man hate not Father and Mother, and Wife and Children, and Brothers and Sisters, his nearest relations, his dearest affections only, be as willing to part with them and leave them, when they shall stand in the way between him and Christ, as if he did hate them and were weary of them, but over and beside all this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , even his own life, his soul, himself also, he cannot be my Disciple, Luk. 14. 26. and, he that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 anymore, but he must in resolution at least be Christ's alone, wholly at his command, will and disposal. and is not this, think we, durus sermo, a hard saying, as they sometime said, to flesh and blood? is not this self-denial a shrewd pil to swallow? who, say they, can hear it? who can endure the very hearing of it? John 6. 60. but much more may it be said here, who can endure to admit it? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , 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 very acceptable saying, a saying worthy of all acceptance, 1 Tim. 1 15. and indeed who would not accept of such a gracious offer? would not willingly and gladly entertain such tidings, the glad tidings of salvation, and of salvation not temporal, but eternal? See Isaiah 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 sorry welcome among them, his own refused to receive 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 tendered, which man's corrupt nature will in no wise condescend unto. Man by nature is so wedded to his own will, his corrupt heart is so fast glued to his lewd, but beloved, yea best beloved lusts, that he will 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 sometimes say, such a sin they cannot leave, they will not leave, though 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 yield obedience to him in all things, that do whatsoever he enjoins them, John 15. 14. And will we see how avers man's nature is to this obedience, to this absolute, this universal obedience? though it be most true, that our Savior saith, (how can he say other then such, who is truth itself?) that his yoke, the yoke that he would have us to draw in, is not harsh and hard, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 good and gentle; and his burden, the burden that he would impose upon us, and have us to bear, is not heavy and cumbersome, but light, Matth. 11. 36. it is so in its self, in its own nature; it was so at the first unto man's created nature; it would be so unto us, were it not for our corrupt nature; had we but a love and a liking unto it. See Prov. 3. 17. and 8. 8, 9. 1 John 5. 3. yet such is the perverseness and untowardnes of man's crooked and crosgraind will, that it will not by any fear or force be wrought or brought to a yielding thereunto. so that well may that of Solomon be applied unto it; That which is crooked cannot be made straight, Eccles. 1. 15. The Apostles words, Rom. 8. 7. ar very pregnant to this purpose: if the genuine notion of them were well observed, and rightly expressed, which is not easy to be done. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , saith he, which some render, the wisdom of the flesh. but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , though springing from the same root, ar in notion, far asunder; as may appear by that of Synesius in Dione, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they come nearer home, that render it, the mind of the flesh. but the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or mind, as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , or concupiscence, is of a middle notion, and may be used, yea must be taken therefore in a different sense according to the nature of the subject, whereunto it is applied. See Gal. 5. 17. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 therefore here applied to the flesh, signifies not mind simply, but a stout or haughty mind, as the word most freqentlie signifies, and is in the best Autors very commonly used; and the words ensuing imply as much. The words may well then be thus rendered, The stoutness, or hautines of the flesh, of man's carnal heart or mind, (and there is an Emphasis also in the word flesh, which of itself hath an intimation of infirmity and weakness, Gen. 6. 3. Heb. 5. 7. yea sometime of a pliable and yielding disposition, apt to receive any but slight impression, Ezek. 36. 26. 2 Cor. 3. 3. that such a sorry piece of flesh as man's heart is, should be so stif, and so stubborn) is enmity against God; not avers to him, but enmity itself against him; standeth out in such defiance against him, and whatsoever he willes and enjoins, that it neither doth submit itself, nor can be subjected unto his law, or brought under and kept in any order thereby, yea that the very prohibitions and comminations of the Law, ar so far from abating the heat and force of man's corruption, that they ar to man's untoward spirit, but as water to qick lime; that water whose nature and property is of itself to allay heat, to qench fire, yet being poured upon qick lime, until it have got the mastery of it, doth but set the heat and fire 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 full and fierce, to bestir it self, and break out with much violence and outrage, and sin to become excessively sinful, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Rom. 7. 5, 8, 9, 13. Ad unto all that hath been said, of the difficulty of self-denial, the strong bent of the heart unto its own evil lusts, and its stifnes of opposition unto God's word and will, the deceitfulness of sin and Satan in another kind, those wiles, whereby they suggest unto the soul of itself so loath to deny itself, so unwilling to part with & leave its beloved lusts, to turn over a new leaf, and engage, or enslave 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 ways, as long as he sees good, and hath liberty and ability so to do; and afterward, when by age or cross occurrence he is so restrained that he cannot do as he did and desires still to do if he could, when he is arrested upon his sick, or lies upon his deaths-bed, he may then seasonablie begin to think on those things, which he hath now no mind to, which his mind at present goes so much against; and the applieng of himself thereunto will stand him then in as much steed, as if he had put himself to such a tedious task before, & undergone such a toilsome penance all his life long. And many doubtless building on such vain imaginations, and gulling their own souls with such groundless hopes, as like Castles in the air, they thence raise and erect to their own ruin, refuse to receive Christ so tendered unto them, albeit they believe him to be the only 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 belief 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 God's word in general, Bellarmine produceth only 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, though it have no second, as elsewhere 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 God's word, and the destruction of it by a flood, &c. show that this faith is a belief of the word of God in general, as well 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 large commend and set forth the strange and admirable power, efficacy and excellency, of that true 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 justify, that is, is a mean of assoiling a man from the guilt of his sins, is more then the Cardinal is able to make good. and indeed who almost would be so absurd as to say, that any man should be so justified by believing that God made the world of nothing? (the truth whereof some yet among us have of late flatlie denied, and have not forborne to publish their flat denial and disapprooving of it in print) though true it is, that by that self same faith we believe as well the worlds creation by God, as man's 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 righteousness that is according to faith, by believing that the whole world should by a deluge be destroyed: though by the same faith he believed also that he and his should be saved from destruction in that universal deluge by means of the Ark, which by God's appointment and according to direction received from him he thereupon to that end built.

3. Yea to return Bellarmine's 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 God's 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 believed 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 flood, notwithstanding the improbability and in human reason incredibilitie, yea impossibility of it in natural power, yet certainly apprehended and undoubtedly believed upon God's 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 the Ninevites believed, 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 certainly believed 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 proved of none effect.

4. Hereunto might be added, that the Apostle Peter seems to imply, 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 righteousness, 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 whom all that rely 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 heavenly 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 well be a type of that spiritual deliverance from the power of sin and Satan, which Noa no doubt believed to be attained by the promised seed, on whom by relieng he became heir of that righteousness that is according to faith in him.

5. That the Apostle speaks of the faith of God's people in general, whither ordinary, and that either Historical of matters as well already past, the creation, v. 3. as future, the departure out of Egypt, v. 22. or Dogmatical, concerning God and his goodness, v. 6. or extraordinary, that of miracles, v. 33, 34. is apparent by the variety 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 same, which if it were true, then everyone that hath justifying faith, should have a power of working miracles also: which is directly contrary both to our Saviors intimations, Matth. 7. 22, 23. and 17. 20. and the Apostles, 1 Cor. 12. 9, 10, 29, 30. though it be not denied that some general notion of faith be found in each of them.

Lastly, albeit that Historical or Dogmatical faith, or that act of faith, whereby the truth of the History or Doctrine of the word in general, or that of the Gospel in particular is believed, be of necessity conjoined with, or antecedent unto that act of saith whereby a believer 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 mere apprehension of wrath and greatness, is the same with the filial fear, ariseing from apprehension of God's mercy and goodness; Psal. 130. 3. Jer. 31. 39, 40. because the one is to the other, tanqam a • us ad silum, as the needle to the thread, 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 shall not need to examine any of Bellarmine's other arguments; for this place of Scripture is not the principal only, but the only 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 question is not, whither all that ar justified have such a belief of God's word in general, or of the Gospel in particular; which no man denies; but wither such a belief, be that faith or that act of faith whereby we ar justified; which is that alone that is here qestioned, Yea the rest of his Scriptures, as himself acknowledgeth, ar intended only 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 belief of the doctrine concerning Christ, approov and affirm the same, that of the belief 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 adjoin this Epilogue,

The rest is wanting, and will be wanted. It will 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 labor 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 very evening, which man that knows not his time, could neither fore-see, nor put off. 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, will adventure to accomplish with a less-skillful hand. But yet we ar not at an irrecoverable loss, since we have still the living Oracles of God's word, which are the original truth, whereof human discourses are extract Copies and besides common Reason, we may by humble and earnest pra • e • obtain the assistance of God's holy Spirit for the improvement of Reason in the prosecution of what is not here expressed. And though 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 Christ's sake, for absolution from our sins, and so conseqentlie for eternal salvation: and the justifying act of faith is to trust to, on, or in Christ, commonly called believing in or on him, by a speech somewhat improper, yet not without example in Exotick Authors. But if our Interpreters had ben so lucky, as instead of believing on God, and on Christ, to have rendered the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by trusting, (as e. g. John 14. 1. we read the words of our Savioor to his Disciples, Ye believe in God, believe also in me, but we may very well read thus, Ye do trust, or, Do ye trust in God, or on God, trust also in me, or on me) use would have made the term familiar, and the thing itself obvious to the understanding, and it would have prevented many hot but impertinent contentions about words. But mine infirmities will 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 heavenly 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.