lay hold of any thing and to receiue a gift but the hande hath no propertie to cut a peice of wood of it selfe without saw or knife or some like instrument and yet by helpe of them it can either deuide or cut Euen so it is the nature of faith to goe out of it selfe and to receiue Christ into the heart as for the duties of the first and second table faith cannot of it selfe bring them forth no more then the hand can deuide or cut yet ioyne loue to faith and then can it practise duties commanded concerning God and man And this I take to be the meaning of this text which speaketh not of iustification by faith but onely of the practise of common duties which faith putteth in execution by the helpe of loue III. Reason Faith is neuer alone therefore it doth not instifie alone Ans. The reason is nought and they might as well dispute thus The eye is neuer alone from the head and therefore it seeth not alone which is absurd And though in regard of substance the eye be neuer alone yet in regard of seeing it is alone so though faith subsist not without loue and hope and other graces of God yet in regard of the act of iustification it is aloue without them all IV. Reason If faith alone doe iustifie then we are saued by faith alone but we are not saued by faith alone and therefore not iustified by faith alone Ans. The proposition is false for more things are requisite to the maine ende then to the subordinate meanes And the assumption is false for we are saued by faith alone if we speake of faith as it is an Instrument apprehending Christ for our saluation V. Reason We are saued by hope therefore not by faith alone Ans. We are saued by hope not because it is any cause of our saluation Pauls meaning is onely this that we haue not saluation as yet in possession but waite patiently for it in time to come to be possessed of vs expecting the time of our full deliuerance that is all that can iustly be gathered hence Nowe the doctrine which we teach on the contrarie is That a sinner is iustified before God by faith yea BY FAITH ALONE The meaning is that nothing within man and nothing that man can doe either by nature or by grace concurreth to the act of iustification before God as any cause thereof either efficient materiall formall or finall but faith alone All other gifts graces as hope loue the feare of God are necessarie to saluation as signes thereof consequēts of faith Nothing in mā concurrs as any cause to this worke but by faith alone And faith it selfe is no principall but only an instrumentall cause by we receiue apprehend and apply Christ and his righteousnes for our iustification Reason I. Iohn 3. 14. 15. As Moses lift vp the serpent in the wildernesse so must the sonne of man be lift vp that whosoeuer beleeueth in him should not perish but haue eternall life In these wordes Christ makes a comparison on this manner when any one of the Israelites were stung to death by fiery serpents his cure was not by any phisicke surgery but onely by the casting of his eye vp to the brasen serpent which Moses haderected by Gods commandement euen so in the cure of our soules when we are stung to death by sinne there is nothing required within vs for our recouery but onely that we cast vp and fixe the eye of our faith on Christ and his righteousnes Reason II. The Exclusiue formes of speach vsed in scripture proue thus much We are iustified freely not of the lawe not by the lawe wiihout the lawe without workes not of workes not according to workes not of vs not by the workes of the lawe but by faith Gal 2. 16. Alboasting excluded onely beleeue Luc. 8. 50. These distinctions wherby works and the law are excluded in the worke of iustification doe include thus much that faith alone doth iustifie Reason III. Very reason may teach thus much for no gift in man is apt and fit as a spirituall hand to receiue and applie Christ and his righteousnes vnto a sinner but faith Indeede loue hope the feare of God and repentance haue their seueral vses in men but none serue for this ende to apprehende Christ and his merits none of them all haue this receiuing propertie and therefore there is nothing in man that iustifieth as a cause but faith alone Reason IV. The iudgement of the auncient Church Ambr. on Rom. 4. They are blessed to whome VVITHOVT ANY LABOVR OR VVORKE DONE iniquities are remitted and sinne couered NO VVORKES OF REPENTANCE required of them but ONELY THAT THEY BELEEVE cap. 3. Neither working any thing nor requiting the like are they iustified by FAITH ALONE through the gift of God And 1. Cor. 1. This is appointed of god that whosoeuer beleeueth in Christ shalbe saued without any worke BY FAITH ALONE freely receiuing remission of sinnes Augustine There is ONE propitiation for all sinnes to beleeue in Christ. Hesyc on Levit. lib. 1. c. 2. Grace vvhich is of mercy is APPREHENDED BY FAITH ALONE and not of workes Bern. Whosoeuer is pricked for his sinnes and thirsteth after righteousnes let him beleeue in thee who iustifieth the sinner and beeing iustified by FAITH ALONE he shall haue peace with God Chrysost. on Gal. 3. They said he which resteth on faith alone is cursed but Paul shevveth that he is blessed vvhich resteth ON FAITH ALONE Basil. de humil Let man acknovvledge himselfe to want true iustice and that he is iustified ONELY BY EAITH in Christ. Origen on c. 3. Rom. We thinke that a man is iustified by faith without the works of the law and he saith that iustification by faith alone sufficeth so as a man onely beleeuing may be iustified And Therefore it lieth vpon vs to search who was iustified by faith vvithout workes And for an example I thinke vpon the theefe who beeing crucified with Christ cried vnto him Lord remember me vvhen thou commest into thy kingdome and there is no other good worke of his mentioned in the Gospell but for this alone faith Iesus saith vnto him This night thou shalt be with me in Paradise III. Difference The third difference about iustification is concerning this point namely how farforth good works are required thereto The doctrine of the Church of Rome is that there be two kindes of iustification the first and the second as I haue saide The first is when one of an euill man is made a good man and in this workes are wholly excluded it beeing wholly of grace The second is when a man of a iust man is made more iust And this they will haue to proceed from works of grace for say they as a man when he is once borne can by eating and drinking make himselfe a bigger man though he could not at the first make himselfe a man euen so a sinner
difference We dissent not froÌ„ the Church of Rome in the doctrine of repentance it selfe but in the damnable abuses thereof which are of two sorts generall and speciall Generall are these which coÌ„cerne repentance wholly coÌ„sidered they are these The first is that they place the beginning of repentance partly in themselues and partly in the holy Ghost or in the power of their naturall freewill being helped by the holy ghost whereas Paul indeede ascribes this worke wholly vnto God 2. Tim. 2. 15. Proouing if God at any time will giue them repentance And men that are not weake but dead in trespasses and sinnes can not do any thing that may further their conuersion though they be helped neuer so no more then dead men in their graues can rise from thence The second abuse is that they take pennance or rather repentance for that publike discipline and order of correction that was vsed against notorious offenders in the open congregation For the scripture sets downe but one repentance and that common to all men without exception and to be practised in euery part of our liues for the necessaâ—ie mortification of sinne whereas open ecclesiasticall correction pertained not to all and euery man within the compasse of the Church but to them alone that gaue any open offence The third abuse is that they make repentance to be not onely a vertue but also a sacrament whereas for the space of a thousand yeares after Christ and vpward it was not reckned among the sacraments yea it seemes that Lumbard was one of the first that called it a sacrament and the schoole-men after him disputed of the matter and forme of this sacrament not able any of them certenly to define what should be the outward element The fourth abuse is touching the effect and efficacie of repeÌ„tance for they make it a meritorious cause of remission of sinnes and of life euerlasting flat against the word of God Paul saith notably Rom. 4. 24. We are iustified freely by his grace through the redemptioÌ„ which is in Christ Iesus whome God hath sent to be a reconciliation by faith in his blood In these words these formes of speach redemption in Christ reconciliation in his blood by faith freely by grace must be obserued and considered for they shewe plainely that no part of satifaction or redemption is wrought in vs or by vs but out of vs only in the person of Christ. And therefore we esteeme of repentance only as a fruit of faith the effect or efficacie of it is to testifie remission of our sinnes and our reconciliation before God It will be said that remission of sinnes and life enerlasting are promised to repentance Ans. It is not to the worke of repentaÌ„ce but to the person which repenteth and that not for his owne merits or worke of repentance but for the merits of Christ which he applyeth to himselfe by faith And thus are we to vnderstand the promises of the gospel in which workes are mentioned presupposing alwaies in them the reconciliation of the person with God to whome the promise is made Thus we see wherefore we dissent from the Romane Church touching the doctrine of repentance Speciall abuses doe concerne Contrition Confession and Satisfaction The first abuse concerning contrition is that they teach it must be sufficient and perfect They vse now to helpe the matter by a distinction saying that the sorrowe in contrition must be in the highest degree in respect of value and estimation and not in respect of intention Yet the opinion of Adrian was otherwise that in true repentance a man should be grieued according to all his indeauour And the Romane Catechisme saith as much that the sorrowe conceiued of our sinnes must be so great that NONE CAN BE CONCEIVED TO BE GREATER that we must be contrite in the same manner we loue God and that is vvith all our heart and strength in a most VEHEMENT SORROVVE and that the hatred of sinne must be not onely the greatest but also MOST VEHEMENT and perfect so as it may exclude all sloth and slacknes Indeed afterward it followes that true contrition may be effectuall though it be imperfect but how can this stand if they will not onely commend but also prescribe and auouch that contrition must be most perfect and vehememt We therefore onely teach that God requires not so much the measure as the trueth of any grace and that it is a degree of vnfained contrition to be grieued because we cannot be grieued for our sinnes as we should The second abuse is that they ascribe to their contrition the merit of congruitie But this cannot stand with the all-sufficient merite of Christ. And an auncient Conncell saith God inspires into vs first of all the faith and loue of himselfe NO MERITS GOINâ— BFORE that we may faithfully require the sacrament of baptisme after baptisme doe the things that please him And we for our parts hold that God requires contrition at our haÌ„ds not to merit remission of sinnes but that we may acknowledge our owne vnworthines be huÌ„bled in the sight of God distrust all our owne merits further that we may make the more account of the benefits of Christ whereby we are receiued into the fauour of God lastly that we might more carefully auoide all sinnes in time to come whereby so many paines terrors of conscieÌ„ce are procured And we acknowledge no coÌ„trition at all to be meritorious saue that of Christ whereby he was broken for our iniquities The third abuse is that they make imperfect contrition or attrition arising of the feare of hell to be good and profitable and to it they applie the saying of the Prophet The feare of God is the beginning of vvisdome But seruile feare of it selfe is the fruite of the lawe which is the ministerie of death and condemnation and consequently it is the way to eternall destruction if God leue men to themselues and if it turne to the good of any it is onely by accident because God in mercie makes it to be an occasion going before of grace to be giueÌ„ otherwise remorse of conscience for sinne is no beginning of repentance or the restrainment of any sinne but rather is that properly the beginning of vnspeakable horrours of conscience and euerlasting death vnlesse God shew mercie And yet this feare of punishment if it be tempered and delaied with other graces gifts of God in holy men it is not vnprofitable in whoÌ„ there is not onely a sorrow for punishment but also and that much more for the offence And such a kinde of feare or sorrow is commanded Malac. 1. 6. If I be a father where is my feare if I be a Lord where is my feare And Chrysostome saith that the feare of hell in the heart of a iust man is a strong man armed against theeues and robbers to driue them from the house And Ambr. saith that Martyrs in the
man is conuerted this worke of God is not done by compulsion but he is conuerted willingly and at the very time when he is conuerted by Gods grace he wils his coÌ„uersion To this ende saide Augustine He vvhich made thee without thee will not saue thee without thee Again that is certen that our wil is required in this that we may do any goodthing wel but we haue it not from our owne povver but God workes to will in vs. For looke at what time God giues grace at the same time he giueth a will to desire will the same grace as for exaÌ„ple when God works faith at the same time he workes also vpon the will causing it to desire faith willingly to receiue the gift of beleeuing God makes of the vnwilling will a willing will because no man can receiue grace vtterly against his will considering will constrained is no will But here we must remember that howsoeuer in respect of time the working of grace by Gods spirit and the willing of it in man goe togither yet in regard of order grace is first wrought and mans will must first of all be acted and mooued by grace then it also acteth willeth and mooueth it selfe And this is the last point of consent betweene vs and the Romane church touching freewill neither may we proceede further with them II. The dissent or difference The point of difference standeth in the cause of the freedome of mans will in spirituall matters which concerne the kingdome of God The Papists say mans will concurreth worketh with gods grace in the first conuersion of a sinner by it selfe and by it owne naturall power and is onely helped by the holy Ghost We say that mans will worketh with grace in the first conuersion yet not of it self but by grace Or thus They say will hath a naturall cooperation we denie it say it hath cooperation onely by grace beeing in it selfe not actiue but passiue willing well onely as it is mooued by grace whereby it must first be acted and mooued before it can act or will And that we may the better conceiue the difference I will vse this comparison The Church of Rome sets forth the estate of a sinner by the condition of a prisoner and so do we marke then the difference It supposeth the said prisoner to lie bound hand and foote with chaines fetters and withall to be sicke and weake yet not wholly dead but liuing in part it supposeth also that being in this case he stirreth not himselfe for any helpe yet hath abilitie and power to stirre Herevpon if the keeper come and take away his bolts and fetters and hold him by the hand and helpe him vp he can and will of himselfe stand and walke and goe out of prison euen so say they is a sinner bound hand and foote with the chaine of his sinnes and yet he is not dead but sicke like to the wounded man in the way betweene Ierico and Ierusalem And therefore doeth he not will and affect that which is good but if the holy Ghost come and doe but vntie his bands and reach him his hand of grace then can he stand of himselfe and will his owne saluation or any thing els that is good We in like manner graunt that a prisoner fitly resembleth a naturall man but yet such a prisoner must he be as is not onely sicke and weake but euen starke dead which cannot stirre though the keeper vntie his boltes and chaines nor heare though he sound a trumpet in his eare and if the said keeper would haue him to mooue stirre he must giue him not onely his hand to help him but euen soule and life also and such a one is euery man by nature not onely chained and fettered in his sinnes but starke dead therein as one that lieth rotting in the graue not hauing any ability or power to mooue or stirre and therefore he cannot so much as desire or doe any thing that is truly good of himselfe but God must first come and put a newe soule into him euen the spirit of grace to quicken and reuiue him and then beeing thus reuiued the will beginneth to will good things at the very same time wheÌ„ god by his spirit first infuseth grace And this is the true difference betweene vs and the Church of Rome in this point of free will III. Our Reasons Now for the confirmation of the doctrine we hold namely that a man willeth not his owne conuersion of him selfe by nature either in whole or in part but by grace wholly and alone these reasons may be vsed The first is taken from the nature and measure of mans corruption which may be distinguished into two parts The first is the want of that originall righteousnes which was in man by creation the secoÌ„d is a prones and inclination to that which is euill and to nothing that is truely good This appeareth Gen. 8. 21. The frame of mans heart saith the Lord is euill euen from his childhood that is the disposition of the vnderstanding will affections with all that the heart of man deuiseth fâ—rmeth or imagineth is wholly euil And Paul saith Rom. 8. 5. The wisdome of the flesh is ENMITIE against God Which wordes are very significant for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated vvisdome signifieth that the best thoughts the best desires affections and indeauours that be in any naturall man euen those that come most neare to true holines are not onely contrary to God but euen enmitie it selfe And hence I gather that the very heart it selfe that is the will and minde from whence these desires and thoughts doe come are also enmitie vnto God For such as the action is such is the facultie whence it proceedeth such as the fruite is such is the tree such as the branches are such are the rootes By both these places it is euident that in man there is not onely a want absence or deprivation of originall righteousnes but a prones also by nature vnto that which is euill which prones includes in it an inclination not to some fewe but to all and euery sinne the very sinne against the holy Ghost not excepted Hence therefore I reason thus If euery man by nature doe both want originall iustice and be also prone vnto all euill then wanteth he natural free-will to will that which is truly good But euery man by nature wants originall iustice and is also prone vnto all euil Ergo Euery man naturally wants free-will to will that which is good Reason II. 1. Cor. 2. 14. The naturall man PERCEIVETH NOT the things of the spirit of God for they are foolishnes vnto him neither CAN HE KNOVVE them because they are spiritually discerned In these wordes Saint Paul sets downe these points I that a naturall man doeth not so much as thinke of the things reuealed in the Gospell II. that a man hearing and in minde conceiuing them
hauing his first iustification may afterward by grace make himself more iust Therefore they hold these two things I. That good workes are meritorious causes of the second iustification which they tearme Actuall II. that good workes are means to increase the first iustificatiō which they call Habituall Now let vs see how farreforth we must ioyne with them in this point Our consent therefore stands in three conclusions I. That good workes done by them that are iustified doe please God and are approoued of him and therefore haue a reward II. Good workes are necessarie to saluation two waies first not as causes thereof either conseruant adiuvant or procreant but onely as consequents of faith in that they are inseperable companions and fruits of that faith which is indeede necessarie to saluation Secondly they are necessarie as markes in a way and as the way it selfe directing vs vnto eternall life III. We hold and beleeue that the righteous man is in some sort iustified by works for so the holy Ghost speaketh plainely and truly Iam. 2. 21. that Abraham vvas iustified by works Thus farre we ioyne with them and the very difference is this They say we are iustified by works as by causes thereof we say that we are iustified by workes as by signes fruits of our iustification before God and no otherwise and in this sense must the place of S. Iames be vnderstoode that Abraham was iustified that is declared and made manifest to be iust indeede by his obedience and that euen before God Nowe that our doctrine is the truth it will appeare by reasons on both parts Our reasons I. Rom. 3. 28. We conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the vvorkes of the lavv Some answer that ceremoniall works be excluded here some that morall workes some works going before faith But let them deuise what they can for themselues the truth is that Paul excludeth all works whatsoeuer as by the very text will appeare For v. 24. he saith We are iustified FREELY by his grace that is by the meere gift of God giuing vs to vnderstand that a sinner in his iustification is meerely passiue that is doing nothing on his part whereby God should accept him to life euerlasting and v. 27. he saith iustification by faith excludeth all boasting and therefore all kinde of workes are thereby excluded and specially such as are most of all the matter of boasting that is good workes For if a sinner after that he is iustified by the merit of Christ were iustified more by his owne workes then might he haue some matter of boasting in himselfe And that we may not doubt of Pauls meaning consider and read Eph. 2. 8 9. By grace saith he you are saued through faith that not of your selues it is the gift of God not of vvorks least any man should boast himselfe Here Paul excludes all and euery worke and directly workes of grace themselues as appeares by the reason following For vve are his workemanship CREATED in Christ Iesus VNTO GOOD VVORKS VVHICH GOD HATH ORDAINED that vve should vvalke in them Nowe let the Papists tell me what be the workes which God hath prepared for men to walke in and to which they are regenerate vnles they be the most excellent works of grace and let them marke how Paul excludes them wholly from the worke of iustification and saluation II. Gal. 5. 3. If ye be circūcised ye are bound to the vvhole lavv and ye are abolished from Christ. Here Paul disputeth against such men as would be saued partly by Christ and partly by the workes of the lawe hence I reason thus If a man will be iustified by workes he is bound to fulfill the whole law according to the rigour thereof that is Pauls ground I now assume no man can fulfill the lawe according to the rigour thereof for the liues and workes of most righteous men are imperfect and stained with sinne and therefore they are taught euery daie to say on this manner forgiue vs our debts Againe our knowledge is imperfect and therefore our faith repentance and sanctification is answerable And lastly the regenerate man is partly flesh and partly spirit and therfore his best works are partly frō the flesh in part onely spirituall Thus then for any man to be bound to the rigour of the whole law is as much as if he were bound to his owne damnation III. Election to saluation is of grace without workes therefore the iustification of a sinner is of grace alone without works For it is a certen rule that the cause of a cause is the cause of a thing caused Now grace without workes is the cause of election which election is the cause of our iustification and therefore grace without workes is the cause of our iustification IIII. A man must first be fully iustified before he can doe a good worke for the person must first please God before his workes can please him But the person of a sinner cannot please God till he be perfectly iustified and therefore till he be iustified he can not doe so much as one good worke And thus good works cannot be any meritorious causes of iustification after which they are both for time and order of nature In a word whereas they make two distinct iustifications we acknowledge that there be degrees of sanctification yet so as iustificatiō is onely one standing in remission of sinnes and Gods acceptation of vs to life euerlasting by Christ and this iustification hath no degrees but is perfect at the very first Obiections of Papists Psal. 7. 8. Iudge me according to my righteousnesse Hence they reason thus if Dauid be iudged according to his righteousnes then may he be iustified thereby but Dauid desires to be iudged according to his righteousnes and therefore he was iustified thereby Ans. There be two kinds of righteousnes one of the person the other of the cause or action The righteousnes of a mans person is whereby it is accepted into the fauour of God into life eternall The righteousnes of the action or cause is when the action or cause is iudged of God to be good and iust Now Dauid in this psalme speaketh onely of the righteousnes of the action or innocency of his cause in that he was falsly charged to haue sought the kingdome In like manner it is said of Phineas Psal. 166. 31. that his fact in killing Zimri and Cosbie was imputed to him for righteousnes not because it was a satisfaction to the lawe the rigour whereof could not be fulfilled in that one worke but because God accepted of it as a iust worke and as a token of his righteousnes and zeale for Gods glory II. Obiect The Scripture saith in sundrie places that men are blessed which doe good workes Psal. 119. 1. Blessed is the man that is vpright in heart and walketh in the law of the Lord. Ans. The man is blessed that endeauoureth to keepe Gods commandements Yet is he not
blessed simply because he doth so but because he is in Christ by whome he doth so and his obedience to the lawe of God is a signe thereof III. Obiect When man confesseth his sinnes and humbleth himselfe by praier and fasting Gods wrath is pacified and staied therefore prayer and fasting are causes of iustification before God Ans. Indeede men that truely humble themselues by praier and fasting doe appease the wrath of God yet not properly by these actions but by their faith expressed and testified in them whereby they apprehend that which appeaseth Gods wrath euen the merits of Christ in whome the father is well pleased and for whose sake alone he is well pleased with vs. IV. Obiect Sundrie persons in Scripture are commended for perfection as Noe and Abraham Zacharie and Elizabeth and Christ biddeth vs all be perfect and where there is any perfection of workes there also workes may iustifie Ansvv. There be two kinds of perfection perfection in parts and perfection in degrees Perfection in part is when beeing regenerate and hauing the seedes of all necessarie vertues we endeauour accordingly to obey God not in some few but in al and euery part of the law as Iosias turned vnto God according to all the law of Moses Perfection in degrees is when a man keepeth euery commandement of God and that according to the rigour thereof in the very highest degree Nowe then wheras we are commanded to be perfected and haue examples of the same perfection in Scripture both commandements and examples must be vnderstood of perfection in parts and not of perfection in degrees which cannot be attained vnto in this life though we for our partes must daily striue to come as neare vnto it as possibly we can V. Obiect 2. Cor. 4. 17. Our moment any afflictions worke vnto vs a greater measure of glorie now if afflictions worke our saluation then workes also doe the same Ansvv. Afflictions worke saluation not as causes procuring it but as meanes directing vs therto And thus alwaies must we esteem of workes in the matter of our saluation as of a certen way or a marke therein directing vs to glory not causing and procuring it as Bernard saith they are VIAREGNI NON CAVSA regnandi The way to the kingdome not the cause of raigning there VI. Obiect Wee are iustified by the same thing whereby we are iudged but we are iudged by our good workes therefore iustified also Ans. The proposition is false for indgement is an act of God declaring a man to be iust that is already iust and iustification is an other distinct act of God wherby he maketh him to be iust that is by nature vniust And therefore in equitie the last iudgement is to proceed by workes because they are the fittest meanes to make triall of euery mans cause and serue fitly to declare whome God hath iustified in this life VII Obiect Wicked men are condemned for euill workes therefore righteous men are iustified by good workes Ans. The reason holdeth not for there is great difference betweene euill and good workes An euill worke is perfectly euill and so deserueth damnation but there is no good work of any man that is perfectly good and therefore cannot iustifie VIII Obiect To beleeue in Christ is a worke and by it we are iustified and if one worke doe iustifie why may we not be iustified by al the works of the law Ans. Faith must be considered two waies first as a worke quality or vertue secondly as an Instrument or an hand reaching out it selfe to receiue Christs merit And we are iustified by faith not as it is a worke vertue or qualitie but as it is an instrument to receiue and apply that thing whereby we are iustified And therefore it is a figuratiue speach to say We are iustified by faith Faith considered by it selfe maketh no man righteous neither doth the action of faith which is to apprehend iustifie but the obiect of faith which is Christs obedience apprehended These are the principall reasons commonly vsed which as we see are of no moment To conclude therefore we hold that works concurre to iustification and that we are iustified thereby as by signes and effects not as causes for both the beginning middle and accomplishment of our iustification is onely in Christ and herevpon Iohn saith If any man being alreadie iustified sinne vve haue an Aduocate with the father Iesus Christ and he is the propitiation for our sinnes And to make our good workes meanes or causes of our iustification is to make euery man a Sauiour to himselfe The U. point Of merits By merit we vnderstand any thing or any worke whereby Gods fauour and life euerlasting is procured and that for the dignitie and excellencie of the worke or thing done or a good worke done binding him that receiueth is to repay the like Our Consent Touching merits we consent in two conclusions with them The first conclusion that merits are so far forth necessarie that without them there can be no saluation The second that Christ our Mediatour Redeemer is the roote and fountaine of all merit The dissent or difference The popish Church placeth merits within man making two sorts thereof the merit of the person and the merite of the worke The merite of the person is a dignitie in the person whereby it is worthy of life euerlasting And this as they say is to be found in Infants dying after baptisme who though they want good workes yet are they not voide of this kinde of merite for which they receiue the kingdome of heauen The merit of the worke is a dignitie or excellencie in the worke whereby it is made fitte and inabled to deserue life euerlasting for the doer And workes as they teach are meritorious two waies first by couenant because God hath made a promise of reward vnto them secondly by their owne dignitie for Christ hath merited that our workes might merit And this is the substance of their doctrine From it we dissent in these points I. We renounce all personall merits that is all merits within the person of any meere mā II. And we renonuce al merit of works that is all merit of any worke done by any meere man whatsoeuer And the true merit whereby we looke to attaine the fauour of God life euerlasting is to be found in the persō of Christ alone who is the storehouse of all our merits whose prerogatiue it is to be the person alone in whō God is wel pleased Gods fauour is of infinite dignitie no creature is able to doe a worke that may countervayle the fauour of God saue Christ alone who by reason of the dignitie of his person beeing not a meere man but God-man or Man-God he can doe such workes as ate of endlesse dignitie euery way answerable to the fauour of God and therefore sufficient to merit the same for vs. And though a merit or meritorious worke agree onely to the person of Christ
satisfaction and that is when any hauing giuē offence to the church of God or any part thereof do make an open publike testimonie of their repentance Mirian for murmuring aganst Moses was striken with leprosie and afterward by his prayer shee was clensed and yet for all that shee must go seuen dayes out of the tent and congregation that shee might make a kinde of satisfaction to the people for her trespasse And in the old testament sackcloth and ashes were signes of their satisfaction Conclus III. We hold that no man can be saued vnles he make a perfect satisfaction to the iustice of God for all his sinnes because God is infinite in iustice and therefore will either exact an euerlasting punishment or satisfaction for the same The dissent or difference The points of our difference and dissent are these The Church of Rome teacheth and beleeueth that Christ by his death hath made a satisfaction for all the sinnes of men and for the eternall punishment of them all yet so as they themselues must satisfie the iustice of God for the temporall punishment of their offences either on earth or in purgatorie We teach and beleeue that Christ by his death and passion hath made a perfect and all-sufficient satisfaction to the iustice of God for all the sinnes of men and for the whole punishment thereof both eternal and temporall Thus we differ and herein we for our parts must for euer stand at difference with thē so as if there were no more points of variance but this one it should be sufficient to keepe vs alwaies from vniting our religions and cause vs to obey the voice of Christ Come out of her my people For as in the former points so in this also the Papists erre not in circumstance but in the very foundation and life of religion Our reasons I. A satisfaction that is made imperfect either directly or by consequent is indeede no satisfaction at all But the Papists make Christs satisfaction imperfect in that they do adde a supply by humane satisfactions thus much a learned schoolman Biel in plain words confessed Although saith he the passion of Christ be the principall merit for which grace is conferred the opening of the kingdome and glorie yet IS IT NEVER THE ALONE AND TOTAL MERITORIOVS CAVSE it is manifest because alwaies vvith the merit of Christ there concurreth some vvorke as the merit of congruitie or condignitie of him that receiueth grace or glorie if he be of yeares and haue the vse of reason or of some other for him if he want reason For that which admitts a supply by an other is imperfect in it selfe Therefore humane satisfactions cannot stand Learned Papists make answere that Christs satisfaction and mans may stand well togither For say they Christs satisfactions is sufficient in it selfe to answer the iustice of God for all sinne and punishment but it is not sufficient to this or that man till it be applyed and it must be applied by our satisfaction made to God for the temporall punishment of our sinnes But I say againe that mans satisfaction can be no meanes to apply the satisfaction of Christ and I prooue it thus The meanes of applying Gods blessings and graces vnto man are twofold some respect God himselfe and some respect man Those which respect God are such whereby God on his part doth offer and convay his mercies in Christ vnto man of this sort are the preaching of the word baptisme and the Lords supper and these are as it were the hand of God whereby he reacheth downe and giueth vnto vs Christ with all his benefits The other meanes of applying on mans part are those whereby the saide benefites are receiued Of this sort there is onely one namely faith whereby we beleeue that Christ with all his benefits belong vnto vs. And this is the hand of man whereby he receiueth Christ as he is offered or exhibited by God in the word and sacraments As for other meanes beside these in Scripture we finde none Foolish therefore is the answere of the Papist that make mens satisfactions meanes to apply the satisfaction of Christ vnto vs for by humane satisfactions Christs is neither offered on Gods part nor yet receiued on mans part let them prooue it if they can Others not content with this their former answer say that our satisfactions doe nothing derogate from the satisfaction of Christ because our works haue their dignitie merit from Christs satisfaction he meriting that our workes should satisfie Gods iustice for temporall punishments But this is also absurd and false as the former was For if Christ did satisfie that man might satisfie then Christ doth make euery beleeuer to be a Christ a Iesus a Redeemer a Priest in the same order with his owne selfe But to make sinfull man his owne redeemer though it be but from temporall punishments is a doctrine of deuils For the holy Ghost teacheth that the priesthood of Christ is incommunicable cannot passe from him to any other Nowe to make satisfaction for sinne or any part of the punishment thereof is a dutie or a part of Christ his priesthood and therefore to make satisfaction is a worke that cannot passe frō his person to the person of any man Againe if Christ by his satisfaction giue power to man to satisfie then man doth satisfie by Christ and Christ beside his owne satisfaction vpon the crosse must daily satisfie in man to the ende of the world but this cannot be for Christ vpon the crosse when death was vpon him said It is finished that is I haue fully satisfied for all the sinnes of mankind both in respect of the fault and punishment As for Christs buriall and resurrection which followed his death they serued not to satisfie but to confirme and ratifie the same Againe Paul saith 2. Cor. 5. 12. He that knew no sinne was made sinne for vs that is the punishment of sinne for vs but if the Church of Rome say true that Christ doth daily satisfie then Paul spake too short and should haue saide further that Christ was made sinne for vs and in vs too and that God was not onely in Christ but also in vs reconciling the world to himselfe But Paul neuer knew this learning and therefore let them turne themselues which way they will by putting a supplement to Christs satisfaction they doe indeed annihillate the same Reason II. In sundrie places of Scripture especially in the Epistles of Paul we are are said to be redeemed iustified and saued Freely which word freely doth import that we are iustified and saued without any thing done on out part or by our selues in the matter of our saluation and if this be so then can we doe nothing at all that may satisfie the iustice of God for the least punishment of our sinnes If we satisfie in our own persons we are not saued freely and if we be saued freely we make no satisfaction
without it This vowe therefore we abhorre as a thing that hath heretofore and doth still bring forth innumerable abhominations in the worlde Yet here marke in what manner we doe it First of all though we mislike the vowe yet we like and commend single life Marriage indeede is better in two respects first because God hath ordained it to be a remedie of continencie to all such persons as cannot containe secondly because it is the seminarie both of church and common wealth and it bringeth forth a seede of God for the inlarging of his kingdō Yet single life in them that haue the gift of continencie is in some respects to be preferred First because it brings libertie in persequution Thus Paul saith 1. Cor. 7. 26. I suppose it to be good for the present necessitie for a man so to be Secondly because it frees men from the common cares molestations and distractions that be in the family v. 2. 28. Such shall haue trouble in the flesh but I spare you Thirdly because single parties doe commonly with more bodily ease and libertie worship God it being still presupposed that they haue the gift of continencie v. 34. The vnmaried woman careth for the things of the Lord that shee may be holy both in bodie and spirit Againe though we mislike the vowe yet we hold and teach that men or women beeing assured that they haue the gift of continencie may constantly resolue and purpose with themselues to liue and lead a single life 1. Cor. 7. 38. He that standeth firme in his owne heart that he hath no neede but hath power of his owne will and hath so DECREED IN HIS HEART that he will keepe his virgin he doth vvell And we embrace the saying of Theoderet on 1. Tim. c. 4. For he doth not saith he blame single life or continencie but he accuseth them that by LAVVE INACTED COMPEL men to follow these And men made themselues chast for the kingdome of heauen Math. 19. 12. not by vowe but by a purpose of heart which is farre lesse then a vowe and may be changed vpon occasion whereas a vow cannot vnles it doe euidently appeare to be vnlawfull Thirdly for such persons as are able to containe to liue single for the endes before named indeede we hold it to be no counsell of perfection yet doe we not denie it to be a Counsell of expedience or outward ease according to that which Paul saith v. 25. I giue mine advise and 35. I speake this for your cōmodity not to intangle you in a snare Lastly we thinke that if any hauing the gift of continencie doe make a vowe to liue single and yet afterward marry the said gift remaining they have sinned Yet not because they are married but because their vowe is brokē And thus said Augustine of widowes that married afrer their vow lib. de bono viduit cap. 9. The second is the vowe of pouertie and monasticall life in which men bestowe all they haue on the poore and giue themselues wholly and onely to prayer and fasting This vowe is against the will of God Act. 20. 35. It is a more blessed thing to giue thē to receiue Prov. 28. 7. Giue me neither riches nor povertie Deut. 28. 22. Pouertie is numbered among the curses of the lavv none whereof are to be vowed And it is the rule of the holy Ghost 2. Thess. 3. 10. He that will not labour namely in some speciall and warrantable calling must not eate And v. 12. I exhort that they worke with quietnes and eate their owne bread Now when as men liue apart from others giuing themselues onely to praier and fasting they liue in no calling And it is against the generall vowe made in baptisme because it freeth men from sundrie duties of the morall law and changeth the proper end of mans life For euery man must haue two callings The first is the generall calling of a christian by vertue of which he performeth worship vnto God and duties of loue to men The second is a particular calling wherein according to his gift he must doe seruice to men in some function partaining either to the Church or common wealth whereof he is a member And the first of these twaine must be performed in the second and the second in and with the first The end of mans life is not onely to serue God by the duties of the first table but by seruing of man in the duties of the second table of serue God And therefore the loue of our neighbour is called the fulfilling of the whole law Rom. 13. 10. because the lawe of god is practised not apart but in and with the loue of our neighbour This beeing so it is manifest that vowed pouertie in monkish life makes many vnprofitable members both of Church and common wealth And though we mislike this vow also yet we doe it holding these conclusions I. that a man may forsake all his goods vpon special calling as the Apostles did when they were sent to preach the gospel through the whole world Secondly goods may be forsaken yea wife children parents brethren and all in the case of confession that is when a man for the religion of Christ is persequuted and constrained to forsake all he hath For then the second table giues place to the duties of the first Mark 10. 29. II. That for the time of peesequution men may withdrawe themselues iust occasion offered and goe apart to wildernesses or like places Heb. 11. 37. yet for the time of peace I see no cause of solitarie life If it be alleadged that men goe apart for contemplation and spirituall exercises I say again that Gods grace may as well be exercised in the family as in the cloister The family is indeed as it were a schoole of God in which they that haue but a spark of grace may learne and exercise many vertues the acknwoledgement of God inuocation the feare of God loue bountifulnesse patience meekenes faithfulnes c. Nay here be more occasions of doing or taking good then be or can be in a cloister III. That we condemne not the olde and auncient Monkes though we like not euery thing in them For they liued not like idle-bellies but in the sweate of their owne browes as they ought to doe and many of them were married in their meate drinke apparell rule vow and whole course of life differed frō the Monks of this time euen as heauen from earth The third vowe is of regular obedience whereby men giue themselues to keep some deuised rule or order standing most commonly in the obseruation of exercises in outward things as meates and drinks and apparell c. This vowe is against christian libertie wherby is graunted a free vse of all things indifferēt so it be without the case of offence Gal. 5. 1. Stand fast in the libertie vvherein Christ hath made you free Coloss. 2. 16. Let no man iudge you in meate and drinke To conclude
Pope saith to the Emperour I which AM SVBIECT TO YOVR COMMANDEMENT haue euery way discharged that which was due in that I haue performed mine allegiance to the Emperour and haue not concealed vvhat I thought on Gods behalfe And Pope Leo the fourth after Gregorre 200. yeares acknowledged the Emperour Lotharius for his soueraigne prince and professed obedience without gainsaying to his Imperial commandemeÌ„ts To conclude whereas they say that there is a double head of the Church one imperiall which is Christ alone the other ministerial which is the Pope gouerning the whole Church vnder Christ I answer this distinction robbeth Christ of his honour because in setting vp their ministeriall head they are faine to borrow of Christ things proper vnto him as the priuiledge to forgiue sinnes properly and the power to gouerne the whole earth by making of lawes that shall as truly binde conscience as the lawes of God c. The nineteenth point Of the efficacie of the sacraments Our consent Conclus I. We teach and beleeue that the sacraments are signes to represent Christ with his benefits vnto vs. Conclus II. We teach further that the sacraments are indeede instruments whereby God offereth and giueth the foresaid benefits vnto vs. Thus farre we consent with the Romane Church The difference The difference betweene vs standes in sundrie points First of all the best learned among them teach that sacraments are phisicall instruments that is true and proper instrumentall causes hauing force and efficacie in them to produce and giue grace They vse to expresse their meaning by these comparisons When the scriuener takes the pen into his hande and writes the action of writing comes from the penne mooued by the hand of the writer and in cutting of wood or stone the diuision comes from the sawe mooued by the hand of the workman euen so the grace say they that is giuen by God is conferred by the sacrament it selfe Nowe we for our parts holde that Sacraments are not physicall but meere voluntarie instruments Voluntarie because it is the will and appointment of God to vse them as certen outward meanes of grace Instruments because when we vse them aright according to the institution God then answerably conferres grace from himselfe In this respect only take we them for instruments and no otherwise The second difference is this They teach that the very action of the Minister dispensing the sacrament as it is a worke done giues grace immediatly if the partie be prepared as the very washing or spâ—inkling of water in baptisme and the giuing of bread in the Lords supper euen as the orderly moouing of the penne vpon the paper by the hand of the writer causeth writing We hold the contrarie namely that no action in the dispensation of a Sacrament conferreth grace as it is a worke done that is by the efficacie and force of the very sacramentall action it selfe though ordained of God but for two other waies First by the signification therof For God testifies vnto vs his will and good pleasure partly by the word of promise and partly by the sacrament the signes representing to the eyes that which the word doth to the eares beeing also types and certen images of the very same things that are promised in the worde and no other Yea the elements are not generall and confused but particular signes to the seuerall communicants and by the vertues of the Institution for when the faithfull receiue the signes from God by the handes of the Minister it is as much as if God himselfe with his owne mouth should speake vnto them seuerally and by name promise to them remission of sinnes And things said to men particularly doe more affect and more take away doubting then if they were generally spoken to an whole companie Therefore signes of graces are as it were an applying and binding of the promise of saluation to euery particular beleeuer and by this meanes the oftener they are receiued the more they help our infirmitie and confirme our assurance of mercie Againe the sacrament conferres grace in that the signe thereof confirmes faith as a pledge by reason it hath a promise annexed to it For when God commaundes vs to receiue the signes in faith and withall promiseth to the receiuers to giue the thing signified he bindes himselfe as it were in bonde vnto vs to stand to his owne word euen as men binde themselues in obligations putting to their handes and seales so as they cannot go backe And when the signes are thus vsed as pledges that often they greatly increase the grace of God as a token sent from one friend to another renews and confirmes the perswasion of loue These are the two principall waies wherby the sacraments are said to conferre grace namely in respect of their signification and as they are pledges of Gods fauour vnto vs. And the very point here to be considered is in what order and manner they confirme And the manner is this The signes and visible elements affect the senses outward and inward the senses conuay their obiect to the minde the minde directed by the holy Ghost reasoneth on this manner out of the promise annexed to the sacramenâ— He that vseth the elements aright shall receiue grace thereby but I vse the elements aright in faith and repentance saith the minde of the beleeuer therefore shall I receiue from God increase of grace Thus then faith is confirmed not by the worke done but by a kind of reasoning caused in the minde the argument or proofe whereof is borrowed from the elements beeing signes and pledges of Gods mercy The third difference The Papists teach that in the sacrament by the worke done the very grace of iustification is conferred We say no because a man of yeares must first beleeue and be iustified before he can be a meete partaker of any sacrament And the grace that is conferred is onely the increase of our faith hope sanctification c. Our reasons Reason I. The word preached and the sacrameÌ„ts differ in the maÌ„ner of giuing Christ and his benefits vnto vs because in the word the spirit of God teacheth vs by a voice convaied to the minde by the bodily cares but in the sacraments annexed to the word by certen sensible and bodily signed viewed by the eye Sacraments are nothing but visible words and promises Otherwise for the giuing it selfe they differ not Christ himselfe saith that in the very word is eaten his owne flesh which he vvas to giue for the life of the vvorld and what can be saide more of the Lords supper Augustine saith that beleeuers are partakers of the bodie blood of Christ in baptisme and Hierome to Edibia that in baptisme vve eate and drinke the bodie and blood of Christ. If thus much may be saide of baptisme why may it not also be saide of the word preached Againe Hierome vpon Ecclesiastes saith It is profitable to be filled with the bodie