apparant that the worke is deseruing or not-deseruing according to ' its owne Nature not according to a compact made He that promiseth vnto one more for a little worke then to another for a great deale in the same kinde doth not by such a compact make the little labour of the one more deserving then the others great pains We must look to the worke what it is in its own Nature as it is of some worth or no worth so account it deseruing or not deseruing Wherfore wheÌ„ in the distinction they make some merits of Condignity or worthinesse some of Congruity or of fitnesse without worthinesse they offend two wayes grosly against two rules of Reason First in opposing termes not opposite Worthinesse and fitnesse being the same if you take them in regard of the worke For that which deserues a reward worthily deserues it fitly how else is it worthy of the reward if the reward be not fit for it and that which deserues it fitly if it deserues it deserues it worthily 2 In distinguishing vpon tearmes that doe not convenire tâ—ti For Worthinesse agrees to merit onely but fitnesse belongs to Compact So that in plainer English the distinction runnes thus Merits or deserts are of two sorts Some that are merits and doe deserue because they are worthy of a reward others that are no merits and doe not deserue because they are not worthy of the Reward but onely obtaine it ex Congruo in regard of Compact and Promise For this Rule is most certaine That a worke which deserues nothing by its owne worthinesse can neuer deserue any thing by compact or promise The Iesuites are senselesse in defending the contrary If saith Bellarmine a King promise a Beggar 1000 pounds a yeare vpon no condition then indeed the Begger doth not deserue it But if vpon condition he shall do some small matter as that he shall come to the Court and fetch it or bring a Posâ—e of flowers with him now the Begger deserues it and he may come to the King and tell him hee hath merited his 1000 pounds a yeare Euery man but a Iesuite would say 't were extreame impudency in a Begger to make such a demaund so derogatorily to the Kings gracious bounty Now can it helpe them to say That a Promise bindes vnto performance so that God should be vniust and vntrue if he should not bestow the reward promised although the workes bee not equall to the reward For Gods Iustice and Truth in performing his promise doe not imply our merit in performing the Condition We doe not deserue by our well-doing because God is iust in his rewarding And the reason is manifest Because God in making the promise respected meerly the freenesse and bounty of his owne grace not the worthinesse of our workes And therefore that obligation whereby he hath tyed himselfe to performance is founded meerely in his owne Truth not a â—ot in our merit Wherefore when they tell vs that faith merits Iustification de Congruo they intrappe themselues in a grosse Contradiction seeing to deserue de Congruo is not to deserue at all but onely to receiue the reward by meere promise God hauing promised to iustifie beleeuers Thus much touching the first Assertion that Faith is the proper Cause of Iustification working it by it owne efficacy and merits CHAP II The Confutation of the Arminian errour shewing that faith doth not iustifie sensu proprio as it is an act of ours The second Error about this point is of the Arminians with whom also the Papists agree T is this 2 That we are Iustified by Faith sensu proprio that is the Act of beleeving in that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere is imputed to vs for righteousnesse being accepted of God and accounted vnto vs for that whole Righteousnesse of the Law which we were bound to performe So that our very Faith is that Righteousnesse for which we are iustified in the sight of God noâ— quidem merito suo sed propter gratuitam acceptilationem Dei The authors of this opinion are Faustus Socinus that vnhappy Haereticke in his most Blasphemous Booke de Christo servatore Michael Servetus a Spanyard in his second Booke de lege Evangelio which Errors are confuted by Calvin in his opuscula A stiffe deâ—ender of this opinion was Christophorus Ostorodius a Polonian in his disputations contra Georgium Tradelij who for this and other pestilent errors about the Article of Mans Redemption was wiâ—h his companion Andreas Vaidonitus banished the Low Countreys where he had seated himselfe and published his opinions Arminius and his followers haue bin cheefe promoters of it Arminius himselfe as in other his opinions so in the publishing of this vsed much closenesse and cunning conveyance In his private disputations Tit. de Iustificatione he seemes plainly to condemne it saying that it is an abuse to say that Fides est causa formalis Iustificationis and an error to affirme That Christ hath deserued vt fidei dignitate et merito iustificemur In his publique disputations he opens himselfe somewhat plainly yet darkely enough Thes. 19. de Iustificat cat Thes. 7. These are his words Fidei vero Iustificatio tribuitur non quod illa sit Iustitia ipsa quae rigido seuero Deâ— iudicio oppont possit quanquam Deo grata sed quod in iudicio misâ—riâ—ordiae triumphans supra iudicium absolutionem a peccatis obtineat gratiose in Iustitiam imputetur Cuius rei causaest tum Deus iustus misericors tum Christus obedientâ—â— oblatione et intercessione suâ secundum Deum in beneplacito et mandato ipsius Here Faith it selfe is imputed for Righteousnesse But t is not in Gods seuere Iudgment but in his Iudgment of Mercy Faith in it selfe is not worthy but yet Christ by his merits hath deserued that God will gratiously accept of it This opinion published was quickly contradicted wherevpon Arminius makes knowne his mind in playner Termes In declaratioue sententiae ad ordines Holland Westfrisiae he confesseth that in the forenamed Thesis his meaning was that ipsa fides tanquam actus iuxta Evangelij mandatum praestitus imputatur coram Deo in siue ad iustitiam idque in gratiâ cum non sit ipsamet iustitia Legis And in his Responsione ad 31. Artic. art 4. hee brancheth cut his opinion in three distinct propositions 1 Iustitia Christi imputatur nobis 2 Iustitia Christi imputatur in iustitiam 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere imputatur in iustitiam The first of these Propositions he grants That Christs Righteousnesse is imputed to vs. The second hee denies That Christs Righteousnesse is imputed for Righteousnesse The third â—e grants That the Act of beleeuing is imputed for Righteousnesse Here by Mysteries in these Propositions hereafter to bee vnfolded Wee now meddle with the last which yet is more roundly expressed by Arminius in his Epistle ad Hyppolitum Lege princip Pa. Ipsum Fidei actum 〈◊〉
grace hath enabled vs to performe the condition of beleeuing then doe we beginne to enioy the benefit of the Couenant then is the sentence of absolution pronounced in our consciences which shall be after confirmed in our death and published in the last iudgement Secondly our faith and no other grace directly respects the promises of the Gospell accepting what God offers sealing vnto the truth thereof by assenting thereto and imbracing the benefit and fruit of it vnto it selfe by relying wholly vpon it This interpretation of that proposition the Reformed Churches do admit none other reiecting as erronious and contrary to the Scriptures such glosses as ascribe any thing to the dignity of faith or make any combination betweene Faith and Workes in the point of our Iustification Amongst which there are three erronious assertions touching mans Iustification by Faith which we are briefly to examine and refute 1 That faith iustifieth vs Per modum Causae efficientis meritoriae as a proper efficient and meritorious cause Which by it's owne worth and dignity deserues to obtaine Iustification Remission of sinnes and the grace of well-doing This is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which Bellarmine labours to proue in his 17. Chap. lib. pr. de Iustificatione where disputing against Iustification by faith alone hee tels vs. If we could be perswaded that faith doth Iustifie impetrando promerendo suo modo inchoando Iustificationem then we would neuer deny that loue feare hope and other vertues did iustifie vs as well as faith Whereupon he sets himselfe to prooue that there is in faith it selfe some efficacy and merit to obtaine and deserue Iustification His Arguments are chiely two From those places of Scripture wherein a man is said to be iustified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or absolutely without Article or Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per fidem ex fide or fide Wherein these Prepositions signifie saith he the true cause of our Iustification Which he proues 1 By the contrary when a man is said to be iustified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This notes the true efficient deseruing cause of his Iustification Secondly By the like in other places where we are said to be redeemed saued sanctified Per Christum per sanguinem per mortem per vulnera and in the whole 11. to the Heb. The Saints are said to doe such and such things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by faith All signifying the proper cause From those places of Scripture which sayth he plainly shew Faith doth impetrare remissionem suo quidem modo mereri Such are those Thy Faithâ— hath saued thee or made thee whole A speech that Christ vsed often as to the woman that washed his feet To her that had an issue of Blood To the blind man recovered of his sight And that to the Cananitish woman O woman great is thy Faith now see what the merit of this Faith was For this saying go thy way the Diuel is gone out of thy Daughter Thus Abraham being strenghened in Faith glorified God who therefore iustified him for the Merit of his Faith And againe in the eleuenth to the Heb. by many examples we are taught that by Faith that is by the merit and price of Faith Enoch and other men pleased God For answeare here vnto 1 Vnto the Argument from the Proposition we reply That if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be needs strictly taken in the same kind of Causality then the Iesuits should doe well to stand to that and make the similitude betweene Faith and workes runne thus A Man is iustified by workes that is for the proper and only Merits of his obedience so a Man is iustified by Faith that is for the only merit of his Beleeving in Christ aud by that meanes both shall be true and effectuall causes of Iustification But if Bellarmine dare not thus presse the similitude for feare of being found guilty of despising the blood of the New Couenant attributing that to the Merit of Faith which belongs only to the Merit of Christ he must then giue vs that leaue to distinguish which he takes to himselfe and if he fall to his Qualifications and quodammodo's he must pardon if we also seeke out such an Interpretation of those places as may not crosse other Scriptures Which for asmuch as they testifie that We are Iustified by his grace through the Redemption that is in Christ that All sinne is purged by the blood of Christ that By the sacrifice of himselfe he hath put away Sinne and With offering hath consecrated for ouer them that are sanctified we dare not without horrible sacrilege ascribe the grace of our Iustification vnto the worke and worth of any thing whatsoeuer in our selues but wholy and only to the Righteousnesse of Christ. And therefore when the Scriptures say we are iustified by Faith we take not the word By in this formall and legall sense we are iustified by the efficacy of our Faith or for the worth of our Faith according as 't is vnderstood in Iustification by workes but we take it Relatiuely Instrumentally We are Iustified by Faith that is by the Righteousnesse of Christ the benefit whereof vnto our Iustification we are made partakers of by Faith as the only grace which accepts of the promise and giues vs assurance of the performance He that looked to the Brasen serpent and was cured might truly be sayd to be healed by his looking on though this Action was no proper cause working the cure by any efficacy or dignity of it selfe but was only a necessary condition required of them that would be healed vpon the obedient observance whereof God would shew them favor so he that looketh on Christ beleeuing in him may truly be sayed to be saued and Iustified by Faith not as for the worth and by the â—fficacy of that act of his but as it is the Condition of the promise of grace that must necessarily go before the performance of it to vs vpon our Obedience where vnto God is pleased of his free grace to iustifie Nor is this Trope any way harsh or vnusuall to put Oppositum pro opposito Relatum pro Correlato Habitum pro Obiecto In Sacramentall locutions 't is a generall Custome to put the signe for the thing signified and the like is vsed in other passages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the word of God grew c. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mystery of faith and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the words of Faith and Rom. 8. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Spe seruati sumus id est Christo in quem speramus Hope that is seene is not hope that is res visa non sperata est That of Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Like to that Christ our Ioy Anni spem
the eye onely sees say our Men yet the Eare is in the Head too Yea reply they But the eie could see well notwithstanding the Eare were deafe T is the Heate onely of the fire or Sunne that warmes though there be light ioyned with it True say they But if there were no Light yet if heate remained it would warme for all that as the Heate of an Ouen or of Hell burnes though it shine not Thou holdest in thy hands many seedes T is the old comparison of Luther on the 15 of Gen. I enquire not what t is together but what is the vertue of each one single Yea reply our Aduersaries that 's a very needelesse question indeed For if among them many seedes there be some one that hath such soueraigne vertue that it alone can cure all diseases then t is no Matter whether thou haue many or few or none at all of any other sort in thy hand Thou hast that which by it owne vertue without other ingredients will worke the Cure Nor haue we ought to make answere in this case If as the Eye sees heate warmes seeds and other simples doe cure by their owne proper Vertue so Faith alone by its owne efficacy did sanctifie vs. But there is the Errour Faith works not in our sanctification or Iustification by any such inward power vertue of its own from whence these effects should properly follow For Sanctification Faith as we haue seene is part of that inherent Righteousnesse which the Holy Ghost hath wrought in the Regenerate and t is opposed to the Corruption of our Nature which stands in Infidelity Faith sanctifies not as a cause but as a part of insused grace and such a part as goes not alone but accompanied with all other Graces of Loue Feare Zeale Hope Repentance c. Inasmuch as Mans regeneration is not the infusion of one but of the Habit of all graces Againe 't is not the Vertue of Faith that iustifies vs The grace of Iustification is from God he workes it but t is our Faith applies it and makes it ours The Act of Iustification is Gods meere worke but our Faith onely brings vs the Benefit and Assurance of it Iustification is an externall priuiledge which God bestowes on beleeuers hauing therein respect onely to their Faith which grace onely hath peculiar respect to the Righteousnesse of Christ and the promise in him Whereby t is manifest that this argument is vaine Faith alone is respected in our Iustification therefore Faith is or may be alone without other graces of Iustification Bellar would vndertake to proue that true saith may be seuered from Charity and other Vertues but wee haue heretofore spoken of that Point and shewed that true Faith yet without a Forme true Faith dead and without a soule be Contradictions as vaine as A true Man without reason A true Fire without heate We confesse indeed that the faith of Iesuites the same with that of Simon Magus may very well bee without Charity and all other sanctifying graces a bare assent to the truth of Divine Reuelations because of Gods Authority As t is in Diuels so t is in Papists and other Heretickes But we deny that this is that which deserues the name of true Faith which whosoeuer hath hee also hath eternall life As it is Iohn 6. 47. 3 Argument That which Scripture doth not affirme that is false doctrine But the Scripture doth not affirme that wee are Iustified by Faith alone Ergo so to teach is to teach false Doctrine This Argument toucheth the quicke and if the Minor can be prooued we must needs yeeld them the Cause For that the Iesuites conceiue that this is a plaine case for where is there any one place in all the Bible that saith Faith alone Iustifies They euen laugh at the simplicity of the Heretickes as they Christen vs that glory they haue found out at last the word Onely in Luc. 8. 50. in that speech of Christ to the Ruler of the Synagogue Feare not beleeue onely and shee shall be made whole And much sport they make themselues with Luther That to helpe out this matter at a dead lift by plaine fraud hee foysted into the Text in the 3. to the Romans the word Onely When being taught with the fact and required a Reason He made answere according to his Modesty Sic volo sic iubeo stet pro ratione voluntas T is true that Luther in his Translation of the Bible into the Germane tougue read the 28. verse of that Chapter thus We conclude that men are iustified without the workes of the Law onely through Faith Which word onely is not in the Originall Where in so doing if he fulfild not the Office of a faithfull Translator yet he did the part of a faithfull Paraphrast keeping the sense exactly in that Alteration of words And if he be not free from blame yet of all men the Iesuites are most vnfit to reproue him whose dealing in the corrupting of all sort of Writers Diuine and humane are long since notorious and infamous throughout Christendome What Luthers Modesty was in answering those that found fault with his Translation we haue not to say Onely thus much That the impudent Forgeries of this Generation witnesse abundantly that it is no rare thing for a Lie to drop out of a Iesuites or Fryers penne But be it as it may be T is not Luthers Translation Nor that place in the 8. of Luke that our Doctrine touching Iustification by Faith alone is founded vpon We haue better proofes then these as shall appeare vnto you in the confirmation of the Minor of this Syllogisme Whatsoeuer the Scriptures affirme that 's true doctrine But the Scriptures affirme a man is iustified by Faith alone Therefore thus to teach is to teach according to the word of whole-some doctrine Our Aduersaries demaund proofe of the Minor We alleadge all those places wherein the Scriptures witnesse that we are Iustified by faith without the workes of the Law Such places are these Rom. 3. 28. Therefore we conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the Law Rom. 4. 2. 3. If Abraham were iustified by workes hee hath whereof to glory but not before God For what saith the Scripture Abraham beleeued God and it was counted to him for righteousnesse And vers 14. 15. 16. For if they which are of the Law be heires faith is made void and the promise made of none effect Because the Law worketh wrath for where no Law is there is no transgression Gal. 2. 16. Knowing that a man is not iustified by the workes of the Law but by the Faith of Iesus Christ Euen we haue beleeued in Christ that we might be iustified by the Faith of Christ and not by the workes of the Law For by the workes of the Law shall no flesh be iustified Gal. 3. 21. 22. Is the Law then against the promises of God God
That the Apostle excludeth all the workes of Abraham from his Iustification both such as he performed when he had no grace and those he did when he had grace For those workes are excluded wherein Abraham might glory before Men. Now Abraham might glory before Men as well in those workes which he did by the helpe of Gods grace as those which he did without it Nay more in those then in these As in his obedient Departure from his owne Country at Gods command his patient expectation of the promises his ready willingnesse euen to offer his owne Sonne out of Loue and Duty to God his religious and Iust demeaning of himselfe in all places of his abode In those things Abraham had cause to glory before Men much more then in such works as he performed before his Conuertion when he serued other Gods beyond the Flood Therefore we conclude that Abraham was Iustified neither by such workes as went before Faith and grace in him nor yet by such as followed after This is most cleare by the v. 2. If Abraham where iustified by workes he had wherein to glory but not with God Admit here the Popish Interpretation and this speach of the Apostles will be false Thus If Abraham were iustified by workes that is by such workes as he performed without Gods gratious helpe he hath wherein to glory viz. before Men but not with God Nay that 's quite otherwise For its euident If a Man be Iustified by obeying the Law through his own strength he may boldly glory before God as well as before Men seing in that case he is not beholding to God for his helpe But according to our doctrine the Meaning of the Apostle is perspicuous Abraham might glory before Men in those excellent workes of piety which he performed after his vocation and in mens sight he might be iustified by them But he could not glory in them before God nor yet be iustified by them in his sight So then all workes whatsoeuer are excluded from Abrahams Iustification and nothing lest but Faith which is imputed vnto him for Righteousnâ—sse as it is v. 3. Whence it followes That as Abraham so all others are Iustified without all Merit by Gods free grace and fauour For so it followes verse 4. 5. Now vnto him that worketh the wages is not counted by fauour but by Debt but to him that worketh not but beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly his faith is counted for Righteousnesse These words runne cleare till a Iesuite put his Foote into the streame to raise vp the Mudde To him that worketh that is which fulfileth the Righteousnesse of the Morall Law the wages of Iustification and Life is not counted by fauour but by debt for by the perfect Righteousnesse of the Law a Man deserues to be iustified and saued But to him that worketh not that hath not fullfilled the righteousnesse of the Law in doing all things that are written therein But beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly That is relyeth vpon Christ who by his Righteousnesse obtained absolution for him that is Rightousnesse in himselfe His Faith is imputâ—d for Righteousnesse that is He by his Faith obâ—aynes Iâ—stification in Gods sight not by Merit of his owne but Gods gratious acceptation of Christs Righteousnesse for his But here our Aduersaries trouble the water by a false Inteâ—â—retation To him that worketh that is say they that fulfil the Law by his owne strength Wages is not counted by fauour but by debt but if he fulfill it by Gods grace his wages is paiâ—â— him by fauour not of debt Where vnto we reply That 1 This glose is a plaine corruption of the Text. For by workes in this fourth verse the Apostle vnderstands that kind of workes were of mention is made v 2 By which Abraham was not Iustified and these as we haue shewed where works done by the helpe of Grace not by the meere strength of Nature 2 And againe for the Assertion it selfe namely He that fulfils the mâ—rrall Law by the helpe of Gods grace is iustified by fauour not by debt we say t is ether a manifest falshood or at best an ambiguous speech For t is one thing to bestow Grace on a Man to fulfill the Law and t is another thing to Iustifie him when he hath fulfilled the Law If God should giue strength to a Man exactly to fulfill the Morralâ— Law that were indeed of his free fauour and grace but when this man that hath receaued this streâ—gth shall come before God with the perfect Righteousnesse of the Law pleading that in euery point he had done what was required God is bound in Iustice to pronounce him innocent and of due Debt to bestow on him the wages of eternall Life Adams case is not vnlike to such a Man For God gaue Adam what strength he had yet Adam fulfilling the Law by that strength should haue merited Iustification and Life Therefore when the Apostle speake 〈◊〉 all workes in the perfect fulfilling of the Law he saiâ—h that to him that worketh Wages is not counted by fauour but but by debt he speaketh exactly and the Iesuits in excluding workes done by Grace comment absurdly Thus much touching the third point concerning Mans Iustification by Faith alone as also of the first generall Head promised in the Beginning Namely the condition required of vs vnto Iustification viz. Faith SECT 3. CHAP. I Of the righteousnesse whereby a man is iustified before God that it is not his own inherent in himselfe that in this life no 〈◊〉 hath perfection of holinesse inherent in him I Proceede vnto the second Generall of the Matter of our Iustification where we are to enquire what Righteousnesse it is for which a Sinner is Iustified in Gods sight Iustificatâ—on and Iustice aâ—e still coupled together and some Righteousnesse there must be for which God pronounceth a Man Righteous and for the sake whereof he for Giâ—eth vnto him all his Sinnes Noâ— is a Sinner iust before God because Iustified buâ— hee is therfore Iustified because he is some way or other Iust. The Righteousnesse for which a Man can be Iustified before God is of necessity one of these two 1 Eyther inherent in his owne Person and done by himselfe 2 Or inherent in the Person of Christ but imputed vnto him A Man is Iustified either by something in him and performed by him or by some thing in another performed for him The wisedome of Angels and Men hath not bin able to shew vnto vs any third Meanes For whereas it is affirmed by some that God might haue reconciled Mankind vnto himselfe by a free and absolute parden of their Sins without the interuention of any such Righteousnesse eitheâ— in themselues or in Christ whereby to procure it to that we say That God hath seene it good in this matter rather to follow his owne most wise Counsailes then these Mens foolish Directions T is to no purpose now to dispute what God might
Faith only he disputes against that Faith which is false and dead without power to bring forth any good workes So that the Apostles speake no contradictions where Paul teacheth we are iustified by a true Faith and S. Iames affirmes we are not justified by a false Faith Againe S. Paul saith we are not iustified by workes S. Iames saith we are justified by Workes Neither is here any contradiction at all For S. Iames vnderstands by Workes a working Faith in opposition to the idle and dead Faith before-spoken of by a Metonymie of the Effect Whence it is plaine that these two Propositions Wee are not iustified by Workes which is Pauls and We are iustified by a working Faith which is Iames doe sweetly consort together Paul seuers Works from our Iustification but not from our Faith Iames ioyned Workes to our Faith but not to our Iustification To make this a litle plainer by a similitude or twaine There is great difference betweene these two sayings A Man liues by a Reasonable soule and A Man liues by Reason The former is true and shewes vs what qualities and power are essâ—ntiall vnto that soule whereby a Man liues But the later is false because we liue not by the quality or power of Reason though we liue by that soule which hath that quality necessarily belonging to it without which it is no humane soule So also in these Propositions Planta vivit per animanâ— auctricem and Planta vivit per augmentationem each Puny can tell that the former is true and the other false For although in the Vegetatiue soule whereby Plants liue there be necessarilie required to the Being of it those 3 faculties of Nourishment Growth and Procreation yet it is not the facultie of growing that giues life vnto Plants for they liue when they grow not In like manner These two Propositions we are iustified by a working Faith We are iustified by Workes differ much The first is true and shewes vnto vs what qualities are necessarilie required vnto the Being of that Faith whereby the Iust shall liue Namely that beside the power of beleeuing in the Promise there be also an Habituall Pronnesse and Resolution vnto the doing of all good Workes joined with it But the later Proposition is false For although true Faith be equallie as apt to worke in bringing forth Vniuersall Obedience to God's will as it is apt to beleeue and trust perfectlie vnto God's promises yet neuerthelesse we are not justified by it as it brings forth good Workes but as it embraceth the promises of the Gospel Now then Iames affirmes that which is true that We are iustified by a working Faith and S. Paul denies that which is false viz. That we are iustified by workes CHAP. II. The confirmation of the Orthodoxe reconciliation of S. Paul and S. Iames by a Logicall Analysis of S. Iames his disputation in his second Chapter THis Reconciliation is the fairest and hath the most certaine grounds in the text It will I doubt not appeare so vnto you when it shall be cleered from these Cavils that can be made against it There are but only two things in it that may occasion our Aduersaries to quarrell The first is touching the word Faith we say that S. Iames speakes of a false and counterfeit Faith They say he speakes of that which is true though Dead without Workes This is one point The second is touching the interpretation of the word Workes vsed by S. Iames when he saith We are iustified by Workes This we interpret by a Metonymie of the Effect for the Cause We are justified by a working Faith by that Faith which is apt to declare and shew it selfe in all good Workes This interpretation may happily proue distastefull to their nicer Palates who are very readie when it fits their humour to grate sore vpon the bare words and letter of a Text. These cauils remoued this reconciliation will appeare to be sure and good For the accomplishment of this I suppose nothing will be more commodious then to present vnto you a briefe resolution of the whole dispute of S. Iames touching Faith that by a plaine and true exposition thereof we may more easily discouer the cauils and sophisticall forgeries wherewith our Adversaries haue pestered this place of Scripture The disputation of S. Iames beginnes at the 14. v. of the second Chapt. to the end thereof The scope and summe whereof is A sharpe reprehensâ—ion of hypocriticall Faith of vaine Men as they are called v. 20 Which in the Apostles time vnder pretence of Religion thought they might liue as they list Two extremes there were whereunto these Iewes to whom the Apostle writes were mis-led by false teachers and their own corruptions The 1. That notwithstanding Faith in Christ they were bound to fulfill the whole Law of Moses Against which Paul disputes in his Epistle to the Gal. who also were infected with that Leven The other was that Faith in Christ was sufficient without any regard of Obedience to the Law so they beleeued the Gospell acknowledging the Articles of Religion for true made an outward profession all should be well albeit in the meane Time Sanctitie and syncere Obedience were quite neglected The former Errour brought them in Bondage this made them licentious pleasing haeresie if any other whereof there were and will be alwayes store of sectaries who content themselues to haue a forme of Godlines but deny the power thereof Against such hypocrites vain Boasters of false Faith and false Religion S. Iames disputes in this place shewing plainly that such men leaned on a staffe of Reed deceiuing their owne selues with a counterfeit shadow of true Christian Faith insteed of the substance The reproofe with the maine Reason is expressed by way of interrogation in the 14. v. What doth it profit my Brethren though a Man say he haue as many then did and alwaies will say boasting falselie of that which they haue not in truth And haue not workes that is Obedience to God's Will whereby to approue that Faith he boasts of Can that Faith saue him so that Faith vvithout Workes a sauing Faith that vvill bring a Man to Heauen These sharpe Interrogations must be resolued into their strong Negations And so vve haue these tvvo Propositions 1 Containing the maine summe of the Apostle's dispute The other a generall Reason of it The is this Faith without Obedience is vnprofitable The second prouing the first is this Faith without Obedience will not saue a Man The vvhole Argument is That Faith which will not saue a man is vnprofitable of no vse But the Faith which is without Obedience will not saue Ergo Faith without Obedience is vnprofitable The Maior of this Argument vvill easilie be granted Thâ—t it is an vâ—proâ—itable Faith which will not bring a Man to life and Happines But hovv doth S. Iames proue the Minor That a Faith without workes will not doe that though it scarse need any
to be obserued because it serues excellently for the clearing of the Apostles meaning when he saieth we are justified by workes And the Scripture was fulfilled saieth S. Iames. When At the time that Isaack was offered But was it not fulfilled before that time Yes Many yeares when the promise of the blessed seed was made vnto him as appeares Gen. 15. 6. Whence this testimony is taken How was it then fulfilled at the oblation of Isaack Thus. The Trueth of that which was verified before was then againe confirmed by a new and euident experiment Well Thus much is plaine enough But heere now the difficulty is how this Scripture is applyed vnto the Apostles former dispute In the 21. v. He saieth that Abraham was justified by Workes when he offered Isaack How proues he that he was so justified why by this testimony Because the Scripture was fulfilâ—ed at that time which saieth Abraham beleeued God c. Marke then the Apostle's Argument When Abraham offered Isaack the Scripture was fulfilled which saieth Abraham was iustified by faith For that 's the meaâ—ing of that Scripture Ergo Abraham when he offered Isaacâ— was justified by workes This at first sight sâ—emeth farre set and not onely besides but quite contrary to the Apostles purpose to proue he was then justified by workes because the Scripture saieth he was then iustified by Faith But vpon due consideration inâ—erence appeares to be euident and the agreement easie The Apostle and the Scripture alleaged haue one and the same meaning the Scripture saieth He was iustified by Faith meaning as all confesse a working Faith fruitefull in Obedience S. Iames affirmes the very same saying that he was justified by workes that is Metonymically by a working Faith And therefore the Apostle rightly alleageth the Scripture for confirmation of his assertion the Scripture witnessing That by Faith he was iustified the Apostle expounding what manner of Faith it meanes Namely a Faith with workes or a working Faith So that the application of this Testimony vnto that time of offering vp of Isaack is most excellent because then it appeared manifestly what manner of Faith it was wherefore God had accounted him just in former times Without this Metonymie it appeares not that there is any force in the application of this Scripture and the Argument from thence The Scripture witnesseth that Abraham was then justified by Faith Ergo 'tis true that he was then justified by Workes What consequence is there in this Argument except we expound S. Iames by that metonymie Workes that is a working Faith And so the Argument holdes firme Take it otherwise as our aduersaries would haue it or to speake trueth according to the former interpretation of our diuines it breeds an absurd construction either way Abraham in offering Isaack was justified by workes that is secundâ Iustificatione of good he was made better How is that proued By Scripture Because the Scripture saieth That at that time he was justified by faith That is primâ Iustificatione of bad he became good Is not this most apparent Non-sence Againe according to the Interpretations of our diuines Abraham at the offering vp of Isaack was iustified by workes that is say they declared iust before men How is that proued by Scripture Because the Scripture saieth That at that time he was justified by Faith that is accounted just in God's sight In which kind of arguing I must confesse I apprehend not how there is any tolerable consequence Wherefore we expound S. Iames metonymically putting the effect for the cause workes for a working Faith as the necessary connexion of the text enforced vs. Nor is there any harshnes at all nor violent straining in this figure when two things of necessary and neere dependance one vpon the other as workes and a working Faith are put one for another Neither haue our aduersaries more cause to complaine of vs for this figuratiue interpretation of workes then we haue of them for their figuratiue interpretation of faith For when we are saied to be justified by faith they vnderstand it dispositiuè meritoriè not formaliterè Faith in itselfe is not our sanctification nor yet the cause of it But it merits the bestowing of it and disposeth vs to receaue it Let reason iudge now which is the harsher exposition Theirs faith iustifies that is Faith is a disposition in vs deseruing that God should sanctifie vs by infusion of the habit of Charity Or ours Workes justifie that is the Faith whereby we are acquited in God's sight is a working Faith Thus much of this Testimonie of Scripture prouing that Abraham was justified by a true and working faith In the next place the Apostle shewes it by a visible effect or Consequent that followed vpon his Iustification expressed in the next words And he was called the freind of God A high prerogatiue for God the Creator to reckon of a poore mortall Man as his familiar freind but so entire and true was the faith of Abraham so vpright was his heart that God not onely gratiously accounted it to him for Righteousnes but also in token of that gratious acceptance entered into a league with Abraham taking him for his especiall freind and confederate A League ofâ—ensiue and defensiue God would be a Freind to Abraham Thou shalt be a blessing and a freind of Abrahams Freinds I will blesse them that blesse thee and an Enemy of Abrahams enemies I will curse them that uâ—se thee Which League of freindship with Abraham before the offering vp of Isaack was therevpon by solemne protestation and oath renued as we haue it Gen. 22. v. 16. c. Thus we haue this first example of Abraham From thence the Apostle proceeds to a generall conclusion in the next verse 24 Yee see then how that by workes a man is iustified and not by Faith only That is Therefore it is euident That a man is iustified by a working faith not by a faith without workes Which Metonymicall interpretation is againe confirmed by the inference of this conclusion vpon the former verse The Scripture saieth That Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed vnto him for Righteousnes Ergo saieth â— Iames Yee see how a man is iustified by workes and not by Faith onely A man might heere say Nay rather Wee see the contrary That a man is iustified by faith onely and not by workes For in that place of Scripture there is no mention at all made of Workes Wherefore of necessity we must vnderstand them both in the same sense And so the conclusion followes directly That euery man is iustified by an actiue not an idle Faith because the Scripture witnesseth that Abraham was instified by the like Faith Our Aduersaries collection then from this place That Faith and Workes be compartners in Iustification we are 〈◊〉 partly by faith partly by workes is vaine inconsequent For when the Apostle saies A Man is iustified by workes and not by faith only his meaning is not that
manner of their Connection is the same that just in euery point as the Soule is to the Body or the Body to the Soule so Workes are vnto Faith and Faith vnto Works It sufficeth to his intent that as in the absence of the Soule the Body so in the absence of Obedience Faith is dead But thence it followes not that workes by their presence doe the same thing to Faith as the Soule to the Body by it's presence or that Faith in the absence of Workes remaines the same as the Body doth in the absence of the Soule If we must needs be tied to the strict termes of the Similitude let vs a little examine the comparison and we shall see our Aduersaries all flye off first from it Let the comparison be first thus Betweene the Body and the Soule Faith and Workes as the termes be in the Text. As the Body without the Soule is dead because the Soule giues life i. e sense breathing and all other Motion to the Body So Faith without Workes is dead because Workes giue life vnto Faith But now this Comparison will not runne on all foure For Workes are not vnto Faith as the Soule is to the Body but as sense and motion is to the Body Seeing Workes are externall acts not internall habits and so are proportionable not to the Soule but to the liuing actions thence issuing Wherefore 't is as absurd to say that Workes giue life vnto Faith as 't is ridiculous to affirme that Sense Motion giue life to the Body which are not Causes but Effects signes of Life Therefore when Faith without Workes is dead 't is not spoken in that sense because Workes giue life to Faith as the Soule doth to the Body Lâ—â— then the Comparison bee thus Between the Body and the Soule Faith and Charity As the Body without the Soule is dead because the Soule is the forme of the body and giues life to it So Faith without Charity is dead because Charity is the Forme of Faith and giues life to it But neither will the Comparison hold vpon these termes For 1. our Adversaries here put in Charity the habit for Workes the act which is more then themselues ought to doe seeing they will tye vs at short Bitts to the very letter of the Text. For though we can be content to admit that interpretation would they admit of the Apostle's plaine meaning not straine for querkes yet seeing they argue so precisely from the Words of the Comparison they must not now haue libertie from vs to goe from them but be content to take the Words as they lie in the Text and make their best of them Yet seeing 't is most senselesse to make Workes that is externall Actions the Forme of Faith an internall habit let them take Charity insteed of them an internall habit likewise Wil it be any better now belike so TheÌ„ 't is thus As the Soule is the Forme of the Body so Charity is the forme of Faith and as the Soule giues life and action to the Body so Charity vnto Faith Will they stand to this No. Here againe they fly off in both Comparisons Charity is one habit Faith another distinct betweene themselues and therefore they deny as there 's good reason that Charity is either the Essentiall forme of Faith as the Soule of the liuing Body or the accidentall Forme as whitenes of Paper They say 't is onely an externall Forme But this now is not to keepe close to the Apostle's comparison but to runne from it at their pleasure when they fall vpon an absurdity in pressing of it so strictly The Soule is no externall but an internall essentiall Forme therefore Charitie must be so if all runne round Againe doth Charitie giue life or liuing actions vnto Faith as the Soule doth vnto the Body Neither dare they hold close to this Comparison For the proper worke or action of Faith is to assent vnto the Trueth of diuine reuelations because of Gods authoritie as themselues teach Whence now comes this assent From the Habit of Faith or of Charity They grant that it comes immediatlie from the Habit of Faith which produceth this action euen when it s seuered from Charity Then 't is plain that it is not Charitie that giues life to Faith which can performe the proper action that belongs to it without it's helpe How then doth Charity giue life vnto Faith For this they haue a sillie conceit Charity giues Life that is Merite vnto Faith The beleefe or assent vnto diuine Trueth is meritorious if it be with Charity If without then 't is not meritorious This is a fine toy wherein againe they runne quite from the Comparison of the Apostle For the Soule giues liuing Actions to the Body not only the Qualifications of the Actions and so Charitie is not like the Soule because it giues only the qualification of Merit vnto the Action of Faith not the action it selfe Beside A most vaine interpretation it is without any ground from Scripture to say a liuing Faith that is a meritorious Faith when euen in common sense the life of any habit consists onelie in a power to produce those actions that naturallie and immediatlie depend vpon that Habit. And what Reason is there in the World why the Habit of Charity should make the actions of Faith meritorious or why Charity should make Faith meritorious rather then Faith make Charity meritorious seing in this life there is no such praeeminency of Charity aboue Faith Wherefore we despise these speculatiue Sophismes which with much faire glozing our Aduersaries draw from the Text but yet when all comes to the Triall themselues will not stand to the strict application of the similitude because it breeds absurdities which euen themselues abhorre Now if they take liberty to qualifie and interpret they must giue vs leaue to doe so too or if they will not we shall take it To shut vp all Their other Collection is as weake as the former namely A dead body is a true body ergo a dead Faith is true Faith This Argument forceth the Similitude and so is of a Force In materiall things which haue a diuerse being from different Causes it may hold But 't is not so in Vertues and Graces Trueth and Life are both essentiall to such qualities True Charity is a liuing Charity i. e. actiue as the Apostle himselfe proues v. 15. True Va Valour And so of euery vertuous quality if it be true 't is liuing and stirring in Action if it be otherwise 't is counterfeit some other thing that hath onely a shadow of it All these Trickes are pin vpon the Apostle to pervert his plaine meaning viz That as it is necessary to the being of a liuing body that it be coupled with the â—oule so 't is necessary to the being of a liuing true Christian Faith that it bring forth Workes of Obedience SECT 7. CHAP. I. None can be iustified by their owne satisfaction
God in a word in the Renovation of his Facâ—lties Which what is it else but Sanctification or Regeneration or Conuersion Only stiled by that tearme of Vocation in regard of the meanes whereby it is ordinarily effected that is the preaching of the word He must needs coyne vs some new Mystery in Divinity who will perswade vs that some other worke of Grace is meant by Vocation and not that of Sanctification Therefore wee haue neither one Linke snapt out nor two shuffled together in this chaine of our Saluation But foure as distinct as vndivideable Election Sanctification whereto we are called by the Gospell preached 2 Thess. 2. 14. Iustification by Faith which is a fruit of Sanctification and Glorification The fourth place is that in the Epistle to the Hebrewes Chap. 13. 14. For if the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling them that are vncleane sanctifieth as touching the purifying of the flesh how much more shall the blood of Christ who through the eternall Spirit offered himselfe without fault to God purge our consciences from dead workes to serue the liuing God Hence they argue That as Leuiticall Sacrifices and Washings did sanctifie the flesh from outward Legall impurity so the Sacrifice of Christ doth purge the Conscience from inward spirituall vncleanenesse of dead Workes or Sinnes This purging of the conscience is nothing but iustification of a sinner Wherefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be all of one meaning To which I answere That the Apostle in that Chapter and the next disputing of the vertue and efficacy of Christs death far exceeding the force of all Leuiticall Sacrifices the shadowes of it ascribes vnto it what could not be effected by those viz. eternall Redemption verse 12. purging of the conscience from dead workes verse 12. the putting away of sinne verse 26. The Sanctification of the Elect Chap. 10. 7. 10. made Heires according to the hope of eternall life In neither then of those places is our sanctification confounded with our Iustification but both distinctly declared as two seuerall partes of graces and meanes of the Accomplishment of our eternall Happinesse 'T is scarce worth the labour to examine those other Scriptures produced by our Aduersaries whereof some part doe directly crosse and the rest doe but onely in apparance confirme their assertion In generall therefore for them thus much wee confidently affirme that let the Concordance be studied and all those places examined wherein either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is vsed in the Old or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament there will not one be found no not one in which those wordes carry any other meaning then that which we stand for viz. the clearing of a parties innocence questioned as faulty and blame-worthy Take a taste of some places 1 Iustification is sometimes applyed to 1. God when Man iustifies God As Psal. 51. 4. Rom. 3. 4. That thou mightest be iustified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in thy saying and mightest ouercome when thou art iudged Matth. 11. 19. And wisedome is iustified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of her children Luke 7. 35. Luke 7. 29. And the Publicans iustified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God being baptized with the baptisme of Iohn Can there be any other meaning of Iustification hereâ— but this onely That God is then iustified when his workes his wisedome his sacred ordinances being accused by prophane men as vntrue vnequall vnâ—ust and foolish are by the Godly acknowledged or any other meanes evidently cleared vnto all men to be full of all Truth Equity Wisedome and Holinesse 2 Man and that 1 Before Man in things betweene Man and Man When Man iustifies Man Deut. 25. 1. If there be a controversie betweene Men and they come vnto iudgement that the Iudge may iudge them then they shall iustifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the righteous and condemne the wicked Isaiah 5. 23. Woe to them whâ—ch iustifie the wicked for a reward and take away the righteousnesse of the righteous from him Prouerb 17. 15. He that iustifieth thâ— wicked and condemneth the iust euen they both are an abomination to the Lord. 2 Sam. 15. 4. Oh that I were made Iudge in the Land that euery man that hath any suit or cause might come to me and I would doe him Iustiâ—e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In these many the like places to Iustifie is in iudâ— ciall proceeding to absolue a party from fault blame whether it be rightfully or wrongfully done Ezek. 16. 52. Be thou confounded and beare thy shame in that thou hast iustified thy sisters speakes God vnto Ierusalem in comparison of whose abhomination the sinnes of Sodome and Samaria were scarce to be accounted any faults They were Saints to her Of the Pharises Christ speakes Luke 16. 15. Yee are they that iustifie your selues before men but God knoweth your hearts That is You stand vpon the defence and ostentation of outward Holinesse and deeming it sufficient to make it appeare before Men you are holy without regard of acquitting the sincerity of your hearts before God 2 Before God where God iustifies Man Exod. 23. 7. The innocent and the righteous slay thou not for I will not iustifie the wicked by esteeming him as innocent and letting him goe from punishment Isaiah 50. 8. Hee is neere that iustifieth me who will contend with me saith the Prophet in the person of Christ signifying God would make it appeare that he was blamelesse for the rejection of his people the Iewes who perished for their owne and not his fault Rom. 5. 18. As by the offence of one iudgement came on all Men to condemnation So by the righteousnesse of one the free gift came vpon all men to the Iustification of life Rom 8. 33. 34. Who shall lay thing to the charge of Gods Elect It is God that iustifies who shall condemne 1 Cor. 4. 4. I know nothing by my selfe yet in this am I not iustified Hee that iudgeth me is God q. d. I haue kept a good conscience in my Ministery but God is my iudge though my conscience pronounce me innocent yet God is my sole Iudge that iudgeth me and my conscience Acts 13. 38. 39. Through this Man is preached vnto you the forgiuenesse of sinnes and from all things from which yee could not be iustified by the Law of Moses by him euery one that beleeueth is iustifyed By which places not to name more it appeares plâ—inly that Iustification is opposed to Accusation and Condemnation and therefore can signifie nothing else but the defence absolution of a persoÌ„ accused for an offender Which thing is so cleare and euident that it cannot be gaynsayed except by those alone who are wilfully blind and obstinately resolued to coÌ„tradict any truth that makes against their inveterate errors For our selues we may not nor dare not shut our eyes against so cleare Light nor ought we to be so bold wheÌ„ God hath