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
forbid For if there had beene a Law giuen which could haue giuen Life verily righteousnesse should haue beene by the Law But the Scripture hath concluded all vnder sinne that the promise by the faith of Iesus Christ might be giuen by them that beleeue Ephe. 2. 8. 9. For by grace ye are saued through Faith and that not of your selues It is the gift of God Not of workes least any man should boast Phil 3. 8. 9. Yea doubtlesse and I count all things but losse for the excellency of the Knowledge of Christ Iesus my Lord. For whom I haue suffered the losse of all things and doe count them but dung that I may winne Christ. And be found of him not hauing mine owne righteousnesse which is of the Law but that which is through the faith of Christ the Righteousnesse which is of God by Faith Out of which places not to name more expresly touching this point of our Iustification we argue thus A Man is iustified either by the workes of the Law or by faith in Christ. But hee is not Iustified by the workes of the Law Ergo He is iustified onely by faith in Christ. In this disiunctiue Syllogisme they cannot find â—ault with vs for adding the word onely in the Conclusion which was not in the Praemises For Reason will teach them that where two Tearmes are immediately opposite if one bee taken away the other remaines alone So that in euery disjunctiue Syllogisme whose Maior Proposition standeth vpon two Tearmes immediately opposite if one be remoued in the Minor the Conclusion is plainely equivalent to an exclusiue Proposition As if we argue thus Eyther the wicked are saued or the godly But the wicked are not saued Thence it followes in exclusiue Tearmes Therefore the godly onely are saued Our Aduersaries cannot deny but that the Proposition A Man is iustified by workes or by Faith consists of Tearmes immediately opposite For else they accuse the Apostle Paul of want of Logicke who Rom. 3. should conclude falsely A man is iusitified by faith without workes if he be iustified either by both together or else by neither Seeing then he opposeth Faith aÌ„d workes as incompatible and exclude workes from Iustification wee conclude infallibly by the Scriptures That a man is iustified by faith alone This Argument not auoidable by any sound aÌ„swere puts our aduersaries miserably to their shifts Yet rather then yeeld vnto the truth they fall vnto their distinctions whereby if t were possible they would shift off the force of this Argument Whereas therefore the Scriptures oppose Workes and Faith the Law of Workes and the Law of Faith Our owne righteousnesse which is of the Law and the Righteousnesse of God by Faith manifestly telling vs that we are Iustified Not by Workes by the Law of Workes nor by our owne Righteousnesse which is of the Law but that we are iustified by Faith by the Righteousnesse of God by Faith Our Aduersaries haue a distinction to salue this Matter withall They say then Workes are of two sorts 1 Some goe before Grace and Faith and are performed by the onely strength of free-will out of that Knowledge of the Law whereunto Men may attaine by the light of Nature or the bare Reuelation of the Scriptures These workes or this obedience vnto the law which a meere naturall man can performe is say they that Righteousnesse which the Scripture cals our owne By this kinde of Righteousnesse and Workes they grant none is Iustified 2 Some follow Grace and Faith which are done by Mans free-will excited and aided by the speciall helpe of Grace Such Obedience and Righteousnesse is say they called the Righteousnesse of God because it is wrought in vs of his gift and grace And by this Righteousnesse a man is iustified By this Invention they turne of with a wet finger all those Scriptures that we haue alleadged Wee are Iustified not by the workes of the Law that is by the Obedience of the Morall Law which a man may performe without Gods Grace But we are Iustified by Faith of Christ that is by that obedience of the Morall Law which a man may performe by faith and the helpe of Gods grace Boasting is excluded saith the Apostle by what Law By the Law of workes that is by the Law performed by the strength of Nature Nay For he that performes the Law by his owne strength hath cause to boast of it By what Law then By the Law of Faith that is by faith which obtaines Gods grace to fulfill the Morall Law Now he that obeyes the Law by Gods helpe hath no cause to boast Israel which followed the Law of righteousnesse could not attaine vnto the law of righteousnesse Wherefore Because they sought it not by Faith that is they sought not to performe the Law by Gods Grace But as by the workes of the Law that is by their own strength Thus Paul desires to be found in Christ not hauing his owne righteousnesse which is of the Law that is that righteousnesse he performed without Gods grace before his Conversion But the righteousnesse of God which is by faith i.e. That righteousnesse which he performed in obeying the Law by Gods grace after his Conversion For confirmation of this distinction and the Interpretations thereon grounded Bellarmine brings three reasons to shew that when workes and faith are opposed all workes of the Law are not excluded 1 It s manifest Faith is a worke and that there is a Law of Faith as well as workes If therefore Rom. 3. all workes and all Law be excluded from Iustification then to be iustified by Faith were to bee iustified without faith 2 It s plaine the Apostle Rom. 3. intends to proue that neither Iewes by the naked obseruation of the law of Moses nor the Gentiles for their good workes before they were conuerted to the faith of Christ could obtaine righteousnesse from God 3 The Apostle shewes Rom. 4. 4. what workes he excludes from Iustification viz. such whereto wages is due by debt not by grace Now workes performed without Gods helpe deserue reward ex Debito but workes performed by his helpe deserve wages ex gratia I doubt but notwithstanding these seeming Reasons the fore-named distinction and expositions of Scripture according thereto appeare vnto you at the first sight strange vncouth farr besides the intent of the Holy Ghost in all those fore-reckoned passages of Scripture Let vs examine it a little more narrowly and yee shall quickly perceiue that in this Schoole distinction there is nothing but fraud shifting By workes done by the strength of Nature wee are not iustified By workes done with the helpe of grace wee are iustified This is the distinction resolue it now into these tearmes which are more proper it runs thus A man is not sanctified by those workes of the Moraâ—l Law which he doth without grace but a man is sanctified by those workes of the Morall Law he doth by
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 assent vnto and apprehend diuine Reuelations without further helpe then of their owne naturall Abilities Man in his fall sustained greater losse in the spirituall powers of his soule therefore stanâ—s in need of helpe Which helpe is afforded euen vnto the vngodly but this is by ordinary illumination not by speciall infusion of any sanctifying Grace Enlightned they are aboue the ordinary pitch of naturall blindnes but not aboue that whereto a meere naturall vnderstanding may be aduanced Yea were Mans Vnderstanding raised vp to that perfection which is in diuels this were more then Nature yet lesse then Grace This common gift of Illumination bestowed on wicked Men but not on diuels is no proofe that their Faith is of a diuerse kinde As to the last difference we are not so far studied in Moralities as to conceiue wherein the dishonestie of the diuel 's Faith and the honestie of Hypocrites Faith doth lie To ordinarie vnderstanding it seemes euery way as honest commendable a matter for a wicked fiend as for a wicked Man to beleeue what God reueales vnto him If not we must expect to be further informed by these Iesuites Men that are better read in that part of Ethickes whether diabolicall or hypocriticall 4. This of the Apostle's third Argument we come to the fourth The 4. Argument is contained in the 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25 verses Before which the Apostle repeates his maine Conclusion That Faith without Obedience is a false and dead Faith But wilt thou know O vaine Man or hypocrite that Faith without workes is dead v. 20. For the convincing of him further he proceeds to a new Argument to proue it vnto him The Argument is this That Faith which will not iustifie a Man is a false and dead Faith But the Faith which is without workes will not iustifie a Man Ergo 'T is a dead and a false Faith The Maior the Apostle omits as most evident of it selfe The Minor he proues by an induction of two Examples Thus. If Abraham and Rahab were instified by a working faith thou that Faith which is alone without workes will not iustifie But Aâ—raham and Rahab were so iustified viz. by a working Faith Ergo Faith without workes will not iustifie a man The Reason of the Consequence is manifest Because as Abraham and Rahab so all other must be justified The meanes of justification and Life were euer one and the same for all men Which also the Apostle intimates in that clause v. 21. Was not our Father Abraham c. implying that as the Father so also the children the whole stocke and generation of the Faithfull were and are still justified by one vniforme meanes The two instances the Apostle vrges that of Abraham v. 21. 22. 23. that of Rahab v. 25. The conclusion with aequally issues from them both he interserts in the middest after the allegation of Abrahams Example v. 24. I shall goe ouer them as they lie in the Text. In the example of Abraham the Apostle v. 21. sets downe this proposition That Abraham was justified by a working Faith For this interrogatiues Was not our Father Abraham justified by workes must be resolued into an affirmatiue Abraham our Father was justified by workes That is a working Faith Which proposition the Apostle confirmeth by it's parts 1. Shewing that Abrahams Faith was an operatiue faith declared and approued by his workes Secondly prouing that by such a working Faith Abraham was justified in God's sight That the faith of Abraham was operatiue full of life and power to bring forth Obedience vnto God the Apostle alleageth one instance insteed of all the â—est to proue it And that is that singular worke of Obedience vnto God's command When he offered vp his sonne Isaak vpon the Altar Many other workes there were performed by Abraham abundantly justifying the trueth of his Faith But the Apostle chooseth this aboue all other as that worke which was of purpose enjoyned him by God for a triall of his faith Wherein Abraham mightily ouerâ—oming all those strong temptations to disobedience and infidelity made it appeare that his faith was not an idle dead and empty Speculation but an actiue and working Grace Wherefore the Apostle adds ver 22. Seest thou how faith wrought with his workes and by workes was faith made perfect That is as in other workes of that holy Patriarch so specially in that sacrificing his sonne all that can see may plainely behold the strength and life of his faith Faith wrought with his workes That is His faith directed and supported him in the doing of that worke as the Apostle Paul expounds it Heb. 11. 17 By faith Abraham offered vp Isaack that worke had not binne done if faith had not wrought it In euery circumstance thereof faith did all in all from the beginning of the worke to the end This interpretation is most simple and generally receaued Faith wrought with That is In or by his workes vnto the performance whereof the force of faith was in spaeciall manner assesting Pareus reads the words by a tmesis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 scilicet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Faith being with his workes wrought What his Iustification But this construction seemes somewhat hard and not necessary for this place The other sense is much plainer shewing vs by or with what vertue Abraham's workes were wrought viz. By the vertue of his faith which in most powerfull manner incited and inabled him to obey The Apostle goes forward And by workes was faith made perfect That is declared to be perfect For workes did not perfect Abrahams Faith essentially in asmuch as long before this time it was perfect as is plaine in that Abraham was justified by it 25 yeares before the oblation of his sonne Isaack and also by the strength of his Faith had done many excellent workes and obtained great blessings at the hand of God So that the offering vp of Isaack was not the cause but a fruite of the perfection of Abrahams Faith the great difficulty of that worke shewed the singular petfection of that Grace which was able so to encounter and conquer it The goodnes of the fruit doth not worke but declare the goodnes that is in the tree the qualities of the fruits alwaies depending vpon the nature of the Tree but not on the contrary Thus then the first part of the Proposition is plainly proved by the Apostle That Abrahams Faith was a liuely and working Faith declaring and approuing it's owne trueth by the workes of his Obedience The next part Namely That Abraham was justified in God's sight by such a working Faith he proueâ— 1. By a Testimony of Scripture 2. By an effect or consequent thereof Both are expressed in the 23. v. The first in these words And the Scripture was fulfilled which sayeth Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed vnto him for Righteousnes The application of this testimony is very heedfully
workes and faith are two Coordinate causes by their ioynt-force-working our Iustification but the Apostle vtterly excludes Faith onely from Iustification and attributes it wholy vnto workes For by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Faith onely he vnderstands faith alone that faith which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 17. alone solitary by itselfe without workes And such a dead faith whereof these hypocrites boasted S. Iames excludes wholly from justifying of a man I say then that he is not iustified by faith onely but that he is iustified by workes That is a working faith that is fruitfull in Obedience The Apostle goes forward from the Example of Abraham vnto that of Rahab verse 25. Likewise was not Rahab the Harlot iustified by workes That is in the same manner as Abraham so also Rahab was iustified by a working saith Which appeared to be so by that which shee did when she receaued the messengers entertained the two spies which were sent to search the land lodged them in her house without discouering them And when by accident they were made knowne hid them secretly vpon the roofe and afterwards sent them out another way conveied them away priuily not by the vsuall but by another way that is through the window letting them downe ouer the wall by a Cord as the story hath it Ios. 2. In this dangerous enterprise wherein this weake woman ventured her life in succouring the Enemies of her King and Country it appeares plainly that she had a strong and liuely Faith in the God of Israel and that the confession which she made with her mouth to the spies The Lord your God he is the God in Heauen aboue and in the Earth beneath Iosh. 2. 11. proceeded from a truely beleeuing heart insomuch as her words were made good by works that followed them Wherefore the Apostle iustly parallels these 2 examples of Abraham offering his sonne and Rahab in the kind vsage of the Spies because both those facts were singular trialls of a liuely faith which was able in that sorte to ouercome what was hardest to be conquered viz. Naturall affection In Abraham both fatherly affection to the life of a deere and only sonne and in Rahab the Naturall loue to ones Country and a mans owne Life did all stoope and giue way when once true Faith commands Obedience Here againe our adversaries trouble themselues and the Text with needlesse speculations telling vs that now the Apostle hath altered his cliffe and gone from the second Iustification in Abrahams example to the first Iustification in this of Rahab That Rahab was conuerted at this time of receauing the spies being made a beleeuer of an infidell a good woeman of a bad That she by this good worke did expiate her former sinnes and merited the grace and fauour of God notwithstanding that she committed a venial sinne in handling of the businesse telling a downe-right lie which though she should not haue done yet it hindred not the meritoriousnes of the worke with such other fond imaginations peruerting the simplicity of the Trueth But first they are not agreed among themselues whether the Apostle doe in that sort shift from one Iustification to another Bellarmine affirmes it and many moe But others deny it as may be seene in Lorinus his exposition of the. 21. v. of this Chapter And were they agreed vpon it sure I am they should disagree from the Apostle who makes this second instance of the same nature with the former 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In like manner saieth he was Rahab iustified viz. as Abraham was Againe when they say Rahab became a true beleeuer at that time of receauing the spies not before 't is more then they can proue By the circumstances of the story it appeares plainely that she beleeued before they came by the relation of the great workes which God had done for his people and the promises that were made vnto them that they should possesse Rahabs countrey This bred feare in others but faith in her by the secret working of the holy Ghost See Ioshua 2. 9. c. And certainly had she not had Faith before the spies came who can thinke she would haue giuen entertainment to such dangerous persons But she knew them to be the Seruants of the God of Israel in whom shee beleeued and therefore by this Faith she receaued them peaceably though Enemies of her Countrey Lastly to that of the Meritâ—riousnes of the worke of Rahab to deserue Grace and Life aeternall we reiect it not only as a vaine but an impious conceit which neuer entred into the humble hearts of the Sâ— of old but hath bin set on foote in the last corrupt ages of the world by men drunken with selfe-Loue and admiration of their owne Righteousnes Thus we haue these 2 Examples whereby the Apostle hath proued sufficiently that the Faith which is separated from Obedience will not justifie a Man therefore that it is a dead Faith and not a true liuing Faith according as was proposed v. 20. Now for a close of this whole dispute he againe repeates that conclusion adding thereto anew similitude to illustrate it by in the last verse of the Chapter For as the Body without the Spirit is dead so faith without workes is dead that is As the Body without the Spirit i. e. the Souls or the Breath and other Motion is dead vnable to performe any liuing action whatsoeuer So Faith without workes is dead that is vtterly vnable to performe these liuing actions which belong vnto it What are those Two 1. To repose it stedfastly vpon the promise of life in Christ which is the proper immediate liuing Action of Faith 2. To justifie a Man in the sight of God which by a speciall priuiledge is the consequent of the former These liuing actions cannot be performed by that Faith which is dead being destitute of good workes That Faith which hath not power to bring forth Obedience is thereby declared to be a dead Faith deuoide of all power to embrace the promise with confidence and relyance as also to justifie A Man would thinke this were plaine enough and needed not to be troubled with any further Câ—villations But 't is strange what a coile our Adversaries make with this similitude writhing and straining it to such Conclusions as the Apostle neuer intendeâ— Hence they gather 1. That as the Soule giues life to the Body as the â—â—rme of the Body so Workes giue life to Faith as the forme of it 2 That as the Body is the same true Body without the Soule with it so Faith is one and the same true Faith without workes and with them which are nothing but sophisticall speculatiâ—â—â— besides the purpose of the Text. The Apostle intends nothing but to shew the Necessity of the Copulation of a liuing Faith and Obedience together by the similitude of the like Necessitie of the vnion of a liuing Body and the Soule But his purpose is not to shew that the
the obedience of the Law which yet they cannot in all things perfectly obey CHAP. III. No man in this life can performe any particular good worke so exactly that in euery point it shall answere the rigour of the Law proued by conscience Scriptures reason and Popish obiections answered I Proceed vnto the last Proposition which concerneth Mans actuall Obedience to any one particular precept of the Law Wherein will appeare the third Imperfection of mans Obedience in fulfilling of the Morall Law We haue seene That no man hath perfect inherent sanctity free from Natures corruption Againe That no man can performe perfect actuall obedience to all and euery duty of the Law without failing in any one point And this much our Aduersaries will not much sticke to yeeld vnto vs and confesse That there is no man but sinneth at some time or other and that t is scarce possible to avoide veniall sinnes as they stile them But then they deny vtterly That a man sinnes in euery particular good worke though he cannot doe all perfectly yet in some he may exactly fulfill the Righteousnesse of the Law not missing in any one circumstance And therfore at least by that obedience he may be iustified This opinion of theirs hath neither truth in it selfe nor yet brings any benefit at all to their maine purpose in prouing Iustification by workes For to what end serueth it them to stand quarrelling for the perfectioÌ„ of our obedience in some one or two good works when yet we faile in many things besides One thing well done will not iustifie him that doth many things ill For that of Saint Iames must be a Truth Hee that keepeth the whole Law and yet faileth in one point is guilty of all Iames 2. 10. Much more guilty is he that keepeth it in a few and breakes it in many But yet further we reiect this opinion also as an Errour and we teach on the contrary That No man in this life can performe any one particular good worke so exactly that in euery point it shall answere the rigour of the Law and the seuere tryall of Gods Iudgement About this Assertion our Aduersaries raise much stirre and many soule slaunders against vs proclaiming vs to all the world open enemies to all good workes that wee bee Factors for the Kingdome of darknes promoting as much as in vs lyeth all licentiousnesse in evill courses and taking of the courage and endeauour of Men after pious duties For who will set himselfe say they to doe any good worke if the Protestants doctrine be true that in doing of it he shall commit a mortall Sinne who wil pray fast and giues almes if when he doth these things he cannot but sinne As good then it were to doe euill as to doe good a man can but sin and so he shall let him doe his best These slanderous incongruities fastened on vs spring not out of our Doctrine rightly vnderstood but out of froward and peruerse hearts that will not see the truth Such aspersions will easily bee wiped of when after the confirmation of the Trueth wee shall make answere to such obiections as seeme to infringe it We say then That no man can performe any good worke required in the Law with such exact observation of every circumstance that were it examined by the rigour of the Law and Gods Iustice no fault at all can bee found in it This we proue by Conscience by Scriptures by Reason First we here apeale vnto the Conscience of Man the Iudgment whereof is to be regarded and whereunto we dare stand in this matter Thou that boastest that in such and such good workes that thou hastnot committed any Sinne at all Darest thou indeed stand to it and vpon these Tearmes appeare in Gods Iudgment Darest thou abide the strictnesse of this examination standing ready to Iustifie thy selfe against euery thing that hee can obiect Wilt thou venter thy selfe vpon this Tryall euen in the best works thou dost That God cannot with his most piercing eye of Iustice spy a fault in theÌ„ if he number theÌ„ he shal find nothing short if he weigh them not one graine too light Againe let conscience speake when thou hast prayed fasted giuen almes done any other excellent worke of Piety and Charity in the deuoutest and most vnblameable manner thou thinkest possible Thinkest thou verily that in this case thou doest not at all stand in need of Gods fauour to passe by thine infirmities and that thou needest not euen in this behalfe pray Lord forgiue me my trespasses What man durst say or thinke in any good worke Lord in this particular I doe not desire thou shouldest be mercifull vnto me Without doubt there is no man liuing vpon earth that shall in serious consideration of the seuerity of Gods iudgement and the great infirmity of his owne Nature compare his own obedience with the seuerity of Gods Iustice but his heart will presently shrinke within him and his conscience shunne this tryall as much as euer Adam did Gods presence The thought of such a strict proceeding in Iudgement would make the proudest heart to stoope and tremble the boldest face to gather blacknesse filling the soule with an horrible feare in the expectation of that day should the most innocent life the most holy actions of men be there scanned according to the rigour of Iustice not graciously pittied pardoned and accepted according to that mercifull loue of God which couereth and passeth by multitudes of sinnes T were arrogant pride in any man to vtter that speach in a sober temper Whereunto Iob breakes out in a passion chased by the sense of his miserable tortures and the froward disputes of his friends Oh saith he that a man might pleade with God as a man pleadeth with his neighbour And againe Lay downe now put me in a surety with thee who is he that will strike hands with me And againe Oh that I knew where I might find him that I might come euen to his face I would order my cause before him and fill my mouth with arguments I would know the words which he would answere mee and vnderstand what he would say vnto me Speakes the man reason or is he beside himselfe what challenge God to dispute with him and hope to make his party good in the quarrell This was Iobs infirmity It s our Aduersaries arrogancy who dare set their foot against Gods and bid him pry as narrowly as hee list into their good workes they will maintaine the righteousnesse thereof against all that he can obiect to proue the least sinâ—ulnesse Iob saw his folly God grant that these may theirs In a calmer temper when conscience was not ouerclouded with griefe and anger he reades vs a quite contrary lesson In the 9 Chapter of his booke How should man be iust with God if he contend with him he cannot answer him one of a thousand v. 2. 3. And againe hauing reasoned questioned of Gods
coinquinatum intrare potest Now sure this is admirable that such acts as these should defile a man deserue hell offend God in a word be sinnes and yet for all this neither commanded nor forbidden in any Law of God Was there euer such a toy heard of as this as Sinnes beside the Law T is a most ridiculous contradiction Peccatum praeter Legem He that doth any thing beside the Law not mentioned nor include â— therein by way of prohibition or command t is most apparent he sinnes not nor offends not at all For whom doth he offend or who can challenge him of Sinne Doth God the Law-giuer No for t was not his intention to command or forbid such an act and ergo be it done or not done it crosseth not his will nor hath he any reason to finde fault or be displeased at it Satan or Man cannot accuse him For let them then shew the Law that prooues him an offender If they cannot alleadge a Law against which he hath transgressed they wrongfully accuse him of a fault Were it not absurd accusation against a prisoner at the Barre to say that he hath indeed done nothing against the Lawes of the Land but many things besides the Law not forbidden nor commanded in the Law those hee hath done and deserues to be punished for it as an offender But now if those veniall sinnes bee mentioned in Gods Law then are such actions either commanded or forbidden If commanded then the not doing of such a thing is plainely contrary to the Law As for example To steale a penny or some other small matter to please an idle word to tell an officious lie these be veniall sinnes say our Aduersaries But how hnow they they be sinnes who told them so The Scriptures they will say Where In the 8 and 9 Commandement Aske them now Did God intend in those Commandements to forbid those actions of stealing and lying Yea or No If he intended it not then t is no sinne at all to doe them seeing it croâ—seth not Gods will nor offends him If he did intend to forbid vs those things then to doe them is a sinne manifestly contrary to the holy will of God the Lawgiuer Wherfore let vs here remeÌ„ber that excellent rule of Bernard Non iussa quïdem licitè vtrumlibet vel admittuntur vel omittuntur iussa vero sine culpa non negleguntur sine crimine non â—ontemnuntur For things not commanded we may either lawfully doe them or leaue them but for things commanded to neglect them is a sinne to contemne them is a haynous crime Wherefore this distinction of sins against and sinnes beside the Law falleth to dust and our Minor Proposition stands firme That he who committeth veniall Sinne transgresseth the Law of God and therefore is vnrighteous for his so doing Becanus here forsakes the Cardinall in this distinction and helpes him by an other deuisâ— He grants that Veniall Sinnes be against the Law and proues it because euery Veniall Sinne is moraliter malum and Ergo contra rectam rationemet Legem aeternam But here 's now the distinction It is one thing to be contra Legem another contra finem Legis All Veniall sinnes be against the Law but no veniall sinne is properly against the end of the Law that is against Charity the Loue of God or our Neighbour Is not this a superfine Inuention As if a Subiect that hath in many things broken the Law should say True my faults be against the Law of the Land but yet they are not against the end of those Lawes viz. obedience to my Prince and Loue to the good of him and my Country Though I break the Lawes yet I would not haue you thinke but I loue and honour my Prince and Country well enough Iust so the Iesuits A man may commit many sinnes against Gods Law and yet obserue the end of the Law in louing God with all his heart and his Neighbour as himselfe Then which nothing can be more senselesse that a man should offend God in breaking of his Law and yet not withstanding loue God with his whole heart That a man should wrong his Neighbour doing that to him which he would not haue done to himselfe and yet for all that loue his Neighbour as himselfe If ye loue mee keepe my Commandemâ—nts saith Christ. Iohn 14. 15. Nay say the Romanists we loue him and yet breake his Commandements Loue doth none euâ—l to his Neighbour saith the Apostle Romans 13. 10 Nay say the Iesuits Loue may doe euill to his Neâ—ghbour and yet keepe the name of loue A man may be angry with another without cause reuile him and call him Racha hee may defraude him in small matters for these they make veniall sinnes and yet in the meane time all this without breath of Charity Himselfe would not willingly be so vsed but hee will vse another in this sort and yet looke to bee thanked for his loue too Such grosse absurdities doe our Aduersaries runne in to by coyning such senselesse distinctions of Sinnes not against but besides the Law of sinnes not against the end of the Law though against the Law it selfe Our Consciences cannot be satisfied with such silly shiftes and therefore we leaue them vnto those that can content themselues and choake vp their Consciences with a little sophistry Men who make a pastime of sinne and take liberty to qualifie and dispence with Gods Law as they thinke agreeable to their Conscience hoping by tricks of wit and dodging Distinctions to a void the accusations of Conscience and to elude the seuerity of Gods Iudgement SECT 4. CHAP I Iustification by workes makes void the couenant of grace of the difference between the law the Gospel of the vse of the Law of the erroneous conceit of our Aduersaries in this point THus much of these three Exceptions of our â—econd Argâ—ment prouing the impossibiliâ—y of our Iustification by the workes of the Law because we cannot perfectly fulfill the â—aw We goe now forward vnto two Arguments more taken the one from the difference of the two Couenants God hath made with man First of works the other of grace and the other from the Nature of true Christian Libâ—rty obtained for vs by Christs death Argument That which makes voide the Couenant of Grace is a false and haereticall doctrine But Iustification of workes of the Law makes void the Couenant of Grace Ergo T is false and haeriticall so to teach For confirmation of the minor in this Argument wee must briefly shew 1 What the Couenant of Grace what the Couenant of workes is 2 What opposition their is betweene these two By the Couenant of Grace we vnderstand in one word the Gospell i. e. the gratious appointment of God to bring man to Saluation by Iesus Christ. In the administration of this gratious purpose of God we must obserue foure periods of time where in God hath diuersly ordered this meanes
them without breach of Conscience in disobeying and violâ—ting also Gods Commandement But otherwise for any immediate power over the conscience to restraine the inward liberty thereof no man without praesumption may arrogate its nor any without slauish basenes yeeld to another as the Apostle commands ye are bought with a price be not yee seruants of men This is in breife the Doctrine of Christian or spirituall lâ—berty which we call Christian 1. from the cause of it Christ by whose purchase we enioye it 2. From the subject of it Christians in opposition to the Iewes who had not this liberty in all parts of it as we haue Namely in freedome from the Ceremoniall Law and restraint in things indifferent In all other parts they in their measure were freed by Christ as well as we Againe we call it spirituall in opposition to ciuill and bodily Liberty because it stands in the freedome of Soâ—le and Conscience not in the freedome of the outward man the bondage and subjection whereof is no impeachment to this spirituall freedome As Anabaptisticall Libertines would perswade the world contrary to the Apostles decision 1. Cor. 7. 22. He that is called in the Lord being a seruant is the Lords Free-man CHAP. II. Iustification by workes subjects vs to the rigour and curse of the Law WE are now in the next place to see which braunch of our liberty is cut off by the doctrine of Iustification by workes Not to meddle with others whereat it giues a backblow but to take that which it directly strikes at we say it destroies our Liberty from the moral Law which stands heerein that we are not obliged vnto the perfect fulfilling of that Law vpon paine of aeternall Daemnation if we doe it not This gratious liberty Christ hath enfranchised vs withall whosoeuer beleiue in him and they that now teach we are justified by workes of the Law doe rob our Consciences of this heauenly Freedome bringing vs again vnder that miserable boÌ„dage vnto the Law wherein all men are holden which are in state of infidelity vnregeneration from whom the Law in extremest rigour exacts perfect ObedieÌ„ce if they will be sauâ—d For the cleering heereof this in the first place is manifest That he which will be justified by the workes of the Law is necessarily tied to fulfill the whole Law seeing ti 's impossible the Law should justifie them that transgresse it In the next place then we must proue that for a mans Conscience to be thus tyed to the fulfilling of the Law for the obtayning of Iustification is an vnsupportable yoake of spirituall Bondage contrary to that liberty wherewith Christ hath made euery beleeuer free This shall appeare in confirming of this Proportion A Man regenerate endued with true faith in Christ Iesus is not bound in Conscience vnto the fulfilling of the whole Law for his Iustification This Proposition seemes very strange vnto our adversaries and to be nothing else but a ground-plot wherein to build all licenciousnes and Libertinisme as if we did discharge men of all Alleageance to God subjection to his Lawes But their Calumnies are not sufficient confutations of orthodox Doctrine for the stopping of their mouthes we throw them this distinction whereon they may gnaw while they breake their teeth before they bite it in pieces Mans conscience stands bound vnto the Law of God in a two fold obligation Either 1. Of Obedience that according to the measure of Grace receiued he endevour to the vtmost of his power to liue conformably to the Law of God in all things 2. Of fulfilling the Law that in euery jot and tittle he obserue all things whatsoeuer it commands vpon paine of everlasting condemnation for the least transgression We teach that no true Beleeuer is freed from the Obligation vnto Obedience but so farre as by grace giuen him he is enabled he ought to striue to the vtmost to performe all duties towards God man commanded in the Law if he will justifie his faith to be sound without Hypocrisy And ergò our Doctrine is no doctrine of Licentiousnes But on the other side we teach That euery true beleeuer is freed from that obligation vnto the fulfilling of the Law for the attaining of life justification by it Which materiall difference for the cleering of our doctrine not obserued or rather suppressed by Bellarmine causeth the Iesuite to labour much in a needlesse dispute to proue against vs That a Christian man is tyed to the obseruation of the morall Law He tells vs that Christ is a Law-giuer aswell as a Redeemer of his Church praescribing orders for all in common for each one in particular That he is a Iudge that sentenceth according to Law That he is a King that ruleth ouer subjects vnto a Law That Christ by his comming did not destroy but fulfill the Law expounded it enioyned it to be observed by vs. That his Apostles vrge it in euery Epistle That a Christian man sinniug offends against the Law ergò is bound to keepe the Law In all which the Iesuite encounters his owne phantasy not our doctrine which is not wounded by such misguided weapons For we grant without striuing that every Christian is tyed to obserue the Morall Law and we averre that it is a most vnchristian Iesuiticall slaunder to affirme as he doth that we teach Christianum nulli Legi obnoxium subjectum esse in Conscientia coram Deo Nay we teach that he is bound to obey to the vtmost of his power and from this obligation no authority of Man or Angell Pope or Deuill can discharge him So much we grant the Arguments alleaged by the Cardinall doe enforce and nothing else They proue Obedience necessary to a beleeuing Christian but they can neuer proue perfect fulfilling of the Law to be necessarily required of him From this heauy burthen Christ hath eased the shoulders of all such as are in him by a liuely Faith of whom God doth no longer exact perfect Obedience to his Law in those strict and rigorous termes that they shall be accursed if they fulfill it not This we proue by these Scriptures 1. Gal 1. 2. 3. Stand fast saith the Apostle in the Liberty wherein Christ hath made vs free and be not entangled againe with the yoake of bondage But what is this Yoake of Bondage Is it onely the obseruation of the Ceremoniall Law No. That was indeed part of the yoake which the Apostles sought to lay on the Consciences of the Galatians But 't was the least and the lightest part the weightiest burthen was the fulfilling of the Morall Law wherevnto by the doctrine of the false Apostles the Galatians stood obliged This is plaine by the Text in the words following Behold I Paul say vnto you that if you be circuÌ„cised Christ shall profit you nothing For I testifie againe to euery man which is circumcised that he is bound to keepe the whole Law The Apostles
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