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
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
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 〈◊〉
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 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
judge St. Iames in the example of Rahab speakes of the first Iustification because as he saieth she was then at the first made a beleeuer of an infidell a righteous woman of an harlot And againe Paul he speakes of the 2. Iustification in the example of Abraham which is alleaged by both the Apostles Heere 's then a confusion insteed of a distiction Paul speakes of the first Iames speakes of the 2. and yet both do speake of both Iustifications Againe when they say Iames speakes of the second Iustification whereby of just a man becomes more just ti 's a groundlesse imagination for asmuch as it was to no purpose for the Apostle Iames to treat of the second Iustification whereby men grow better when those Hypocrites with whom he had to doe had erred from their first iustification whereby they were not as yet made good as the learned Iackson obserues Nay there is not in all St. Iames his dispute any sâ—llable that may giue any just suspicion that by Iustification he meanes the increase of inhaerent Iustice. Bellarmine catcheth at the clause v. 22. By workes Faith was made perfect which is in the Iesuites construction Abraham's inhaerent justice begun by faith receiued increase and perfection by his workes But this is onlie the Iesuites phrensie Abraham his faith and his Righteousnes whereof his Faith is but a part was not made but declared to be perfect by so perfect a worke which it brought forth as euen Lorinus another of that sect expounds it orthodoxly 3 Thirdly that distinction of workes done before Faith without grace and after Faith by grace is to as litle purpose as the former in this matter of our Iustification Heretofore we haue touched vpon that distinction and shewed the vanitie thereof in limiting St. Paul to workes done without grace when simplie he concludes all workes from our Iustification And St. Iames though he require workes of grace to be ioyned with that Faith which must justifie vs yet he giues them not that place and office in our Iustification from which Paul doth exclude them and wherein our adversaries would establish them as it shall appeare anon Leauing then this sophisticall reconcilement coined by our aduersaries I come to those reconciliations which are made by our diuines wherein we shall haue better satisfaction vpon better grounds Two waies there are whereby this seeming difference is by our Men reconciled 1. The 1. by distinguishing the word â— Iustification which may be taken either 1 For the absolution of a Sinner in Gods iudgement 2 For the declaration of a mans Righteousnes before men This distinction is certaine and hath its ground in Scripture which vseth the word Iustifie in both acceptions for the quitting of vs in Gods sight and for the manifestation of our innocency before man against accusation or suspicion of faultines They applie this distinction for the reconciling of the two Apostles Thus. St. Paul speakes of Iustification in foro Dei S. Iames speakes of Iustification in foro hominis A man is justified by faith without workes saieth S. Paul that is in God's sight a man obtaines remission of Sinnes and is reputed just only for his Faith in Christ not for his workes sake A man is justified by workes and not by Faith onely saieth S. Iames that is in mans sight we are declared to be just by our good workes not by our Faith onely which with other inward and invisible Graces are made visible vnto man onely in the good workes which they see vs performe That this application is not vnfit for to reconcile this difference may be shewed by the parts 1. For S. Paul ti 's agreed on all sides that he speakes of mans iustification in God's sight Rom. 3. v. 20. 2. For S. Iames we are to shew that with just probability he may be vnderstood of the declaration of our Iustification and righteousnes before men For proofe whereof the Text affords vs these reasons 1. Verse 18. Shew me thy Faith without thy Workes and I will shew thee my Faith by my workes Where the true Christian speaking to the Hypocriticall boaster of his Faith requires of him a declaration of his faith and Iustification thereby by a reall proofe not a verball profession promising for his part to manifest and approue the trueth of his owne Faith by his good workes Whence it appeares that before man none can justifie the soundnes of his Faith but by his workes thene proceeding 2. V. 21. Abraham is saied to be justified when he offered vp his sonne Isaak vpon the Altar Now ti 's manifest that Abraham was justified in Gods sight long before euen 25. yeares Gen. 15. 6. Therefore by that admirable worke of his in offering his Sonne he was declared before all the world to be a just man and a true Beleeuer And for this purpose did God tempt Abraham in that triall of his Faith that thereby all beleeuers might behold a rare patterne of a liuely and justifying Faith and that Abraham was not without good cause called the Father of the Faithfull 3. V. 22. It is saied that Abrahams faith wrought with his worke and by workes was his faith made perfect Which in the iudgement of popish Expositors themselues is to be vnderstood of the manifestation of Abrahams faith by his workes His Faith directed his workes his workes manifested the power and perfection of his Faith It is not then without good probability of Reason that Caluin and other Expositors on our side haue giuen this solution vnto this doubt Bellarmine labours against it and would faine proue that justification cannot be taken heere pro declaratione Iustitiae But his Argument cannot much trouble any intelligent reader and therefore I spare to trouble you with his sophistry This now is the first way of reconciling the places Howbeit the trueth is that although this may be defended against any thing that our aduersaries objected to the contrary yet many and those very learned divines chose rather to tread in another path and more neerely to presse the Apostles steps whom also in this point â— willingly follow 2 The second way then of reconciling these places is by distinguishing of the word Faith which is taken in a doubled sense 1. First for that Faith which is true and liuing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Faith which worketh through loue and is fruitfull in all manner of Obedience 2. Secondly for that Faith which is false and dead being onely a bare acknowledgment of the trueth of all Articles of Religion accompanied with an outward Formality of Profession but yet destitute of sincere Obedience This distinction of this word Faith is certaine by the Scriptures as hath heretofore bin shewed in handling of that Grace Our Men now apply it thus S. Paul when he affirmes that we are justified by Faith onely speakes of that Faith which is true and liuing working by Charity S. Iames when he denies a Man is justified by
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
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