all must say Enter not into judgement with thy servant for in thy sight no flesh living â—â—n be justified Psalm 143. 2. And the Church must confess that all her righteousness is ragged and as a menstruous cloath Reply In your thirteenth Section you denying Papists Reply that we are justified by faith and works do both contradict scripture and your self It in the Epistle of St. James chap. 2. verse 20. 24. You see then how by works a man is justified and not by faith only No wonder after this ye contradict your self when you grant that faith is justifying or made justified by works For what is it to say that works justify faith But that faith without works is not justifying And so that faith justifyeth not all or no other way then as it is decompanied with good workes as two conjunct causes For as the Philosopher saith causa causae est causa causati But what needeth any reasoning if this place be not clear to a Minister what it clear to ignorants in all the scripture Wherefore ye had done better to reject the Epistle of James with Luther then to acknowledge it for scripture to deny that we are justified by faith and works the two parts of Christian dutie being belief and life Yet to shew that the place of St. James is not to be taken according to the letter you cite three passagâ—â— excluding workes of the written law from justifying but not excluding workes of grace and the Gospel The first whereof expoundeth the rest and St. Augustin them all de fide operib cap. 14. saying St. Paul speaketh of the workes of Abraham in so much as they proceed from the law excluding the spirit and grace of Christ Then you say neither can any good work be wrought by us till we are justified for how can an evil tree bring forth good fruit To which Question I answer with our Saviour in the Gospel asking how a good tree can bring forth evil fruit as David committing adulterie For if you understood the one you may easilie understand the other Which if you do not go to the school and learn the distinction betwixt simpliciter and secundum quid betwixt good and evil simplie and in part For as there be few so good but they do some evil so there be few so bad but they do some good being assisted by GODS actual grace albeit they want sanctifying grace Yea very good actions may be done with some little imperfection which maketh the Prophet compare our righteousness to a menstruous cloath Duply You are like to your self all along in this reflection for I cannot call it a return Prote ∣ stants Duply seeing you have a flourish of fectless words for catching women and children but do not touch the arguments proposed for justification by faith without the workes of the law My first argument was this That the Apostle Paul saith we are justified by faith without the workes of law therefore not by them You say he meaneth not of workes of grace What then Of sinful workes before Coversion And is it indeed like that sinful workes can be called by the Apostle workeâ— of the law seeing these are transgressions of the law Or that the justitiaries amongst the Romans in the dayes of the Apostle were so gross as to assert that sinful workes justifie a man which condemn him Secondly you say that justification by faith contradicteth scripture James 2. 24. which place I explained and reconciled with the 4. of the Romanes and all you say to that is that I contradict my self I said workes justifie faith for my faith is known by my works to my self and others But that will nor say that workes and faith justifie the man So I clash not with my self here And for your Maxime causa causae est causa causati If I understand this you contradict your self in the application of it for faith being the cause of workes and justifying the man workes are the effect of justificatâ—on not the cause of it Hence the Apostle James saith shew me thy faith by thy workes O man For it cannot be showen without workes v. 18. Albeit we say that faith alone justifieth yet that Fides sola in approhendendo non est solitaria My next argument was that a man must be justified before he can work well therefore workes are not the cause of justification I hope you will not say that the effect is antecedent to its cause if you have read Ramus Logick And that a man must be justified before he can work well I prove thus He must be sanctified Ergo c. a corrupt tret cannot bring forth good fruit Matth. 7. 18. Ere you have not something to say to this you close with Pelagius for a defence and speak non-sense For you say that you answer with our Saviour by a distinction of that which is simply such and secundum quid In what part of the Gospel is this Logick to be found For it is clear from the verse above cited that our Saviour denyeth simply the thing so he granteth it not secundum quid Some good acts you say may be done by evil men being assisted by actual grace I would know if actual grace can be in exercise where habitual grace is not at all then if men habitually evil in an unconverted state can do any thing well That something materially good may be done by them as well as sin may be committed by the regenerated I doubt not but that they can do ought upon a good principle for a good end by a good morive I deny it simply Now if they be not such they cannot justifie a mâ—n For nullum agens potest agere extra Spharâ—m suae activitatis Till he be sanctified he cannot be be such till he be justified he cannot be sanctified Workes justifie no more the man then the fruit maketh the tree good My third Reason you leave untouched which was this that the present time requireth all our work Ergo it cannot justifie us for bygones or the future What is now debituns cannot pay my bygone debt nor free me for the time to come And you grant all I have said in the fourth that our best workes are unperfect and so cannot hold water before the Tribunal of GOD. I am glade to hear you grant so much for then where will workes of supererogation and merit appear For further clearing of our Doctrine of Justification take notice the Papists and we thus differ First They say there is a two fold justification one whereby a mâ—n unjust is made just for attaining this there must be previous dispositions by the acts of faith fear hope love whch fit the man for his justification some of them terme this Meritum congrui others say tâ—at this is the free gift of GOD not deserved by workes The second Justification is that whereby â— man being just is made more just this they say is merited by their workes and proceedeth
à DEO arbitrio simul both from free will and GOD. So Molina Here they confound justification and sanctification And by this way we are not compleetly justified till we die ere the work of sanctification be perfected fully we must be Saints in light Secondly That free gift of grace is parted betwixt GOD and free-will if this Doctrine hold For Bellarmin saith we co-operat with GOD in justification it self and the beginning of faith So by it that emphatick place Rom. 8. 34. cannot be interpreted aright it is GOD who justifieth If man had no part nor hand in the Creation how can he have it in the first Conversion seeing that is a new Creation Thirdly They make the formal cause of justification inherent righteousness which is ragged by their own confession as appeareth from this reflecter Then it is no fit covering for our nakedness for it self needeth a covering Can it satisfie divine justice being so imperfect Augustin telleth the contrar on Psalm 42. Whosoever liveth here albeit he live righteously if that righteousness be strictly judged wo to hâ—m Fourthly It is not safe nor comfortable for ourselves That same Father telleth us again de bono perseverantiae cap. 6. â—e live more safely when we attribute all to God wholly then when we commit our selves partly to GOD partly to our selves Now this inherent righteousness as put on in the second justification is the birâ—h of merits and free-will say all Papists then positively and mostly thy own The merits of Christ are a far off cause causa formalis immediata is thy own righteousness the consideration of this made Bellarmin confess de justif lib. 5. cap. 7. tutissimum est in sola DEI misericordia conquiescere It is safest to repose on the mercy of GOD not on thy own righteousness A dying Christian seriouâ— about salvation will indeed find it safest and surest We again mantain that a converted man is under previous law work of conviction contrition humiliation and the fallow ground of the heart is thus prepared and broken up by the plowing of the Word but a man may come this length and go no further the dispositions have not alwayes a necessar connexion with that new birth Nor is the seed of faith still sown in such as are under the spirit of bondage He who â—asteth of these powers may fall away There be a relative difference between these acts in the Elect and others Secondly When faith the free gift of GOD Phil. 1. 29. is sown into the heaâ—t and planted there as it is native to the child to seek the breasts so it leaueth and leadeth the man in its first motion to the righteousness of Jesus a Mediator who is The Lord our righteousness Jer. 23. 6. and he maketh mention of his righteousness even of his only The Lord hath so appointed it he is made of GOD to us righteousness 1. Cor. 130. faith apprehendeth that as the ship-broken man doth a plank whereby he commeth to land by that we are justified before GOD. Inherent graces cannot satisfie the justice of GOD nor make perfect obedience to the law nor pay the penalty which it requireth But Mediatory righteousness can do all this So the causes of justification are these the final cause is the glory of GOD and mans salvation The efficient the favour mercy and good will of GOD. The meritorious the obedience of Jesus Christ The formal the imputed righteousness of that blessed Mediator The instrumental cause or condition as some word it is faith Rom. 3. 24. 25. so we are justified by faith alone as Abraham was before GOD and this giveth glory to GOD Rom. 4. dethroneth the boasting of men and is the sure safe scripture way Now when we say that faith alone justifieth by laying hold on his righteousnes and applying it we still hold that faith which justifieth to be pregnant with good workes such as love heart-cleansing new obedience patience zeal and other fruits of the spirit This adversaries deny not to us Bellarmin doth us this much right for he acknowledgeth that we hold good workes to be necessar to the justified Non necessitate efficientiae sed prasentiae So they justifie our faith to ourselves and others but faith justifieth the man and workes have no place in that act We do not deny that good workes have room and are necessarie for working out of our salvation they are via regâ—â— but in the point of Justification they are excluded Our justification is the Lords act of gracious absolution tendred to us through Christ When we receive the sentence faith the hand of the soul layeth only hold of it And it is not said in Scripture love in his blood or patience or real in it but faith in his blood by which we are justified cloathed and covered Remission and righteousness commeth in this way This animateth all our graces and we hold justification and salvation of free grace Ephes 2. 8. 9. Fourteenthly You set up free will in faln man almost as it was under the Covenant of § 14. Iust workes in the state of innocencie and do attribute Election partly to that Idol More that without Christ we may merit congruously and naturally dispose our souls for grace But the Scripture saith Rom. 11. 6. Election is meerly of grace and if by grace then it is no more of workes otherwise grace were no more grace but if it be of workes then it is no more grace otherwise workes were no more workes Nay We cannot of our selves as of our selves think a good thought 2. Cor. 3. 5. and without Christ we can do nothing Iohn 15. 5. being by nature children of wrath dead in sins and trespasses Ye say we set up free will in faln man as it was in the state of Innocencie wheâ—eas we Papist Reply put great distinction betwixt free will in these two states as you may see in our School Divines yet Christ by his grace hath so set it up that with the same grace a man may choose to do good and refuse to do evil Both Scripture and Fathers are clear for this Scripture Deut. 30. 19. I have set before you life and death blessing and cursing therefore choose life that both thou and thy seed may live And 1. Cor. 7. 37. He who hath determined in his heart not having necessitie but having power of his own will to keep his Virgin Is not here free will asserted necessitie clearly excluded How then can you call it an Idol or if a man have not free will wherefore sorveth preaching and exhortation to perswade a man to that which is not in his power Protestants say there is no good action in the power of a man Why then do they perswade Roman-Cathâ—licks to turn Protestant seeing Conversion being a most holy and good work is nor in our power or free-will Or how could it stand with GODS wisdom to command men what they could not do Or with his justice to condemn
unlearned as well as the unstable wrest the scripture to their own destruction then Scripture can neither be the determiner of faith nor the judge of controversies to them and so they must have another both to instruct the ignorant and settle the unstable as we must all have some infallible judge to know who wrest the Scripture who not otherwise we may well agree in the letter but we will never agree in the sense and meaning thereof But as much say you as containeth the way to salvation is plain so that he may runne who readeth it Sir doth it not belong to salvation that there be three persons in God one in Christ that Baptism is a Sacrament c. Now where find you this in Scripture either running or siting Or if Scripture be so plaine clear as ye make it why be there so many Comments on it among your own men and so different Why is there amongst Protestants 200. expositions upon these four words This is my Body As Cusaâ—us in his holy court observeth Answer first I am glade that the written Pro. An. 1 word of GOD pleaseth you so who have all this time spent words to throw all power out of its hand and hang it at the Popes foot But you say it refuteth what was said formerly This cannot be made good for still I said it was the rule of faith to right discerners and sometime you grant this as in the latter part of your fifth Reason whereby indeed you refute all you have said and yeelds the cause fully Now what contradiction can be here The scripture is the rule to all right discerners and as many as walk according to this rule peace shal be on them but men who wrest the word unlearned unstable soules fall into perdiâ—ion for abuse of the word and destroy themselves hence proceedeth many controversies Is it not a strange consequence to inferre thence that these unlearned unstable soules should have another rule and another judge In the 19. of Luke v. 27. it is said by our Lord that his enemies who would not have him to reign over them should be brought forth and slain before him will it therefore follow that he should not reign over them Or that they Jure should have another King The case is just alike here It is granted that many have their consciences seared 1. Tim. 4. 2. are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Tim. 3. 8. self-condemned Tit. 3. 11. under stronge delusions 2. Thess 2. 11. Is the Scripture to blame for this You have many faults to that which you like not Hear Optatus Milevitanus adversus Paliner Donatistam Vos dicitis licet nos non licet inter licet vestrum non licet nostrum nutant animi populorum If you seek a judge saith he a Pagan cannot do it nor a Jew they are enemies Christians by their discerning faculty cannot they being impeded studio partium Then upon earth there can be no judge shal we go to Heaven for one Quorsum cum hic habemus iâ— Evangelio testamentum i. e. To what purpâ—se seeing we have the Testament here in the Gospel If there be a contention among brethren saith he quaritur Testamentum the Testament is sought So we must decide our controversies by the Old and New Testament etenim praesentia quae modo facitis futura conspexerat Christus i. e. For Christ did foresee these things as future which ye make to be now present and hath he foreseen it and will he not provide a remedie for it Secondly These unlearned unstable ones Pro. An. 2 who are to be destroyed will not hear understand nor obey his word then is it like that they will understand the voluminous decrees of the Pope May they not wrest his sentence and sense more easily then Scripture words Or dare any say that humane ordinanceâ— will sooner compesâ—e command or regulat them then the word of GOD Thirdly We do not deny Mâ—nisterial Pro. An 3 helps for instructing and seâ—ling the ignorant and unstable nor judicial sentences subaltern and subordinat â—o the law But that there is an infallible man 〈◊〉 to whose sentence I must implicitly submiâ—â—â— is â—â—â—culous to averie it and the broaching of that errour hath occasioned more controversies then were formerly in the Church so far is it from composing differences If ye were more in catechising the unlearned and leâ—s in regal commands the law of GOD would be both better understood and obeyed Fourthly Albeit some places be hard to Pro. An. 4 be understood by the unlearned 1. Pet. 3. 16. other places are not so difficult In the scripture an Elephant may swime and a Lamb may wade And the same particulars you again object are clearly holden forth in scripture as is formerly proved in the vindication of my answer to your 1. Qu. in answer to Rea. 2. Yea the way to salvation is fair and patent there and if we perish our destruction is of our selves seeing that book is not sealed to us Commentaries Church-canons Ecclesiastick sentences are helps and means for edification but scripture is the authentick instrument and all the authority is originally from it And different expositions according to the analogy of faith may be and will be so long as there be diversity of gifts But I ask why ye make use of Commentars Seeing ye resolve all into the sentence of the Pope And why do your Commentators differ so amongst themselves If this hinder not your Ecclesiastick supremacie why should it be brought to weaken scripture authority It is hard to find where you are for sometimes ye would have a judge to authorize scripture to you sometimes you would have only one for the sense of scripture then at last you are for one only to the unlearned and unstable such is your instability in this matter that I wish the word of God may determine you aright in the point Question fourth Were it not better to establish Pa. Qu. 4 a man or an assembly of men judge of Controveâ—sies seeing the Church is the pillar of truth 1. Tim 3. 15. aâ—d hath the promise of presence Matth. 28. 20. then th◠〈◊〉 Sect should be laying claim to the Scripture and yet taking sundry wayes Answer The promulgation of the law is Pro. An. not denyed to the pure Gospel Church truth is mantained and preserved there as the law was keeped in the Ark thus it is called the pillar of it But the Church of Rome is not such being a very strumpet and making the Kings of the earth drunk with the cup of her fornications Rev. 17. 2. thaâ— promise of presence is made to the universal Church but no particular Church such as Rome can claim the measure or duration of it who of these can say that they shal last to the end of the world Albeit Sects lay claim to Scripture yet their abuse cannot take away our lawful use of it To this a Papist replyeth That the question Pap. Reply is not
pretended right so in the matter of doctrine an invisible Church and no Church is the same For if I cannot see nor know the Elect as being invisible to the eye of man so I cannot know that the Church composed of them speaketh to me or that this Doctrine I hear of any man is infallible more then that he is one of the Elect. Answer I am weary transseribing a number Protest Duply of wordâ— without weight that is a compleet rapsodie and no return to the former question If such digressions were heard in the School the Writter behoved to be sore censured The question was how the Scripture could be the square Seeing all agree not about the number of the books some cast at the Epistle of James as the Lutherans And the answer I gave was that although some Lutherans differre from us about the authority of that epistle yet we both agree here that uncontroverted scripture is the determiner And for the numerick question it was sufficiently answered in the second answer to the first querie so we needed not this tauâ—oligie to make the Reader nauseat If I had to do with a Lutheran then I could prove the divine authority of that Epistle but you do not deny it therefore to what purpose should I insist on that subject against you Mr. Hooker whom you cite maketh nothing against us as is alledged for that which he sayes is first that the light of reason rightly managed is a requâ—sit mean for the knowledge of scripture books and what sayeth that against us seeing we suppose the Readers of Scripture to be â—ational men that reason in its own line may be helpful to them for understanding scripture Secondly Mr. Hooker directly disclaimeth your traditions page 86. and affirmeth that they who betake themselves to that testimonie as divine have not the truth but are in an errour Thus he condemneth you as erronious so it had been your advantage to have spared this tradition neither was it needful to tell us that the Manichees denyed Moses and the Jews the New Testament We have to do with Papists who hold all the books of the Old and New Testament which we hold for Canonick At lest what some others make disputable as Melchior Canus telleth us you put it out of dispute so you are not in bona fide to reason about their number with us seeing ye question none which we mantaine albeit we justly call in question Apocryphal writtings which ye put into the Canon Is it not safer to regulate our faith by these uncontroverted Scriptures then by the dictats of mutable self-contradicting Popes When Church Rulers have been fully corrupted Believers have continued orthodoxe as in the time of the Arrian persecution The Fathers who lived the first 300. year believed without either Pope or General Council as propounders of their faith For then there was no such pretending to infallible supremacy They had no infallible testimony from the Church they acknowledged not her testimony to be such And for ought I can learn theâ—e be no testimony of your Church nor statute enacting her testimony to be infallible If so it is nor according to you de fide however ye make a great noise amongst people with it And if all the faith you have depend upon the testimony of the present Church which is your doctrine your faith is not one with Abrahams faith for the word of God did beget his faith but it is the testimony statute of the Trent Council that begettâ—th yours and I would gladly hear from you whither there was universal consent there or not Such clashing and pocket orders as the author of that history telleth to the world will not permit you to say without a blush that the Council was unanimous and Gospel-like in their way Therefore unless it be against us all their otheracts are made up of ambiguous stuffe like the Delphian responses this is purposely coÌ„trived to cover debates with general termes And if their testimony make the word of GOD Scripture to me living under Popery what rule had they for their faith who made these conclusions Their own testimony could not be the cause of their own belief if you say that the testimonie of the ancient Church was their rule then ye go contrar to your own Doctors who declare that the present Church of Rome is above all former councils and their authority dependeth on her testimony See Bell. lib. de Eccl. cap. 10. Valentia Tom. 3. disp 1. quest 1. Further that the supream power of judging is not in the Council but in the Pope that he is above a general Council that he cannot be subject to it See Bell. lib. 2. de Concil cap. 17. Valentia tom 3. disp 1. Suarez disp 5. de fide and your own Vives in his comment on Augustins 20. book de civit Dei cap. 26. telleth us how little ye make of Councils or of the ancient Church when they militat against you Illa demum videntur iis Concilia quo in rem suam faeiunt reliqua non pluris estimantur quam commenta mulierum in textrina aut thermis i. e. These appear to be Councils to them which make for them the rest are no more esteemed by them then the sables of old women in the weavers shop or sloves Brisâ—â—erius writting against Collag a Jansenist as he is cited by learned Dalleus †See Dâ—lleus de usu Patrum saith Councils are literae mortuae nisi animentur à praesenti Ecclesia i. e. They are dead letters if they be not animated by the present Church This appeareth to be true from experience for ye agree not with the primitive either in doctrine worship or government The ancients thought that Images should not be in the Church See Epiph. epist ad Iohannem Hierosolymitanum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum vidissem Imaginem penderâ— in Ecclesia contra authoritatem Scripturae i. e. When I saw an Image hang in the Church contrar to the authority of Scripture how grieved was I. But the Council of Trent appointed them to be had in houses and Churches and that debitus honor reverentia Sess 25. eis impertiatur i. e. Due honor and worship be given to them The Fathers thought that the Virgin Marie was conceived in sin so saith Ambrose Augustin Chrysostom as Melchior Canus de loc Theol. lib. 7. telleth The Council of Trent Sess 5. will not conclude heâ— under Original sin The Fathers excluded Tobias Judith Wisdom Ecclesiasticus and both the books of the Maccabees out of the canon of Scripture So did Hierom in his prologue ad libros Solomonis Epiph. lib. de Pond mens cap. 2. pag. 162. Gregorie Nazianzen câ—rm 3. Athanasius epist fest But the Council of Trent anathematizeth them who exclude these books out of the Canon Sess 4 Baptism was delayed till Pasch and Pentecost in the primitive Church it is not so with you The 4. Council of Carthage did forbide women