birth-right then the bestowing of the Inheritance goes before all deeds Afterwards Pious deeds follow according to the saying of Augustine which is no less true than firm Good works follow him that is justified but go not before him that is to be justified Wherefore if that most pure and eternal Nature account us for Sons as it was proved above in which there sticks not any stain of unrighteousness upon the like account it follows that the cause which joyns us to God as Sons the same also makes us just in the sight of God But that we may rightly examine what that cause is first the degrees of causes must be distinguished of which some are related unto God and others to men On Gods part in the first place comes his infinite Mercy Predestination Election the Grace of the Promise and Vocation of which Paul speaks in more places than one Who hath Predestinated us saith he unto the adoption of Sons by Iesus Christ whom he hath Predestinated that they should be conformed to the Image of his Son them he hath also called whom he hath called them he hath also justified c. In the next order follows the Donation of his Dear Son his Obedience Death Sufferings Merits Redemption Resurrection Forgiveness of Sin As for those things which proceed from God there is no great controversie between us But our Opinions differ concerning those things which are called causes on Man's part to wit whether there is one cause only or more Whether Faith only without Works or Works joined together with Faith And this is the thing about which now we contend O Osorius for in these Books you do dispure about the righteousness of works at such a rate that you suppose Faith only without these additions so Insufficient to perform any thing towards the purchasing Salvation that it is your Opinion That this Faith of Christ only if it be separated from the help of Works deserves not to be called the Faith of Chrit but a head-strong rashness an insolent confidence an impudent boldness an outragious madness an execrable Wickedness Which sort of Words how little modesty they savour of it is needless here to inquire But how far they differ from truth and the inviolable authority of Sacred Scriptures it will be requisite to take notice because at present this is the matter of debate between us And first if you understand it concerning this common Fellowship of Men with one another and Offices of mutual obedience between Man and Man there is no man so unreasonable as to separate Faith from the operation of Charity in that sense For thus Faith Hope and Charity have a necessary connexion But if the 〈◊〉 is applied beyound the publick society of Human Life to those things that peculiarly belong to Salvation and have a relation to God himself That if now the cause should be erquired for which gives us a right to the adoption of the Sons of God and which purchases us righteousness before him Herein Paul in Disputing against you doth so far take away all righteousness from works and leaves Faith alone that he judges him that mingleth any thing besides for the obtaining Salvation to be a destroyer of Faith an Enemy of Grace and consequently an Enemy of the Cross of Christ. For if those saith he that are of the Law are heirs Faith is made void the promise is made of none effect And also elsewhere If righteousness comes by the Law then Christ dyed in vain Thus you hear Paul manifestly asserting what it is that makes us heirs of the Inheritance and Salvation not the Law but Faith And that these two are so contrary in the Office of Iustifying that if the Law be admitted Faith is wholly overturned the Death of Christ is made void the grace of the promise fails Now let us compare Osorius disputing of righteousness with Paul He affirms that Man is justified by Faith without Works Your opinion on the contrary pleads that righteousness doth so much consist of Works without Faith that Faith doth nothing else but prepare for Holy Works He asserting a twofold righteousness of Works and of Faith of Grace and of Merit so distinguishes between both that he sets the one against the other by a mutual opposition as if they were things that could by no means consist together but the one destroys the other And he makes that evident by the example of the Israelites and the Gentiles of whom those grasping at righteousness by Works fell from true righteousness These because they sought after righteousness by Faith solely and simply obtained it You on the contrary being neither deterred by their fearsul example nor regarding the Apostolical Instruction and making no distinction between these so different kinds of righteousness you seem to comprehend all in that one righteousness of the Law as if the righteousness of Faith were none at all The Words of Paul are very manisest To him that worketh the reward is reckoned to be not of grace but of debt But to him that worketh not but believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly his Faith is imputed unto him for righteousness What can any Man say more expresly Afterwards he adds freely denying that it could be imputed freely if it were due for Works On the contrary Osorius seems to be of such an opinion that he acknowledges no imputation of righteousness at all He who afferts we are justified by the Faith of Christ and not by Works What doth he else but remove Works utterly from the justification of Faith Your assertion which makes the Faith of Christ if works are shut out to be no Faith but 〈◊〉 and execrable Wickedness What else doth it in these words but bring a Gospel not from Heaven but from Portugal wholly differing from that which we have received from Paul Which seeing we are commanded by the Apostle not to suffer so much as in an Angel without wishing him accursed what may be answered to you in this case I commit to your self to consider Paul reasons thus If of Grace then not of Works otherways Grace is not Grace If of Merit then not Freely For in that which is free there can be no merit or debt The Arguments of Osorius whereby he attributes Righteousness to Works are answered NOW it must be enquired by what arguments Osorius pleads for his opinion And first he brings that out of the Psalms The Lord saith he is Righteous and loveth Righteousness his countenance beholds the upright And again The Wicked saith David shall not dwell with thee the Unrighteous shall not remain before thy eyes and thou hatest all those that work Iniquity thou shalt destroy all them that speak leasing c. And now what is gathered from these testimonies To wit That the Wicked have no society with the goodness of God For seeing God is himself the very Law of Equity and Rule of Righteousness according to which
words seems to be this That Salvation is prepared for all without grief without the lessening of Riches by communicating to the Poor without the detestation of a fault committed And after the interval of a few words But if you think that a Wicked Man though be flyes not at all from his wickedness obtains righteousness by Faith only who hath been more absurd who hath been more out of his wits than thou since the Creation of Mankind That I on the other side Osorius may answer to these things but in a few words If that were true which you falsly say of Luther perhaps you might gainsome praise both of a Learned Orator and an Honest Accuser But now seeing he never so much as dreamed of these things neither can you bring forth one word from so many of his Sayings and Deeds to maintain your unjust accusation I say not in your words Who hath been more absurd who hath been more out of his wits than you since the Creation of Man But if I may be allowed to say this speaking very modestly that you are too much forgetful not only of your duty but also of the argument in which you are exercised and whilst you are writing of Righteousness you do so far against all Righteousness most basely bespatter and shamefully lash a Godly Man a Servant of Christ that never deserved ill at your hands with feigned Lyes and Reproaches and all kind of abuses either through ignorance finding fault with the things you have not read or wresting those things to a wrong Sense which you are not willing to understand in a right Sense What if the Eternal possession of Salvation must not be hoped for from any thing else but works of Righteousness as chiefly you Osorius do teach that I may comprehend also Hosius and your familiar Friend Andradius in the same Category What hope can you have of your own Salvation from these works of yours to wit your most false Accusations and reproachful Libels in which against Law and Right breaking the bonds of all Righteousness you vomit forth those lying slanders against your Neighbour and that in the publick Theatre of the World for no valuable cause nor for any true reason nor upon any other account but because perhaps you are stirred up with your own immoderate passion Luther indeed did write of Faith I know and confess it but what then What fault I pray you did he commit in so doing What hath he deserved Why might not he as well write of Faith as you of Righteousness but perhaps that displeases you not that he did write of Faith but because attributing too much thereunto he refers the whole of our Righteousness to this Faith Be it so and you on the contrary refer all to the works of the Law which of you two is worthiest to be accused Which comes nearest to Evangelical Doctrine You who refer all to and comprehend all in the observance and study of the Law or he that refers unto and comprehends all in the Faith of Christ Let Paul be called for a Witness and Umpire between you who though he himself was very careful in observing the Law of God in his Epistle to the Philippians proposing a twofold manner of Righteousness the one of the Law and the other of Faith he judges the latter to be so much better and prefers it so far before the other that he esteemed all those other things of his own though otherwise excellent and praise-worthy things being placed in the study of the Law of God yet he esteemed them all as loss yea as dung for the excellency of the knowledge of Iesus Christ that he might be found in him having on the Righteousness not which is of the Law but which is of the Faith of Christ which is the Righteousness of God by Faith c. What then shall you bring us away from this faith which is placed in Christ and call us back to that dung contrary to the will of Christ and the Doctrine of Paul that by your teaching and guideance we may be found to possess a righteousness not that which is placed in Faith but that which is only placed in the Law And are you upon this account so outragiously invective against Luther because he chose rather to follow Pauls opinion than yours in this point of Salvation No but there is some other thing in the wind which puts you in such a heat of contending not because Luther attributes Righteousness to faith to which you your self use sometimes to attribute very much but because he so shuts up our Salvation in this faith alone that he seems wholly to exclude and despise the excellent works of Charity and labours after Piety in the point of Iustification and Righteousness before God In Academical exercises where arguments are examined according to the Rules of Logick those conclusions are justly found fault with that proceed from a thing said in particular to prove a thing said in the general which thing there is no man that is in any degree exercised in these matters but he may easily perceive in your Sophistry But if Luther had ever been a Man that had simply condemned the commendable diligence in good works or honest actions of vertues I should not save him from your lashes or from being accounted worthy of such Ornaments as your modesty puts upon him that he might be judged the plague of his Countrey a turbulent Person and disturber of Religion Add hereunto if you please the other flowers of your Satyrical Eloquence under which you expose him in such an appearance or disguise as one of the most cruel and dreadful Monsters that ever was in the World An Answer to the Accusations of Osorius in defence of Luther BUT now passing by your Reproaches let us consider the matter it self and the strength and finews of your Discourse For this is your Opinion that for the obtaining of righteousness the godly fruits of good works should by no means be removed from a Communion with faith which otherwise cannot be lively and saving being without charity And because Luther does this you conclude after this manner that he condemns all works of good men that he is an enemy and destroyer of all honest Discipline an Author of prophane impurity and licentiousness a plague of his Countrey a troubler and disturber of all Religion yea and a Monster and what not But I beseech you Sir bethink your self and have a care what you belch forth against any man with an unbridled rashness the Law commands you to shun leasing And do you who are so great an extoller of righteousness against all righteousness tear honest and innocent men in pieces with false accusations for if a Man doth not attribute unto works the chiefect efficacy and preemince in the point of Iustification is that sufficient cause to suppose that therefore he utterly condemns good works Verily it is
unreasonable so to do as if a man disputing concerning Osorius should thus conclude that because he hath no power of governing in the Kings Chamber therefore he hath nothing he can do at home amongst his own family Or because he is not at all excellent in military vertue to gain a victory that therefore he hath no faculty or dexterity in managing the affairs of his own business Luther separates charity from faith and the Law from the Gospel and does it not without cause But it must be considered where in what place and for what cause he does it Not to cause the godly works of good men to be despised nor to discourage the exercise thereof but that the power of justifying should not be attributed to the performance of them Not that faith should not work by love before Men but that it should not work before God For it is one thing to work before Men and another thing to work before God Therefore one and the same faith acteth both ways but one way before God and another way before men for before men it works by love that it may perform obedience to the will of God and be serviceable for the benefit of our Neighbour but before God it works not by any love but by Christ only that it may obtain the pardon of sins and eternal life By which you see what is the difference between faith and vertue and wherein they both agree and how different the working of both is How faith is alone without works and again how the same is not alone for in the mean while Godly works are not therefore condemned because they are not admitted to the justification of life but the trusting in works is only overturned Here then a wise and suitable division should be used that things may be distinguished each by their own places and bounds lest one thing should rashly rush into the possession of another and disturb the order of its station Therefore let the praise-worthy merits of the greatest vertues have their own honour and dignity which no man withholds from them Nevertheless by their dignity they will never be so available in the presence of the Heavenly Iudge as to redeem us from our sins to satisfie Iustice to deliver us from the wrath of God and everlasting destruction to restore us that are so many ways ruinated unto grace and life to unite us as Sons and Heirs to God and to overcome Death and the World These things cost a far dearer price than that we should ever be able to pay so many and so great debts by any works or merits or means of our own For so great is the severity of Iustice that there can be no reconciliation unless Iustice be satisfied by suffering the whole punishment that was due The wrath is so very great that there is no hope of appeasing the Father but by the price and death of the Son And again so great is the mercy that the Father grudged not to send his own Son and bestow him on the World and so to bestow him that he gives Life Eternal to them that believe in him Moreover so great is the loving kindness of the Son towards us that he grudged not for our sakes to bring upon himself this infinite load of wrath which otherways our frailty however assisted with all the help of moral vertues had never been able to sustain Whence Faith hath received its efficacy BEcause Faith alone with fixed eyes looks upon this Son and Mediator and cleaves unto him who only could bring about this Atchievement of our Redemption with the Father therefore it is that it alone hath this vertue and power of justifying not with works nor for works but only for the sake of the Mediator on whom it relies Therefore that is false and worthy to be rejected with disdain which some unhappy and wicked School-Divines affirm in discoursing of Charity to wit that it is the form of Faith and that it must not by any means be separated from faith no more than the vital Soul can be separated from the body or the essential form from matter which otherwise is a rude and unweildy Mass. In answering of whom I think there is no need of many words seeing the whole meaning and drift of Scripture if rightly understood the very end of the Law seeing Christ and the instruction of the Apostles and the whole nature of the Gospel seem to be manifestly against them and wholly to overturn that most absur'd Opinion by so many Oracles so many Signs Examples and Arguments to the contrary Now if that be form which gives subsistence to a thing how much more truly must it be said that faith is the form of charity without which all the works of charity are base and contemptible as again the form of faith is not charity but Christ only and the promise of the word But what say they are not the pious works of Charity acceptable to God being so many ways prescribed unto us and commanded by him Are not these also remunerated with plentiful fruits of Righteousness and heaped up with manifold Rewards in the Gospel I was hungry says he and ye fed me I thirsted and ye refreshed me with drink so that not so much as a cup of cold water shall want a reward when it is given in the name of Christ besides an infinite number of other things of that kind which being taken out of the Scriptures are enlarged upon to the praise of Charity Indeed no man denys that pious and holy works of Charity are greatly approved of God and it is an undoubted truth that the love of God and of our Neighbour as it comprehends the Summary of both Tables and is the greatest complement of the whole Law so it hath excellent promises annexed unto it Neither is there any Controversie between us about that But when we affirm that Charity pleases God we ask this how it pleases whether simply of it self in respect of the very work or upon the account of faith and the Mediatour and then whether the same Charity so pleases that it justifies us before God and obtains the pardon of sins and overcomes the terrours of death and sin that it may be opposed to the judgment and anger of God Moreover whether it hath the promises of Eternal Life annexed unto it If without a Mediatour and the faith of him there is nothing which can please God and it is impossible that works should please him before the person of him that worketh be reconciled it follows that Charity depends on Faith and not Faith on Charity But that it rather goes before Love and is so far from being joyned with it for justification that it also justifies Charity and makes all the works of Charity acceptable to God The matters appear more evident by Example Suppose a Iew or Turk does daily bestow great gifts upon the poor with very great cost
without any disadvantage to our Cause For suppose we grant that Faith is Dead which is not moved with a desire of doing good Works according to the saying of St. Iames yet it doth not therefore follow from hence that no Faith Iustifies without Works From which two things do follow worthy of consideration First That no Faith justifies that is not lively And next though it abounds in good Works and never is without them yet it only without Works Iustifies This will appear evident by the Example of St. Paul Who though he was not conscious to himself of any Wickedness yet he durst not affirm himself to be thereby Iustified I think nothing hinders but the whole Argument may be yielded unto if so be the terms are rightly placed The Adversaries gather out of the Apostle Iames that Faith is dead which is without Works and herein we do not much oppose them But what follows from hence Therefore as they say dead Faith without Works doth not justifie And I deny it not But what Conclusion flows from this manner of Arguing Therefore only Faith doth not justiste Why so If no Faith but that which is lively justifies and if it receives Life only from Works then this is the consequence that Faith justifies only upon the account of good Works I Answer First though we grant it is true that the Faith which justifies us in the sight of God is lively and always joyned with a Godly Life Yet that this Faith justifies and reconciles us no other ways but upon the account of good Works is most false For this is not a good consequence from the premises Because Faith is not alone in the Life of the Believer therefore Faith is not alone in the Office of justifying Or because the Faith that justifies is not a dead but a lively Faith therefore it doth not justifie alone without Works For herein is a fallacy of the Consequence But you may object Whence then is Faith said to be lively and not Dead but from Works Which if it be so of necessity it must draw all its Life and Vertue from Works Nay the matter is quite contrary For though in the sight of Men Faith is not discerned to be Lively and Vigorous but by Works yet Faith receives not Life from Works but rather Works from Faith As Fruits draw their Life and Sap from the Root of the Tree but not the Root from them Iust so external actions proceed from Faith as the Root which if they be good they evidence the Root to be sound and lively and this is all they do but they communicate no Life thereunto And this Life and Vertue of Faith is not one but Twofold And it acteth partly in Heaven and partly in Earth If you ask what it doth amongst Men upon Earth It does good to its Neighbour working by Love But before God in Heaven it justifies the Ungodly not by Love but by the Son of God whom it only lays hold of Therefore those Men seem not to have got a clear insight into the Vertue and Nature of the Grace of Faith that suppose the whole Life thereof to consist in Love as if Faith of it self could do nothing but as it receives Vertue and Efficacy from Charity Indeed both may seem to be true in the External Actions of Human Life in which Faith lyes like a dead thing unless it be enlivened by Charity to the exercise of good Works And hereunto belongs that saying of Paul whereby he so much commends Faith working by Love understanding such Works as Faith working by Love brings forth to the view of a Human Eye Yet with God Faith hath a far different operation for it only without any reliance upon Works or assistance of Charity but trusting to the naked promise of God and the dignity of the Mediatour climbs up to Heaven and gets access into the presence of God where it does great and wonderful things combating with the Iudgment to come fighting against the terrours of Death Satan and Hell pleads the cause of a Sinner obtains his pardon absolves and justifies him from the accusations of a guilty Conscience takes away all Iniquity reconciles God to the Sinner appeases his wrath subdues the power of Death and the Devil and procures Peace yea and Paradise it self with theThief that had led a wicked Life and yet at Death was justified by Faith in the Redeemer Who would desire more or greater things And now so many and great things being done by Faith let us enquire After what manner it does them Not as it lives and works by Love but as it lives only by Christ and relies on the promise for the Life of Faith which lives before God is not Charity but Christ not receiving Life from Charity but communicating life unto it and justifying Works that they may be acceptable to God which would otherways be abominable Unto the truth of this we have a sufficient Testimony given us by Paul When he says my Life is Christ and again the Life that I now live in the Flesh I live not by the Love but by the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me And elsewhere speaking of himself he says That he was not conscious to himself of any VVickedness and yet he denies that he is thereby Iustified as the same Apostle discoursing about the works of Abraham though they were never so Eminent for Holiness yet he saw nothing in them which that Great Patriarch might make a matter of Glorying before God Hereunto may be added the Arguments of others that have been strangely wrested out of Scriptures There are six Reasons principally which they pretend the Evangelists furnish them with against the Righteousness of Faith First they draw an Argument from these words of Christ Come ye blessed of my Father to the Kingdom prepared for you For I was an hungred and ye gave me Meat Argument Da. That which is the cause of blessedness is also the cause of Iustification Whom he hath Iustified them he hath also Glorified c. Rom. 8. Ri. Works of Mercy are the cause of blessedness for I was an hungred and ye gave c. Mat. 25. I. Therefore Works of Mercy are the cause of Iustification Answer I deny the Minor For Works of Mercy as they are considered in themselves are not the cause of Iustification or blessedness but rather effects and furits of Iustification for they are no otherways pleasing to God but as they are performed by persons in a justified state and it is by the Faith of Christ that they become acceptable For unless Faith go before and justifie the person of him that worketh his works are not at all regarded by God because they do not satisfie the Law of God being tainted with the corruption of depraved Nature and come far short of that perfection which Divine Iustice requires Wherefore if we will Reason aright about
for Mercy and cast himself wholly upon Christ what would the Apostle Iames say in such a case Will not Faith only without Works justifie such a man as this The penitent Malefactor is an evident proof of the truth of this who had no other thing but Faith only to commend him to Christ and so to be admitted into Paradise Like unto which there are many Examples daily of them that die on Gibbets so that the Iudgments of God are very wonderful who hath mercy on whom he will have mercy But now let us return to what we were saying of Abraham If we look upon his Faith what was more sincere If we consider his Works what was more glorious and wonderful Therefore upon both accounts he was certainly an admirable man Now let us compare his Faith with his Works And because it is evident that he was justified before God let us enquire whether he was justified by Faith 〈◊〉 Works because he could not be justified upon both accounts as the Apostle witnesseth If it is of Faith then it is not of Works but if it is of Works then it is not of Faith What shall we say then to these things let the Scripture answer Abraham believed God when he promised and it was accounted to him for Righteousness And the same Abraham obeyed God when he commanded and why doth not the Scripture in like manner add That this was imputed to him for Righteousness Let us hear what the Apostle answers The Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the Gentiles by Faith he first told the glad tydings to Abraham and what glad tydings was this That he and his Seed should be Heirs of the World A great Promise indeed But how did he obtain this Promise by Faith or by Works There is an answer ready made to our hand by the Apostle The Promise came not by the Law to Abraham or to his Seed that he should be Heir of the World but by the Righteousness of Faith Why so Paul why not by the Law and why by the Righteousness of Faith That he might be the Father of all the faithful who walking in the footsteps of the Faith which was in the Uncircumcision of our Father Abraham shall have Faith in like manner imputed unto them But here St. Iames is represented as fighting with all his might against this Doctrine For the Adversaries say thus Did not the Apostle Iames assert with great Authority That Abraham was justified by Works and will ye deny it God forbid that any man should undervalue the Authority of that holy Apostle And yet I suppose St. Iames would not have us to disbelieve the Scripture which teaches us far otherways attributing the Iustification of Abraham not to Works but to Faith For Abraham believed God and we read it was imputed unto him for Righteousness But God hath not said in his Word concerning Abraham's going to sacrifice his Son That it was imputed to him for Righteousness Or let us grant the assertion of St. Iames That Abraham was justified by Works But where and how was he thus justified before God St. Iames says not so Then it is before men And Paul himself denies not that So that there is no real disagreement between Paul and Iames. But this doth not satisfie some Sophisters who account it is not enough that the holy Patriarch is justified by Works before men as Paul teaches unless he be also thereby justified before God For though he was first justified by Faith as they say yet nothing hinders but that afterwards he might be yet more justified by Works and this they call a second Iustification But Reason shews that to be an utter impossibility for it implies a manifest contradiction for it is a contradiction not to be justified by Works and again to be justified by Works And seeing one of those is denied by the Apostle How can they maintain and plead for the other But hereunto may be added another Reason If there is a twofold Iustification one by Faith and another by Works it would follow that there is a twofold manner of Iustifying But there is one and the same manner of Iustifying as there is one God as hath been proved out of Ambrose Therefore it appears that there is not a twofold Iustification A third Reason is this seeing Iustification consists of the Remission of Sins and God forgives no Man his Sins to whom he doth not perfectly forgive them Therefore it follows that the Iustification of those that are justified is compleat and perfect and cannot be made more perfect than it is already Now in the next place let them prepare to answer this Argument of Paul Whosoever is justified by Works hath whereof he may Glory before God Rom. 4. Abraham hath not any thing whereof he may Glory before God Therefore Abraham is not justified by Works before God By these things which we have quoted out of Paul and other sacred writings I suppose it appears evident enough what we should judge of the Works of Abraham Which though they were excellent and worthy to be admired before men yet they found no place for glorying before God according to the Testimony and Interpretation of the Apostle We need not be at any great trouble to find out the cause thereof Tiletan and other Iesuits produce a cause thereof out of Augustin Because the Works of Abraham were not of the Law but of Faith not of the Flesh but of Grace which because they were not done by the Power of Free-will only but in the Faith and expectation of Christ therefore all Praise and Glory was due to Christ and none to them which Invention of theirs though it savours more of Wit than Solidity yet though we grant all this to them there is no inconvenience in it seeing both of us acknowledge with Paul that the Patriarch Abraham found neither matter of glorying nor Iustification before God by Works and therefore that he had no cause of glorying because he was not justified by Works for otherways if he had been justified by Works he should have had wherein to Glory as the Apostle Paul speaks But now he hath not any thing wherein he may Glory before God therefore he was not justified by Works And thus hitherto we have treated of the Arguments of the Adversaries as much as may suffice not only to discover but also confute their Sophistical Wiles and captious Deceits who fight with so great eagerness for their inherent Righteousness against the Testimony of the Holy Scripture and the Sacred Gospel of Iesus Christ and the bright shining Light of Grace yea and against their own Salvation It remains in the next place that we should hear what those Men on the other side answer and oppose to the Arguments and most approved Reasons manag'd not only by us but by St. Paul and with what Cavillings and fraudulent Devices they darken and baffle the clear meaning of the
any human industry or strength of our Nature nor any precedent obedience to the Law or works and merits of our own but only by Faith in the merits of Christ. Therefore Paul says well That we are justified by faith without works speaking of such works as belong to nature but not to grace which are a man 's own works and not God's and are called the works of the Law not of Faith But by the works of the Law the Apostle understands such works as are performed by a man 's own free will or by the direction of the Law and Nature only without the assistance of Grace And this is the meaning of Paul as those Popish Doctors would have it when he distinguishes between Iustification by Works and Iustification by Grace or Faith So that if it be by grace then it is not of works to wit such works as are done by Nature and not by Grace but if it is of works then it is not of grace for then grace saith he would not be grace which opposition must be thus understood according to the Opinion of those Popish Teachers so that grace doth not wholly overthrow all works but those only that are performed by the strength of Nature without the assistance of Grace But contrarily the pious works which proceed from Grace and Faith their Righteousness is so far from being made void by Grace or the Righteousness of Faith that it is rather thereby confirmed For the Law as Augustin speaks is not made void by Faith but rather established for Faith obtains the Grace whereby the Law is fulfilled Therefore whereas Paul distinguishes between the Righteousness of Works and the Righteousness of Faith This is the Answer the Catholick Faction gives to this distinction In this place the Righteousness of the Law and the Righteousness of Faith are not set in opposition one against another as they express themselves but Righteousness by the Law or in the Law is that which is opposed to the Righteousness of Faith And they say The Righteousness that is in the Law or by the Law is that obedience which is performed to the Law by natural strength without the assistance of Grace For these things differ not a little from one another for the Righteousness of the Law is one thing and the Righteousness by the Law or in the Law is another thing From which distinction they draw this Inference That the Righteousness of Faith or by Faith doth not exclude the Righteousness of the Law but is exercised about it and fulfils it In as much as the Law signifies Obedience to the Commandments which faith by obtaining grace performs And because the Grace of God performs the Law that is the certain cause why the works of the Law which are the gifts of God ought not to be excluded from Iustification just as Faith it self cannot be excluded because it is the gift of God as much as the Works of the Law and Charity which are infused by the Grace of God This is the entangling Sophistry whereby Andraeas Vega and others of his Association persuade themselves that they can break through the force of all the former Arguments An Answer to the Adversaries wherein their Frivolous Exceptions and Sophistical Subtilties are confuted BUT these Sophistical Distinctions which they make use of as antidotes in difficult cases are so absurd and unreasonable that there is not any Poison more deadly and injurious to the Doctrine of Salvation And I greatly wonder at the power and efficacy of Errour that so stupifies their undestanding that in the light of Noon-day they can be so blind and err so perniciously and betray their own Ignorance so shamelesly It is a Rule of Lawyers as I formerly have said Where the Law distinguishes not we ought not to distinguish What need then is there in a thing so evident of so many by-ways of distinctions and Labyrinths of perplexities for Paul hath spoken expresly and given many weighty Arguments whereby he makes it very clear that it is theGrace ofGod only to which we are indebted for all our Iustification But those men are of another mind saying That this Grace consists not in the favour of God only whereby he receives sinners for the sake of Christ but also in Moral Vertues and Charity whereby the Law is fulfilled Tho' I deny not that the excellent gifts of honest actions are bestowed upon us by the Grace of God Yet our Iustification before God depends not upon this grace of working Therefore we do not utterly reject the distinction that they bring of pardoning and renewing grace if they keep them duly within their own bounds But that which they conclude from hence we altogether disapprove I know and confess it is the Grace of God which both sanctifies and justifies which both pardons renews For we are daily renewed unto new obedience by the influence of Divine Grace But though this be so we are not renewed for this purpose that by this newness of obedience we may be justified But before Renovation we are sirst justified by Faith in the Son of God all the sins of our former life being blotted out for the sake of Christ in whom we believe Unto which Iustification succeeds the renovation of imperfect Obedience but not such as justifies a man from his sins in the sight of God for good works go not before him that is to be justified but follow him that is justified For whereas hence they make a twofold Iustification a first as they call it and a second of which the one is before works and the other after works whereby it is perfected it is a vain imagination not derived from the fountains of sound Doctrine but from the filthy Cisterns of Sophistry and vain jangling For the Gospel acknowledges no Iustification but one only and such a one as endures for ever As Christ whom he loves he is said to love unto the end And as God hath once chosen and called those unto Salvation whom he will justifie for ever so also he likewise once justifies those whom he will glorifie For I see no such difference between these things but that what agrees unto Election and Vocation may also be attributed to Iustification Wherefore as God's election and calling of those who are justified is one and not twofold it must follow by necessary consequence that there is but one Iustification of those who are chosen Therefore if God hath once chosen those that are to be justified why may not one Iustification be sufficient for them whom Election hath called unto glory especially because there is one and the same cause and manner both of electing and justifying He chose them in Christ first whom he predestinated unto life And in like manner he justifies in Christ those whom by the sacred Decree of his Election he appointed to glory But if you ask the cause why God chuses his own in Christ I answer That the cause
Salvation and Iustification should be understood to consist principally not in the Life of Men if it were never so Holy but in the Doctrine of Faith rightly taught In which Matter this whole Generation of Papists seems to me not a little deceived who look upon this our Christian Religion to be nothing else but a Moral Doctrine of framing the Life according to the right Rules of Living which when a Man hath strictly observed and thereby gained the Reputation of Vertue and external Honesty they think nothing further is wanting to the compleat Perfection of Christian Philosophy which if it be true I scarcely discern what difference there is between us and the Ancient Philosophers For what Sect of Philosophers was ever so grosly absurd but that they esteemed it honourable to contemn those things with the Admiration and Desire whereof we Christians are so much transported that we are in the next degree to Madness That Money never makes any Man Happy That the end of good should by no means be placed in Honours or Pleasures The Stoicks were not ignorant that no Man is wise but a good Man They saw that nothing was good and honourable but true Vertue and nothing should be accounted Evil but only Filthiness Socrates in Plato Disputes that Injury should not be revenged by an Injury And that the Soul should by all means be drawn away from the Affections of the Body Moreover that the Soul being Immortal they are not in a deplorable Condition who after having passed their Life honestly depart hence into more blessed Habitations What shall I say of Plato or of Aristotle who in his Politicks denies that any thing can be pleasant unto Men in Life except Vertue in which only Pleasure consists How holily doth M. Cicero write of Offices Yea those Men did not only teach such things but not a few of them did also perform great part of their Doctrine both amongst the Greeks and the Latins especially Socrates Aristides Diogenes Epictetus the Curij the Fabij the Fabricij and the Scipio's Whose Life Vertues and famous Acts if we look into and compare them with the Catacatholicks in our Days O how ashamed may they be at so great a difference as is between them And yet as all these things so very excellent profited them nothing to Salvation without Christ so also we should suppose that in all our Vertue and good Deeds there is nothing that distinguishes us before God from their Paganism unless besides the Condition of Life there be added another Doctrine and Profession of Religion which doth not as the Philosophers of old Dispute about Vertues only and Moral Duties or about placing the chief Good in the Excellency of Vertue or Charity nor makes enquiry about legal Righteousness and civil Iudgments But calls us forth unto deeper Mysteries and instructs the Minds of Believers soundly and solidly concerning the Heavenly Iudgment of God his Will his Engagement by Covenant concerning the Son of God and our Eternal Redemption by Christ Peace Iustification Faith the Hope of our Calling the largeness of the Mercy and Grace of God Salvation and the Crown of Immortality These seem to me to be the Principal Heads in which all the Strength and Nature of our Religion all our Peace and Tranquility and all the way of our Salvation and Doctrine is contained Which manner of Doctrine I think all means should be used that it may be retained in the Church sound and entire And this was the chiefest Cause that stirred me up to undertake this Defence wherein I am now engaged not that I might open a Door of Licentiousness to Men of unclean Dispositions But that I might lay open unto all Godly Brethren and especially to those that are afflicted the boundless and eternal Riches of the Grace of God in Christ purchased for us the Glory of the Kingdom the Stable and undoubted good Pleasure of his reconciled favour What if some are of such a perverse Mind that they design to abuse this our peaceable and healthful debate about Faith and the Grace of Iustification for a Defence of their own Uurighteouness and carnal Licentiousness I give them notice now before hand that these things were neither written nor thought upon by me for them but only for the Godly whose Consciences in this World are burdened and afflicted to whom I would peculiarly Dedicate this Work such as it is that I might ease and refresh them in Christ in the great straits of their Agonies with some Lenitive of Evangelical Doctrine against the ensnaring assaults of Satan And likewise that I might strengthen and preserve them as with an Antidote against the Malignity of the Pseudocatholick Adversaries and the subtile deceits of Sophisters Who by an infinite number of Books already published and by hurrying new ones daily into publick view keep no measure and make no end of Writing that they may subvert the right ways of the Lord. In the mean time I have nothing at present that I can say of that our good-by Stapleton but that it troubles me much his Book so prolixely Talkative came no sooner to my Hands Now because this so tumultuous a noise of twelve Books which he seems to have armed against Christ and his twelve Apostles to conquer the simplicity of Evangelical Doctrine requires more leisure to examine his so many and so great Authorities heaped together out of Augustin I must beg a Truce of Him until I can bestow requisite Pains on so great a Doctor if so be God will furnish me with Strength that I may be able to perform it Now I pray the Lord Iesus who was crucified for our Sins that according to the unspeakable greatness of his Power whereby he can do all things with his Father in Heaven and in Earth and according to his great loving Kindness towards us that he would fructifie our Minds daily more and more by the Spirit of his Grace nourish them by his Presence confirm them by his Power that he would defend the afflicted cause of the Gospel against the Plagues of Errour disappoint the attempts of malicious Persons endeavouring our Destruction still disorderly Tumults and vain Ianglings in the Church grant Peace to our Times Pardon to our Sins Strength and Victory to our Faith Skilful Workmen to the Church and Dexterity in working and teaching to the workmen and especially that he would refresh and Comfort with the Gracious Favour of his Divine Majesty the pious and perplexed Consciences of Believers combating with Death and Satan or exercised with sharp Affliction for the Glory of his own Name to whom with the Father and the Holy Spirit all Glory is due for ever and ever Amen Iohn Fox Books Printed for and are to be sold by Tho. Parkhurst at the Bible and Three Crowns in Cheapside near Mercers-Chapel A Practical Exposition on the 130. Psalm wherein the Nature of the forgiveness of Sin is declared the Truth and Reality of it asserted and the
good Work Not that the Work it self being appointed by the Law of God is a sin but because according to the saying of Augustin whatsoever is less than it ought to be is faulty From whence it appears evidently that in this Life there is no Work so perfect but something is wanting in it that is there is Sin in it if it be judged according to the strict rigour of the Law Concerning the Grace of God how it is defined by Osorius with a confutation of his Definition ARguments increase because here mention falls in of the Grace of the regenerate It is shewed though against the Rules of Logick that the Grace of God is nothing else but Iustice and Vertue upon this account because it being that chiefly which makes us acceptable to God and nothing can be acceptable to God which is not like unto him be thinks he prevails sufficiently by this conclusion That because nothing 〈◊〉 us like God but Righrecusness and Vertue Therefore Grace is nothing if it is not Vertue and Iustice. Why do I use many words on this matter If that Grace be understood by Osorius which St. Paul so often commends to us in all his Epistles both are false which here the Bishop assumes against the Apostle For Grace is not rightly defined after this manner that it is nothing else but Vertue and Iustice and first that it is a Vertue Thomas did flatly deny in his sum of Theology Part. 12. Quest. 110. Artic. 3. where disputing of the Grace of God though he denies not that it may be reduced to the first species of quality yet he wholly denies and confutes its being a Vertue concludeing at length after this manner that it is a certain habitude presupposed to infused Vertues as the Principle and Root of them c. Moreover in Sentent lib. 2. dist 26. Art 4. proving concerning the same thing that Grace and Vertue are not the same If Vertue saith he should hold from the same both that it was a Vertue and that it rendred a Man acceptable to God it would follow that all Vertue would do the like And so seeing some Vertues are acquired by acts and not by infusion it would follow according to the Pelagian heresie that a Man should be made acceptable to God by his free will But if it holds from another and not from the same from one that it is a Vertue and another that it renders acceptable to God it must needs be that Grace and Vertue are not the same in reality For so divers principles necessarily are suitable to divers effects that are found in division from another Now if so be Grace is denied to be a Vertue verily upon the same account also it cannot be called Iustice seeing Iustice is necessarily comprehended under the general name of Vertue and what wonder is it in the interim that this Antagonist of ours is so ill agreed with the Lutherans who is not well enough agreed with the Angelical Doctors and Leaders of his own Sect in such evident Heads of Divinity But now let us consider his Reasonings and the Confirmations of his Arguments of what sort they are Argument Ma. That reconciles us and makes us acceptable to God which makes us like unto him Mi. It is only Righteousness which makes us like unto God Con. Therefore Righteousness only reconciles us and makes us acceptable There follows also another consequence of these things being first pre-supposed built upon the same foundation Argument Ma. Grace makes acceptable to God and unites unto him Mi. Righteousness makes us acceptable to God and unites us to him Con. Therefore Iustice is either Grace and a Vertue or it is nothing First Both these Arguments are equally lyable to the same reprehension Because contrary to the Lawful Rules of Reasoning they conclude Affirmatively in the second figure as they are placed by Osorius lib. 5. but let us help the defect of the worthy Mans Logick For if I am not mistaken he would rather gather thus from the definition of Grace Argument Ma. To whatsoever the definition agrees the thing defined well agrees unto the same Mi. The definition of Grace doth very well agree to Righteousness Con. Therefore the thing defined agrees to Righteousness I answer to the minor by denying for that which is the proper definition of Grace doth not agree to Righteousness seeing the things themselves do very much differ from one another both as to their Effects and as to their Causes For if we believe Thomas Grace is the Principle and Cause of Iustice and of all Vertues Iustice is not the cause of Grace but rather an effect thereof Yea Albertus Ratisponensis does not much differ from the opinion of Thomas who commenting upon the same sentence in the same Dist. Ar. 4. saith thus Grace is a habit of Life universally well ordered not according to the degrees of things ordered but as it is called a Relation of the whole Life to the obtaining of the End But Iustice doth not this nor Vertue for Iustice doth not necessarily make worthy of Eternal Life upon the account that it is Iustice or Vertue c. What if the proper and true cause which reconciles us to the love of God and makes us worthy of Eternal Life should be searched for We shall find that it lyes not in the Works of Iustice but that it proceeds from another cause And what that cause is Christ himself the best Master will teach you in the Gospel Whom I request and beseech you not only to hearken unto but to believe For these are his words in the Gospel For the Father himself loveth you because ye have loved me and have believed that I came from the Father By which you see that it comes to pass not for the sake of our Iustice or Vertue but for the sake of his own dearly beloved Son that God the Father cares for us and loves us What then say you doth not Iustice make Men that live holily and justly in this World acceptable to God Which if it is so it cannot be judged to be any other thing but Grace For whatsoever renders us acceptable to God is justly esteemed to be Grace Iustice makes us acceptable to God therefore it is Grace As touching the minor I deny not that Iustice as it is very acceptable to God so it renders acceptable to God if it is perfect and agreeable to the Divine perfection which not being given to us in this Life another altar must be sought there is need of other helps Therefore if we would find any favour in the sight of God we must betake our selves to Christ and embrace him by Faith Though I am not Ignorant what this good Disputant drives at and what Masters he follows and on what foundation he builds For he builds upon that old and stale distinction of the Schoolmen as much used as it is light and frivolous and
also a faith that is often taken for hope and so defined As in the Epistle to the Hebrews Where Faith is called the substance of things not seen but hoped for and the evidence of things not appearing but future Moreover there are those that divide the use of this Word into many forms Andreas Vega reckons in the general Nine Significations of the word of Faith Put because in these which I have hitherto reckoned there is no mention made of that person from whom all the Vertue of Iustifying proceeds therefore I see not how it can be that Iustification should rightly agree to the same VVherefore this seems less strange to me in Osorius Hosius and others of that School if their Opinion is not so right about the Iustification of Faith for they seem not to have clearly enough discerned or at least not to have fitly defined that Faith which the Evangelical VVritings propose unto us But if this Faith that we profess contained no other thing in it but that which they pretend to in their Books I would be of the same Opinion which they Preach To wit That it avails little to the procuring of Righteousness That this may be the more evident I would have Pious Readers listen to what those Men teach concerning Faith and how they define it And so they define it that either through blindness they know not or by dissimulation they make as if they knew not what is the true Faith proposed to us in the Gospel for Righteousness And that we may begin first at the Tridentines they so define it That it is a firm assent unto those things that are revealed and made manifest by God And Osorius following these Men Collects the Universal Nature of Faith after a manner not much differing from them That it is a firm and constant assent of the mind stirred up by the Authority of the Speaker But what this Faith is which Osorius describes after this manner let him look to that Verily any Man may think it is not this Faith which Paul speaks of in disputing of Righteousness or to which we from the Authority of Paul affirm that Righteousness should be attributed properly Though in the mean while we deny not that this Faith is true which is asserted by Osorius and others whereby for the Authority of the Church teaching we believe whatsoever things belong to Religion which though they are not seen as Lombard says yet they are believed whether they are past or expected to come As he that gives credit to the things contained in the Articles of the Creed and that are expresly mentioned in the Scriptures He that believes and professes that the World was made by the Word of God and that God is and that he Created all things of no thing Moreover that he believes and professeth that he is powerful and very good That I may proceed in the very words of Osorius endued with boundless and infinite virtue and bounty watching over all parts of the World and passing through them beholding and taking notice of all things and looking well to every thingaccording as the dignity and condition of each thing requires and whatsoever else belonging to the profession of Faith is taught in the Writings of the Prophets Verily that Man is not at all mistaken in believing For the things that are seen by an Internal light of Faith are very true though they are very remote from the Senses But yet this is not the Faith though it be true that justifies us who are miserably defiled and wretched Sinners before God For what Circumcised Iew or hateful Turk is there but believes all these things which Osorius with a long multiplication of words Preaches of God and his Power and Iustice and Immensity For they together with us confess one God and rely on his promises with great hope call upon his Name observe his commands as well as we and also flatter themselves with the Title of the true Church Yea also they are not Ignorant that the Dead shall be restored to Life and promise Eternal Life to themselves Moreover many things which they see not with their Eyes they retain by Faith and pursue by hope Briefly they do no less believe God themselves and confess God But if the Christian Faith according to the Magisterial position of Lombard should be placed in nothing else but a solid apprehension of things to be hoped for and a sure expectation of those things which do not appear what hinders but that both Iews and Saracens may be reckoned faithful upon this account What then you will say Doth not Paul writing to the Hebrews expresly comprehend Faith in that same definition To wit That it is the substance of things hoped for c. Verily I neither reject Paul the Author of this Epistle nor disapprove the definition neither do I examin that nor do so much as enquire for it which is enquired for in Lombard Whether this description be more agreeable to Faith than Hope But this I answer That we may confess this Faith to be true which is here defin'd But surely that is not the Faith which properly justifies the wicked in the sight of the Lord. Why so Because there is wanting to the definition the Genus Property and difference which distinguishes Faith from Hope Also there is wanting the true and proper object of Faith which should by no means have been omitted To wit The person of him in whom only all the promises of God and the whole cause of our Iustification is contained Who unless he comes in in vain other things are either believed or hoped for by us neither will all that substance of things hoped for avail us any whit unto Salvation What then you will say Hath not the most gracious Father promised us his mercy Hath he not engaged himself by an inviolable Covenant that he would pardon our Sins Must we not give credit to those things which are promised by God He hath promised indeed I confess but how Only in Christ his Son To whom Only to them that believe in the Son I know and acknowledge that the promises of God are most sure in which he promises as Osorius rehearses Infinite Riches excellent Pleasure an immortal Kingdom great Dignity everlasting Glory But yet these good things are neither so promised or given by God that in the mean while he exacts nothing of us for the obtaining of these good things which he promises Therefore this is not the state of the question whether we should believe God promising which is common to us with the Iews themselves and Turks Neither do I ask that what the Lord hath promised For Salvation is promised Pardon of Sins is promised But this is it which properly comes in question here Upon what account and for what cause this Salvation and Pardon of Sins is promised whether there is no condition interposed Or whether there is
of the Works of Christ were not they Works of the Law For he himself hath said that he came not to destroy the Law but to fulfil it were not the things which he performed in fulfilling the Law VVorks of Grace VVhat difference then is there between those VVorks that are called VVorks of the Law and those other that are called VVorks of Grace So that it appears that he who excludes the VVorks of the Law excludes also the VVorks of Grace from Iustification Though I acknowledge there is great difference between the Law and Grace in respect of the manner of Doing and the ends of their Offices For what the Law exacts that Grace performs but in respect of the things themselves and the Actions unto which they are directed seeing both the Law and the Grace of God are exercised in the same subject Matter there is no difference between them The Law commands us to Love our Neighbour and lays a Punishment on him that disobeys But Grace communicates Strength and Ability to perform what the Law commands VVhich when we perform we are said to do not only a VVork of Grace but also a VVork of the Law by Grace so that it is a matter of small concernment whether it be called a VVork of the Law or a VVork of Grace a VVork of our own or a VVork of Faith Therefore if the Scripture denies That a man is justified and attributes his Iustification to another cause that is Faith what should be inferr'd from hence but that Man's Iustification comes neither by the VVorks of the Law nor the VVorks of Grace Iust as if a Man writing to his Friend should say thus This Benefit was procured for him by no Money or charge of his own VVhat matter is it whether it was his own Money or borrowed of some other Man when the meaning of the VVriter was to signifie that this Benefit whatsoever it was was not bought by any Price of the Receiver but obtained by the free Bounty of the Giver So Paul desiring to set before the Eyes of all Men the boundless Immensity of Divine Grace toward Mankind that they might behold and embrace it expresly denies that Man is justified by the VVorks of the Law But here the Distinction of Hosius as I have said presents it self It is true saith he in respect of the Works that are of the Law and belong to our own Free-will which being attended with Imperfection can avail nothing to Iustification To which I Answer in a Word Give then that Grace which may furnish frail Nature with Strength to yield perfect Obedience to the Law and may restore us to perfect innocency in this Life and you have won the cause But in the mean while let those Disputants consider how many gross and pernicious Absurdities proceed from this kind of Doctrine for hereby the infinite greatness of the free Grace and Mercy of God towards us is taken away and abolished this also destroys our thankfulness to him for his goodness and withholds Consolation from afflicted Consciences so that very great injury is done to him that hath freely communicated so many and so great Benefits and much greater injury is done to those on whom they are bestowed Hereby also it comes to pass that there remains no Assurance in the Promise of God no firmness in our Faith no soundness in the Doctrine of Religion nor Comfort or Refreshment in the Suffering of the Saints A second Argument out of St. Paul Being justified freely by his Grace through the Redemption which is in Christ Iesus whom he hath set forth to be a Propitiation by Faith in his Blood to declare his Righteousness at this time that he may be Iust and the Iustifier of him that is of the Faith of Iesus Christ and again we reckon that a Man is justified by Faith without Works Unless the Hearts of these our Adversaries were fully set in them to pervert the ways of the Lord it could not otherways be but these clear and evident sayings of the Apostle must be sufficient to satisfie them and prevail upon them to beware lest they kick against the Doctrine of the Apostles and exalt themselves in their proud Imaginations and vain Conceit of their own Righteousness against such clear Manifestation of Divine Grace But here the Roman Legions make a fresh incursion again and the Ring-leader of them is Andraeas Vega who fights against the Righteousness of Faith Whom there is no need of answering in this World For he hath been removed out of this Life a great while since that he might answer to God his Iudge And because he denied that he was justified by the Faith of Christ only let him look to it what he must answer his Iudge in that Iudgment wherein he must give account of his whole Life where of necessity he must either overcome or fall If he overcome where is the Truth of Scripture in which it is said God only overcomes when he is judged But if he fall where then is the Righteousness of Works What if David so great a King and Prophet could not endure that God should enter with him into Iudgment If Iob a Man of so Holy a Life yet durst not answer to one of a thousand What will our Vega say what will he bring his Cowls his Fastings his lyings on the Ground his Night Watches his Vows his Liturgick-Prayers his Propitiatory-Masses his Mumbled over Confessions his Penances and Satisfactions But who hath required these things at your Hands Nay but he will defend himself and take Sanctuary in the Law which he hath fulfilled not by the Strength of his own Free-will but by the help of Divine Grace Say you so David being guarded with as much Grace as any Man was yet sunk down under the weight of the Law of God I suppose Iob wanted not Divine Grace and yet he dares not appear before God in Iudgment And will Vega nevertheless hope to bring such an account of his Life before the Tribunal of God that if God strictly Mark it and weigh it in the balance of his Iustice he will not find more Sins than Merits therein But I need not ask him what he will answer to God his Iudge To whom I know he can make no satisfaction with all his inherent Righteousness But this is that which I ask him and not him only but all the other Tridentines also what they will answer the Apostle Paul who openly pronounces a Curse both on Men and Angels if any of them should dare to preach any other Gospel than he had preached And what Gospel is it that we have received by the preaching of Paul Is it not the same that he taught so often in all his Epistles with frequent Repetitions and great Care and Diligence and also confirmed it with Miracles Now the summ of the Gospel which he preached is this That Man is justified freely without Works by the Grace of
thereof is not placed in the works of men but it depends upon the free favour of God and the like we may say of Iustification for those whom he justifies he justifies in Christ but if you ask why doth he justifie in Christ the cause appears evident which cannot be found in our VVorks but before all VVorks in the favour of God only But you may say Those things are not well compared with one another which disagree in Nature for Election and Vocation and Glorification are such things as being once determined of God cannot be disannulled But the Case is otherways in Iustification which may sometimes be lost and sometimes retained according as it is hindered or not hindered by the Grace of God For thus spake Vega and Scotus and others That I may Answer such Men I confess indeed if the manner of our Iustification were such as those Men feign to wit if its chief reliance were upon Works and the increase of Vertues it would be true which they assert concerning the uncertainty of losing or keeping Iustification But seeing all the stability of our Iustification depends not at all upon our Works but upon the Merits of Christ by Faith and the Remission of Sins by his Righteousness therefore it is that as there is one Election and Vocation and that sure and firm so also Iustification is not twofold but one and the same and such an one as endures for ever I call it one because there remains always one and the same cause and manner of Iustifying which relies not on the Merits of Works but consists of Faith and the Remission of Sins And though the Sins from which we are justified are not all of the same kind but are distinguished by times and variety of Actions yet nevertheless Iustification that is the Remission of Sins in respect of the form and manner is not divers but one Not twofold but simple as Faith also which is the procuring cause of Iustification is not which though it is daily increased yet it remains always one and the same Moreover as this Iustification which increases together with Faith is only one so also the same being firm and stable no less than the Promise of God on which it relies undergoes no change but continues firm and constant and the cause thereof is because it relies not on Works but Faith only whence the Apostle said It is therefore by Faith that according to Grace the Promise may be sure to all the Seed On the contrary they who make a twofold Iustification and assign divers causes of both of which the one confists of Faith only without Works going before which they call the first and the other which they call the second is increased by Works of Grace as they speak I see not what they can find in the Scriptures for the defence of their Opinion for Paul writing to so many Churches acknowledges no cause of Iustification but one which he professes to be Faith in Christ and that without Works What need is there of better evidence Can you not be perswaded to believe the Truth which hath been so often and so perspicuously demonstrated by so great a Master as Paul But to what purpose hath Christ appointed him to be a Teacher to us Gentiles if we despise his Instructions and chuse to our selves other Masters that teach another Gospel And what else do those Men who reject the Apostle's Doctrine and hearken to such as teach contrary thereunto Paul says Without Works Man is justified Will you then dare to plead for Iustification by Works in Opposition to the Apostle Dare you deny what he affirms But you say I detract nothing from Works in opposition unto Paul but I add Grace from whence they receive the power of Meriting and Iustifying Then according to your Opinion Works being assisted by Grace do justifie but without Grace they avail nothing But what will you answer to St. Paul who without making any Distinction of Works says not of such or such Works only but indefinitely and in the general of all Works It is of Faith and not of Works lest any should boast And again to the Romans If by Grace then it is not of Works and elsewhere To him that worketh not c. And how often doth he in all his Epistles Attribute all Power of Iustifying to Faith shutting out not only such or such Works but all Works of what kind soever concerning which Paul speaking indefinitely and absolutely utterly excludes them from any concernment in Iustification Which would be false if any Works whether performed by Grace and in Faith or without Grace were conducible to Iustification And hence this Argument arises An Argument against inherent Righteousness We are justified without Works by Faith as Paul testifies VVorks of Charity infused by Grace are VVorks Therefore without these Works also that consist of Grace we are justified The Adversaries Answer to the Major Paul asserts that we are justified without Works but with this Exception unless they be planted in us by Faith and the influence of Grace for the Apostle excludes not such kind of Works because they please God and procure Iustification Contrarily those VVorks only are excluded that are of the Law or of Nature without which we are said to be justified But this Answer doth not satisfie the VVords of Paul who without making any such Exception or Distinction of VVorks teaches simply and indefinitely that we are justified without Works By what Logick then have these Sophisters learned to make a definite and particular Proposition of that which is Indefinite and Universal Or what Reason have they to confine that unto a particular Case which Paul speaks of Works in the general Let us consider the Words of the Apostle Who if he had believed that Works of Charity infused procure Iustification in the sight of God it cannot be doubted but he would have expresly said so much Now he says expresly without any Exception By Works shall no Flesh be justified Whence we may form this Argument If Works performed by Grace and in Faith were meritorious of Iustification then some flesh would be justified by Works seeing there are many Believers that Work by Grace But no flesh at all shall be justified by Works as Paul bears witness Therefore it is false that good Works performed by Grace have any Power of justifying Let us confirm the saying of Paul by Scriptural Examples That which Paul here preaches of free Salvation without Works the same Isaiah foretells will come to pass though in other Words yet to the same purpose under the Symbols of Wine and Milk All ye that thirst saith he come without Money and without Price and buy Wine and Milk What is signified here by Wine and Milk but the glorious Mystery of our Iustification and what is the signification of these Words wherein we are commanded to eat without Money and without Price but that
them that are justified but these things have no union with Faith in the concernment of Iustification And first as touching Repentance abundance hath been said before for seeing Repentance is nothing but a mourning for sins committed it may indeed of it self afflict the guilty person and fit him for receiving of Grace but it cannot obtain a pardon for the sins committed before a Secular Iudge and much less before the Iudgment Seat of God For that is the Office of Faith which as it only obtains a pardon so it obtains it for none but them that are afflicted and repent and believe in Christ. For for their sakes chiefly Christ was sent by his Father into this World that he may help all them that being in distress flie to him by Faith In which three things are to be considered and placed each of them in their own bounds and territories First that we may see what the Mediatour does what Faith performs what sorrow for sin produces All our Salvation flows from the Mediatour as from a Spring and Fountain But if you ask how or for what cause he saves I answer by Faith And if you ask whom he saves I answer those that repent of their wickedness or whom he draws unto himself by an inward Call Doth the Lord then save those for their Repentance No verily Suppose a man is greatly grieved at the remembrance of his by-past life but yet comes not to Christ will grief for his sins save him No surely Yea who can come to Christ unless he first hear and understand who he is from whom Salvation must be sought Now it is Faith and not Repentance that does this For it is not the grief and sorrow of a broken hearted sinner but Faith that discovers a Saviour to us and guides us to him and obtains Salvation from him Yea which is Salvation to them that are in distress for thus it is written This is the will of God That every one that seeth and believeth in him should have Eternal Life By which it is evident enough what should be attributed unto Repentance and what to Faith in the case of Iustification for sin is not therefore pardoned because he that sinned hath repented but because he that sinned not at all hath died for sin therefore the sinner is forgiven not for his Repentance but for Faith whereby he believes in him that died for our sins rose again for our Iustification Where Faith is joyned with Works and where it is not joyned AND hitherto we have been speaking of Repentance But as touching the Reformation of the Life in other respects though I know that nothing is more convenient than that Faith which is rightly instructed in Christ should have Charity and other Offices of Piety suitable to the Christian Profession joyned with it Yet it must be considered what manner of Union this is and of how large an extent for Faith and Charity have that wherein they are of necessity united And they have that also wherein they must of necessity be separated Where we deal with God about Salvation Iustification and the Expiation of sins here Faith only without Works is powerful and overcomes But in dealings with men in the Lives of the Iustified in popular duties in the exercise of Vertue there is a very near Union between Faith and Vertue of which the one cannot consist without the other Therefore these things should be measured by their own bounds that we may attribute unto Faith its due and to Works their due and unto both that which is meet For as that poisonous Errour of Eunomius should be abhorred who is reported to have been so great an Enemy to godly works that he thought it was not a matter of any concernment how any man led his life So also great care should be taken lest in shunning the Soylla of Eunomius we fall upon the other Carybdis of the Papists which is no less pernicious being mis-led by the Popish Doctors who make such a confused Union between Faith and Works that neither Faith without Works nor Works without Faith procure Iustification But this Union is easily confuted by the Authority of Scripture For if Faith only doth not bring Believers into a state of Salvation unless it be joyned with great Holiness of life why did not Christ joyn these together when he said simply He that believeth in me hath Eternal Life Why did not Peter joyn them together when according to the Testimonies of the Prophets he proclaimed remission of sins to all that believed in his Name Why did not Paul joyn them together when instructing the Iaylor in the Faith he said unto him Believe in the Lord Iesus and thou shalt be saved and thy house Many other such like things may be mentioned The History of the Galatians is well known who being led aside by the false Apostles did not wholly cast off Christ nor excluded Faith in Christ but they would have had the good Works of Believers joyned with Faith in the Article of Iustification before God unto Eternal Life for which cause how angry the Apostle was at them his Epistle bears witness But here again a place of St. Paul out of the same Epistle is objected where writing to the Galatians he speaks of Faith that works by Charity From hence the Tridentine Divines infer a necessary connexion between Faith and Charity so that Faith without Charity like matter without form avails nothing to the perfection of Righteousness And they say of Charity which they call Righteousness inherent in us That it is so impossible that it should be separated from Faith in the concernment of Iustification that they assert it only to be the formal cause of our Iustification But it is not difficult to answer to this place of Paul For in that Epistle the Apostle endeavours with great diligence to call back his Galatians to the Righteousness of Faith from which they had swerved In the mean while lest they should be seduced by a counterfeit Faith by these words he intimates what Faith it is that he speaks of Not such a Faith as is idle and dead without Works but which worketh by Love And in this sense we deny not that Faith is not alone But what consequence is that Lively Faith is not alone without Charity It is a lively Faith that justifies Therefore in Iustifying Faith is not alone without Charity This Argument is disproved in the Schools of Logicians for it is a Sophism a non causa ut causa Therefore I answer to the Major The Faith that is lively is not alone without Charity That is true in working but not in justifying Therefore as touching the Cause and Office of Iustifying this is not the consequence thereof Therefore in Iustifying Faith is not alone without Charity But as for the the Minor though Faith that justifies is called lively in respect of good Works yet it doth not justifie in respect