vpon God and play with his Iustice as the flie with the Candle let them take heed lest in the end they be consumed by it To leaue then these vaine Inuentions Let vs giue to God the glory that 's due to his name and so we shall well provide for the peace of our Soules Trusting entirely and onely vnto that Name of Iesus Christ. besides which there is not in Heauen or in Earth in Man or Angell any name Merit Power Satisfaction or whatsoeuer else whereby we may be saued And thus much touching the first maine branch of the matter of our Iustification namely Our owne Righteousnes Whereby it appeares sufficiently that we shall neuer be justified in Gods Sight Μόνῳ Ï„á¿· Θεῷ δόξα FINIS THE CONTENTS OF EVERY Section and Chapter in this Booke SECTION 1. CHAP. I. The explication of these termes First Iustice or righteousnesse Secondly Iustification CHAP. II. In what sense the word Iustification ought to be taken in the present controuersie and of the difference betweene vs and our Adversaries therein CHAP III. The confutation of our Adversaries cauils against our acception of the word Iustification SECT 2. CHAP. I. The orthodoxe opinion concerning the manner of Iustification by Faith and the confutation of Popish errours in this point CHAP. II. The confutation of the Arminian errour shewing that Faith doth not justifie sensu proprio as it is an act of ours CHAP. III. The confutation of Popish doctrines that other graces doe justifie vs and not Faith alone SECT 3. CHAP. I. Of the righteousnes whereby a man is justified before God that is not his owne inhaerent in himselfe that in this life no man hath perfection of holinesse inhaerent in him CHAP. II. No man can perfectly fulfill the Law in performing all such workes both inward and outward as each commandement requires against which truth Popish objections are answered CHAP. III. No man in this life can performe any particular good worke so exactly that in euery point it shall answer the rigour of the Law proued by conscience Scriptures reason and Popish objections answered CHAP. IIII. Three seuerall exceptions against the truths deliuered in this 3 Section SECT 4. CHAP. I. Iustification by workes makes voide the couenant of grace Of the difference betweene the Law and the Gospell Of the vse of the Law Of the erronecus conceit of our Adversaries in this point CHAP. II. Of Bellarmine's erroneous distinction of the word Gospell SECT 5. CHAP. I. Iustification by fulfilling the Law ouerthrowes Christian libertie The parts of our Christian libertie CHAP. II. Iustification by workes subjects vs to the rigour and curse of the Law SECT 6. CHAP. I. The reconciliation of that seeming opposition betweene S. Paul and S. Iames in this point of Iustification CHAP. II. The confirmation of the orthodoxe reconciliation of S. Paul and S. Iames by a Logicall Analysis of S. Iames his disputation in his second Chapter SECT 7. CHAP. I. None can be justified by their owne satisfaction for the transgression of the Law A briefe sâ—mme of Popish doctrine concerning humane satisfactions for sinne CHAP. II. All sinne is remitted vnto vs wholy in the fault and punishment For the onely satisfaction of Iesus Christ. Sect. l. â— 1. Rom. 8. 30. Heb. 9. Lib. 1. de Iust cap. 1 See luke 18. 14 This Man went downe to his house iustified rather then the other His prayer was for pardon God be mercifull c. For he went home Iustified i. e pardoned and absolued rather then the Pharisee Which is referred ad gratiam Regenerationis Tom. 2. tract 4. Cap. 2. Parag. â— Rom 6. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significat liberatur sed sersus loci dâ—scrimen indicat 〈…〉 a Ephâ— 4. 24. Col. 3. 9. a Ephâ— 4. 24. Col. 3. 9. b 1 Cor. 3. 16. 6. 19. 2 Cor. 6. 16. Rom. 8. c Rom. 12. 5. 1 Cor. 12. 11. d Ioh. 15. 4. e Ioh. 4. 14. 1 Cal. Iustit lib. 3 cap. 1â— Rom. 8. 30. 〈◊〉 Ibid. Parag. 9. Sect. 2. â— â— â— Gen. Headâ— â— Cap. 7. Generall head a Gal. 2. 16. b Rom. 5. 1. c Rom. 28. d Rom. 4. 2. 3. 20. Gal 2. 16. Iam. 2. a Luke 7. 5â— b Mat. 9. 22. c Maâ— 10. 52. d Mat. 15. 21. e Mat. 7. 29. f Rom. 4. 20. g Heb. 21. 5 6. i Rom. 3. 24. k Heb. 1. 3. n Act. 6. 7. 6. 5. o 1 Tim. 3. 9. 4. 6. Virg. Georg. 1. p Gal. 3. 23. Act. 13. 38. Rom. 11. 6. 〈…〉 Thes. 48. 2. 3. pag 6â— c Aâ—tibell pag. 106. d Collat. cuâ— Sib. Lubber e Thesibu de â—ustific f Râ—monstrâ—nt In Cell Delphensi Art 2. Antith 2. Statuimus Deum Fidem noâ—iram nobis imputare per obedientiam eaâ—que nos in illa acceptos habere We are saued by grace thorough faith Ephes. 2. 8. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Arg. Bell. b Lib. 1. cap. 13. a Lib. 1. cap. 2â— Nectamen est a Deo intus inhabitante per graâ—â—am Sanctificari sidextrinsâ—cus adâ—â—vante exitonte a Et Cap 13. pag. 311. H. a Feare Feare b Psal â—11 10. Pro. â— 7. Faith is radix a part of the tree Hope c Rom. 5. 5. d Heb. 6. 18. Loue. e Rom. 5. 5. a Rom. 5. 5. Repentance Reformation Not of Ahab or Iudas a Tom. 2. Tract â— cap. 3. Quest. 3. Bell. lib. 1. c. 14. 2 Arg. a 〈◊〉 antid â—onc Trid. Sess. 6 cap. II. b Cap. 15. eiuâ—dem Lib. primi 3 Arguâ— Bell. lib. 1 cap. 16. Allein durch â—en gsaubren Bell. quotes Luâ—beri Resp. ad duos Art ad amiâ—â—m quendam a Tit. 3. 5. 6. 7. b Rom. 3. 〈◊〉 c Rom. 9. 31. 32 How knowes Bellarmâ—ne that Bell. lib. 1. c. 19 â—ello cap. 16. a Bell lib. 1. â— 19. b 〈◊〉 Tom. 2 tract 4. cap. 2 quest 6. §. 15. c Bell. cap. 19 d As Adam a So Bellarminâ— cap. 19. answering that place Gal. 2. If righâ—teousnesse be by the Law then Christ dyed in vaine saith Nay seeing we are iustified by faith and workes following it Christ died to purpose that God might giue vs grace so to be iustified b Workes without grace doe not iustifie h Why because imperfect or because done by natures strength Not the later For then Adam not iustified Not the former forse all good works of the best are imperfect Sect. 3. c. 1. 2 Generall heads a 〈…〉 〈…〉 Conclusion Arg. a Rom. 3. Gal. 2. b Iohn 1. 8. c Verse 10. 2 Argument Pure in heart vndefiled 〈◊〉 the way 2 Cap. â— 3 Cap. 3. Proposition a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euen I my selfe b 〈…〉 c Iohn 1. 29. d Heb 9. 28. e Acts 3. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. f Micah 7. 19. a Ezek. 16. 2â— Apoc 1. 6. 1 Iohn 1. â—7 c Col. 1. 13. d Tit. 2. 14. e Rom. 6. 18. 2â— f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 h Heb. 4. 14 a Rom.
grace hath enabled vs to performe the condition of beleeuing then doe we beginne to enioy the benefit of the Couenant then is the sentence of absolution pronounced in our consciences which shall be after confirmed in our death and published in the last iudgement Secondly our faith and no other grace directly respects the promises of the Gospell accepting what God offers sealing vnto the truth thereof by assenting thereto and imbracing the benefit and fruit of it vnto it selfe by relying wholly vpon it This interpretation of that proposition the Reformed Churches do admit none other reiecting as erronious and contrary to the Scriptures such glosses as ascribe any thing to the dignity of faith or make any combination betweene Faith and Workes in the point of our Iustification Amongst which there are three erronious assertions touching mans Iustification by Faith which we are briefly to examine and refute 1 That faith iustifieth vs Per modum Causae efficientis meritoriae as a proper efficient and meritorious cause Which by it's owne worth and dignity deserues to obtaine Iustification Remission of sinnes and the grace of well-doing This is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which Bellarmine labours to proue in his 17. Chap. lib. pr. de Iustificatione where disputing against Iustification by faith alone hee tels vs. If we could be perswaded that faith doth Iustifie impetrando promerendo suo modo inchoando Iustificationem then we would neuer deny that loue feare hope and other vertues did iustifie vs as well as faith Whereupon he sets himselfe to prooue that there is in faith it selfe some efficacy and merit to obtaine and deserue Iustification His Arguments are chiely two From those places of Scripture wherein a man is said to be iustified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or absolutely without Article or Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per fidem ex fide or fide Wherein these Prepositions signifie saith he the true cause of our Iustification Which he proues 1 By the contrary when a man is said to be iustified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This notes the true efficient deseruing cause of his Iustification Secondly By the like in other places where we are said to be redeemed saued sanctified Per Christum per sanguinem per mortem per vulnera and in the whole 11. to the Heb. The Saints are said to doe such and such things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by faith All signifying the proper cause From those places of Scripture which sayth he plainly shew Faith doth impetrare remissionem suo quidem modo mereri Such are those Thy Faithâ— hath saued thee or made thee whole A speech that Christ vsed often as to the woman that washed his feet To her that had an issue of Blood To the blind man recovered of his sight And that to the Cananitish woman O woman great is thy Faith now see what the merit of this Faith was For this saying go thy way the Diuel is gone out of thy Daughter Thus Abraham being strenghened in Faith glorified God who therefore iustified him for the Merit of his Faith And againe in the eleuenth to the Heb. by many examples we are taught that by Faith that is by the merit and price of Faith Enoch and other men pleased God For answeare here vnto 1 Vnto the Argument from the Proposition we reply That if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be needs strictly taken in the same kind of Causality then the Iesuits should doe well to stand to that and make the similitude betweene Faith and workes runne thus A Man is iustified by workes that is for the proper and only Merits of his obedience so a Man is iustified by Faith that is for the only merit of his Beleeving in Christ aud by that meanes both shall be true and effectuall causes of Iustification But if Bellarmine dare not thus presse the similitude for feare of being found guilty of despising the blood of the New Couenant attributing that to the Merit of Faith which belongs only to the Merit of Christ he must then giue vs that leaue to distinguish which he takes to himselfe and if he fall to his Qualifications and quodammodo's he must pardon if we also seeke out such an Interpretation of those places as may not crosse other Scriptures Which for asmuch as they testifie that We are Iustified by his grace through the Redemption that is in Christ that All sinne is purged by the blood of Christ that By the sacrifice of himselfe he hath put away Sinne and With offering hath consecrated for ouer them that are sanctified we dare not without horrible sacrilege ascribe the grace of our Iustification vnto the worke and worth of any thing whatsoeuer in our selues but wholy and only to the Righteousnesse of Christ. And therefore when the Scriptures say we are iustified by Faith we take not the word By in this formall and legall sense we are iustified by the efficacy of our Faith or for the worth of our Faith according as 't is vnderstood in Iustification by workes but we take it Relatiuely Instrumentally We are Iustified by Faith that is by the Righteousnesse of Christ the benefit whereof vnto our Iustification we are made partakers of by Faith as the only grace which accepts of the promise and giues vs assurance of the performance He that looked to the Brasen serpent and was cured might truly be sayd to be healed by his looking on though this Action was no proper cause working the cure by any efficacy or dignity of it selfe but was only a necessary condition required of them that would be healed vpon the obedient observance whereof God would shew them favor so he that looketh on Christ beleeuing in him may truly be sayed to be saued and Iustified by Faith not as for the worth and by the â—fficacy of that act of his but as it is the Condition of the promise of grace that must necessarily go before the performance of it to vs vpon our Obedience where vnto God is pleased of his free grace to iustifie Nor is this Trope any way harsh or vnusuall to put Oppositum pro opposito Relatum pro Correlato Habitum pro Obiecto In Sacramentall locutions 't is a generall Custome to put the signe for the thing signified and the like is vsed in other passages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the word of God grew c. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mystery of faith and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the words of Faith and Rom. 8. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Spe seruati sumus id est Christo in quem speramus Hope that is seene is not hope that is res visa non sperata est That of Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Like to that Christ our Ioy Anni spem
the eye onely sees say our Men yet the Eare is in the Head too Yea reply they But the eie could see well notwithstanding the Eare were deafe T is the Heate onely of the fire or Sunne that warmes though there be light ioyned with it True say they But if there were no Light yet if heate remained it would warme for all that as the Heate of an Ouen or of Hell burnes though it shine not Thou holdest in thy hands many seedes T is the old comparison of Luther on the 15 of Gen. I enquire not what t is together but what is the vertue of each one single Yea reply our Aduersaries that 's a very needelesse question indeed For if among them many seedes there be some one that hath such soueraigne vertue that it alone can cure all diseases then t is no Matter whether thou haue many or few or none at all of any other sort in thy hand Thou hast that which by it owne vertue without other ingredients will worke the Cure Nor haue we ought to make answere in this case If as the Eye sees heate warmes seeds and other simples doe cure by their owne proper Vertue so Faith alone by its owne efficacy did sanctifie vs. But there is the Errour Faith works not in our sanctification or Iustification by any such inward power vertue of its own from whence these effects should properly follow For Sanctification Faith as we haue seene is part of that inherent Righteousnesse which the Holy Ghost hath wrought in the Regenerate and t is opposed to the Corruption of our Nature which stands in Infidelity Faith sanctifies not as a cause but as a part of insused grace and such a part as goes not alone but accompanied with all other Graces of Loue Feare Zeale Hope Repentance c. Inasmuch as Mans regeneration is not the infusion of one but of the Habit of all graces Againe 't is not the Vertue of Faith that iustifies vs The grace of Iustification is from God he workes it but t is our Faith applies it and makes it ours The Act of Iustification is Gods meere worke but our Faith onely brings vs the Benefit and Assurance of it Iustification is an externall priuiledge which God bestowes on beleeuers hauing therein respect onely to their Faith which grace onely hath peculiar respect to the Righteousnesse of Christ and the promise in him Whereby t is manifest that this argument is vaine Faith alone is respected in our Iustification therefore Faith is or may be alone without other graces of Iustification Bellar would vndertake to proue that true saith may be seuered from Charity and other Vertues but wee haue heretofore spoken of that Point and shewed that true Faith yet without a Forme true Faith dead and without a soule be Contradictions as vaine as A true Man without reason A true Fire without heate We confesse indeed that the faith of Iesuites the same with that of Simon Magus may very well bee without Charity and all other sanctifying graces a bare assent to the truth of Divine Reuelations because of Gods Authority As t is in Diuels so t is in Papists and other Heretickes But we deny that this is that which deserues the name of true Faith which whosoeuer hath hee also hath eternall life As it is Iohn 6. 47. 3 Argument That which Scripture doth not affirme that is false doctrine But the Scripture doth not affirme that wee are Iustified by Faith alone Ergo so to teach is to teach false Doctrine This Argument toucheth the quicke and if the Minor can be prooued we must needs yeeld them the Cause For that the Iesuites conceiue that this is a plaine case for where is there any one place in all the Bible that saith Faith alone Iustifies They euen laugh at the simplicity of the Heretickes as they Christen vs that glory they haue found out at last the word Onely in Luc. 8. 50. in that speech of Christ to the Ruler of the Synagogue Feare not beleeue onely and shee shall be made whole And much sport they make themselues with Luther That to helpe out this matter at a dead lift by plaine fraud hee foysted into the Text in the 3. to the Romans the word Onely When being taught with the fact and required a Reason He made answere according to his Modesty Sic volo sic iubeo stet pro ratione voluntas T is true that Luther in his Translation of the Bible into the Germane tougue read the 28. verse of that Chapter thus We conclude that men are iustified without the workes of the Law onely through Faith Which word onely is not in the Originall Where in so doing if he fulfild not the Office of a faithfull Translator yet he did the part of a faithfull Paraphrast keeping the sense exactly in that Alteration of words And if he be not free from blame yet of all men the Iesuites are most vnfit to reproue him whose dealing in the corrupting of all sort of Writers Diuine and humane are long since notorious and infamous throughout Christendome What Luthers Modesty was in answering those that found fault with his Translation we haue not to say Onely thus much That the impudent Forgeries of this Generation witnesse abundantly that it is no rare thing for a Lie to drop out of a Iesuites or Fryers penne But be it as it may be T is not Luthers Translation Nor that place in the 8. of Luke that our Doctrine touching Iustification by Faith alone is founded vpon We haue better proofes then these as shall appeare vnto you in the confirmation of the Minor of this Syllogisme Whatsoeuer the Scriptures affirme that 's true doctrine But the Scriptures affirme a man is iustified by Faith alone Therefore thus to teach is to teach according to the word of whole-some doctrine Our Aduersaries demaund proofe of the Minor We alleadge all those places wherein the Scriptures witnesse that we are Iustified by faith without the workes of the Law Such places are these Rom. 3. 28. Therefore we conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the Law Rom. 4. 2. 3. If Abraham were iustified by workes hee hath whereof to glory but not before God For what saith the Scripture Abraham beleeued God and it was counted to him for righteousnesse And vers 14. 15. 16. For if they which are of the Law be heires faith is made void and the promise made of none effect Because the Law worketh wrath for where no Law is there is no transgression Gal. 2. 16. Knowing that a man is not iustified by the workes of the Law but by the Faith of Iesus Christ Euen we haue beleeued in Christ that we might be iustified by the Faith of Christ and not by the workes of the Law For by the workes of the Law shall no flesh be iustified Gal. 3. 21. 22. Is the Law then against the promises of God God
VINDICIAE FIDEI OR A TREATISE OF IVSTIFICATION BY Faith wherein that point is fully cleared and vindicated from the cauils of it's aduersaries Deliuered in certaine Lectures at Magdalen Hall in Oxford By William Pemble Master of Arts of the same house And now published since his death for the publique benefit PHILIP 3. 9. And he found in him not hauing mine owne righteousnes which is of the Law but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God by faith OXFORD Printed by IOHN LICHFIELD and WILLIAM TVRNER for Edward Forrest 1625. TO THE RIGHT WORSHIPFVLL MASTER DOCTOR WILKINSON Principall of Magdalen Hall The Masters Batchelours and other Students of that flourishing Societie SIRS CVstome hath made dedication of bookes almost as common as Printing of them and Wisdome directs there to dedicate where we owe either respect or thankes this worke therefore is yours by right the Author thereof who is now with God vndertaking it at your request and performing it amongst you for your good so that now to bestow it vpon you is not a gift but retribution and I hope it will both stirre you vp to be carefull to continue fit men to stand vp in his place and remaine to his successours as a patterne of imitation if it be too high for aemulation To commend this Authour to you were to bring Owles to Athens and for me to commend the worke would not adde much worth to it I know nothing can disparage it vnlesse it be a naked Margent but you and all that will be pleased to take notice of his yeares and great abilities in all humane learning wil confesse he could not haue time to reade many Fathers and so that defect may be easily pardoned For he had fully finished sixe lusters of yeares yet had hee throughly traced the circle of the Arts and attained to an eminency not only in those ordinary Sciences wherein all Schollers haue some smattering but euen in those sublimer speculations of which all are not capable few search after For hee was export in the Mathematickes both mixt and pure his skill in Histories was also praise-worthy sometime he spent and not without successe in trauailing to learne 〈…〉 and much trauaile in the study of our home-taught tongues that he had worth to laiâ—e beene Professour 〈…〉 or Hâ—brew all which indowments as they 〈◊〉 afterwards haue enabled him to read with much profit so could they not chuse but preuent younger yeares from reading at all the ancient Fathers so it was not want but abundance of learning that tooke vp his time and preuented his Margent and therefore I hope shall not disparage this worke The first weapon young Fencers learne to vse is single sword when they are masters of that they inlarge their skill our Author was but yong let it not preiudice him that he first vses onely the sword of the Spirit the word of God especially sith that is so dextrously weelded that by it alone he hath deadly wounded the Romish Leuiathan Therefore as in my knowledge these Lectures were heard with much applause so doe I perswade my selfe they wil be read with great approbation and occasion the publishing of other Lectures and priuate labours wherein hee tooke no lesse paines nor deserued lesse praise then in his publike indeauours So hoping that you will accept this small paines of mine I take my leaue and rest From Tewkeisbury this 9th of Iuly 1625. Yours willing to doe you greater though not more acceptable seruice IOHN GEREE To the Christian Reader GEntle Reader this Treatise was neither finished nor polished by the Author He left it with mee when hee died to bee dealt with as cause should require vpon perusall I found it fit for the time so full of lifâ— so sound cleere in proofe that in my conceit it will doe much good and here thou hast it as he left it The argument is of all indifference betwixt vs and Papists the chiefest no controuersie more disputed and lesse agreed vpon then this Christ and his bloud is the maine cause of our spirituall peace Papists and others diuide with him and take something to themselues the spirituall pride that is in the heart of man would faine haue a finger in the work of saluation of other controuersies betwixt vs the other party some befor the Popes Kitchin some for the Popes crowne but this of our Iustification toucheth the life of Grace to the quicke breeds more in our flesh then any and thâ—se sicknesses are most dangerous that come from within It is a fundamentall case wherein to faile takes away the essence of a Christian Wherefore sith there is now such need to haue the world confirmed in this truth of God I thought good to send this booke abroad wherein this is put out of question to any man of a single eie that we are not iustified by any thing wee any thing we can doe or suffer Many write bookes and confute them themselues when they haue done but this our Author what hee wrote he beleeued for being to die he confirmed this Truth in a discoursefull of life and power and professed to take his last vpon it that it was the very truth of God Wee reade that some learned Papists when they are to giue vp the ghost disclaime their owne merits and would faine finde all in Christ alone but this our Author did it before sundry with that life and feeling 〈◊〉 cleare apprehension of the loue of God in his Sonne that such is heard him and loued him well and long could not well tel whether they should weepe or reioice weepe to see a friend die reioyce to see him die so Good Reader learne this holy instruction out of this booke that we are not to be found in our owne righteousnes at all and beleeue it thou shalt haue as he had peace passing all vnderstanding in life and in death for being iustified by saith not by workes we haue peace with God saith Saint Paul If any ingenuous learned Papist would vndertake to answer this booke me thinkes I might prophecy that as Vergeziê° Bishop of Capo d' Istria and Nuncio to Clement the seuenth and Paul the third reading Luther to answere Luther was conuerted and had his soule saued And as Pighius tho of a peeuish Spirit enough yet reading Caluin to confute Caluin was in the very doctrine of Iustification confuted himselfe and wrote with vs. So I say would a modest Papist read this booke to reply vnto it he could not but see the truth and yeeld vnto it For tho many have done excellently in this argument yet to speake my opinion freely at least for perspicuitie this surpasseth them all Farewell Thine in Christ Rich. Capel A TREATISE OF IVSTIFICATION CHAP. I. The explication of these tearmes First Iustice or Righteousnesse Secondly Iustification HAuing by Gods Assistance dispatched two of those generall points at first proposed touching the Antecedents and Nature of
acquainted vs with his meaning as to follow another of our owne making And there fore according to the Scriptures we acknowledge and maintaine that as in other places where mention is made of the Iustification of a sinner before God so in the 2 and 4 Chapters of the Ep. to the Rom. and third Chapter of the Gal. where the Doctrine there of is directly handled by Iustification nothing else is meant but the gracious Act of Almighty God whereby hee absolues a beleiuing sinner accused at the Tribunall of his Iustice pronouncing him iust and acquitting him of all punishment for Christs sake CHAP III The Confutation of our Aduersaries cauils against our acception of the word Iustification OVR Adversaries haue little to reply against these so plaine places Somthing they answere namely 1 That it cannot be denied but that Iustification doth many times beare that sense we stand for But with all they would haue vs obseru this rule that Quotiescunque in Scripturis Deus dicitur iustificare impium semper intelligendum est ex impio facere iustum God cannot declare a man to be iust but of vniust he must make him iust And they giue the Reason Because the Iudgment of God is according to Trueth Rom. 2. 2. We embrace this Rule and the Reason of it acknowledging that where euer there is Iustification there must be Iustice some way or other in the party Iustified But the Question stands still in what manner God makes a sinner iust whom hee in Iudgemenr pronounceth so to be They say by bestowing on him the grace of Sanctification perfect Righteousnesse inherent in his own Person We affirme that it is by imputing vnto him the perfect Righteousnesse of Christ accepting Christs obedience for his In which diuersity let vs come as neere them as Trueth will giue leaue Thus â—arre we goe along with them 1 That there is inherent Righteousnesse bestowed vpon a Sinner whereby of vnholy impure vniust he is made holy cleane and iust We all confessed this worke of the Holy Ghost renewing Man in the spirit of his mind restoring in him the Image of God in Knowledge Righteousnesse and Holinesse That the Holy Ghost dwelles in the Elect as in Temples dedicated to his service which he adornes by communicating vnto them his Heauenly graces That hee makes them Liuing Members of Christs Body and fruitfull Braunches of that true Vine That this grace infused is a fountaine of Living water springing vp to eternall Life These things we beleeue and teach Wherfore whereas the Popish Doctors fall foule on our reformed writers charging Calvin others for denying all Inherent Righteousnesse in Beleeuers maintaining only an Imputed Righteousnesse without them We tell them 't is a grosse Calumny forged by perverse Minds that list not to vnderstand Mens playnest writings Nor Calvin nor any that euer maintained the trueth with him euer denied the Righteousnes oâ— Sanctification But this he denies we also with the Scriptures that the Righteousnesse which iustifies vs in Gods Iudgment is not in our selues but all in Christ. That inherent Righteousnesse or sanctification allway keepe company with Iustification in the same Person Severed they are never in their common Subiect viz a True Beleeuer as appeares Rom. 8. 30. But that therefore they must be confounded for one and the same Grace and worke of God may be affirmed with as good Reason as that in the Sunne Light and Heate are all one because alwaies ioyned to geather That by this grace of Inherent Righteousnesse a Man is in some sort iustified before God That is so farre as a Man by the grace of God is become truly holy and good so farre God esteemes him holy good God taketh notice of his owne graces in his Children he approues of them and giues Testimony of them in case it be needfull as appeares by the Righteousnesse of Iob Dauid Zachary and other holy Men who were good and did good in Gods sight Yea in the Life to come when all corruptions being vtterly done away the Saints shall be invested with perfection of Inherent Holinesse by the Righteousnesse of their owne and not by any other shall they then appeare iust in Gods fight Thus farre we agree with them But herein now wee differ that although by the grace of Sanctification infused God doe make him righteous and holy in some measure that was before altogether vnholy and wicked neuerthelesse we affirme that by and for this Holynesse the best of Saints living never were nor shall be Iustified in Gods sight that is pronounced iust and innocent before the Tribunall of his Iustice. For we here take vp the forenamed Rule layed downe by our adversaries Whomsoeuer God pronounceth to be perfectly iust he must needs be made perfectly iust For Gods Iudgment is according to trueth Now that no man in this life is made perfectly iust by any such inherent Holinesse in him as is able to outstand the severe and exact triall of Gods Iudgment is a Trueth witnessed by the Scripture and confessed alwaies by the most holy Saints of God Our Aduersaries indeed stiffly pleade the contrary teaching that sinne and Corruption in the Iustified is vtterly abolished The error and pride of which Imagination we shall shortly haue occasion more at Large to Discouer vnto you Meane while let that much stand for good that Man being not made perfectly iust in himselfe cannot thereby be declared perfectly iust before God and therefore some other Righteousnesse not that of Sanctification is to be sought for whereby a sinner may be Iustified in Gods sight To that argument of ours from the Opposition of iustification to Accusation and Condemnation confirmed by so many places of Scripture They answere That this hinders nothing at all Both may agree to God who of his mercy iustifies some that is makes them inherently Iust of his Iustice condemns other that is punisheth them To which slight Answeres wee make this short reply That where words are opposite as they acknowledg these to be there according to the Lawes of opposition they must carry opposite Meaning But vnto Accusation Comdemnation and punishment nothing is opposite but defence Absolution and Pardon Where therefore Iustificare is coupled with these words it must needes beare this and no other meaning of a bad man to make a good is not opposite to Accusation Condemnation or punishment of him Accused he may be Condemned and punished iustly and after made good I should but trouble you to alleadge more of their Cavills Let thus much suffice for the clearing of this point That Iustification and Sanctification are to be Distinguished and not confounded The Righteousnesse of the one is in vs in its Nature true and good but for its degree and measure Imperfect and alwaies yoaked with the remaynder of naturall Corruption And therefore if a sinner should plead this before the Iudgment seate of God offering himself to be
that such a good worke be done so and so what then we dispute now touching particulars in euery Mans reall practice The enquiry is not for the generall What euill is there in such and such a good worke done thus and thus according as the Circumstances are framed in an Imagined Case As to aske what Sinne is their in an Almes-deede done out of Faith and Charity to Gods glory This is a fond question thus framed vpon generall termes we say their is no Sinne in it But the enquiry is in particular what Euill their is in such a worke done by this or that Man according to all Circumstances that were at that time incident to the worke as What sinne was there in Zacheus or Cornelius almes-deeds This question we admit and answere to it That some Sinne there was for which those holy Men as wel as others would not haue beene willing that God should enter into iudgement with them strictly to iudge them Yea but will the Iesuits reply name what Sinne this was or else you wrong them Now this is meere impudency For who is judge of their actions Are we or is it God and their owne Consciences we can be no judges who at furthest can judge but accordrng to outward appearance We know not their Hearts nor are we priuy vnto euery particular Circumstance that did accompany those actions of theirs Circumstances in euery particular action differ infinitely one Man may offend in this point another in that nor haue we a generall Rule whereby to judge alike of all And therefore it is a childish quaere to aske on Man whether another Man offendes who may doe euill a 1000 times not only secret from others but vnwitting to himselfe If then the Iesuite will haue an answere to his question he must resort to particular mens Consciences and to God for only the spirit of Man and the spirit of God know the things of Man Let him aske a Cornelius when he giues almes whether he doe thinke this worke so well done that no fault can bee found with it Doubtlesse he will answere that he cannot excuse himselfe from all faultinesse though he knew nothing by himselfe yet he dares not stand to Gods judgment His confession and prayer would in this case be the same with Nehemiahs Nehem. 13. 22. Remember me O my God concerning this also and spare mee according to the greatnesse of thy mercy at once begging fauorable acceptance of his obedience and gratious pardon of his infirmities If this suffice not in the next place the Iesuite is to repaire to God almighty and question him where the Sinnes in such and such a good workes who no doubt can shape him an answere that will sore confound his pride and folly and make it quickly appeare vnto him that sinnefull Man when he pleades with God is not able to answere him one obiection of a 100 that God shall make against him This of the third Argument That Man hath sufficient meanes to doe well and not Sinne. The last followes drawne from such absurdities as they say doe follow vpon our Doctrine Thus. 4 If say they our Doctrine be true that the best workes of Men be Sinfull then these absurdities be likewise true doctrine That to be iustified by faith is to be iustified by Sin That no man ought to beleeue because the worke Beleeuing is Sinne. That all good works are forbidden because all Sinne is forbidden That God should command vs to commit Sinne because he commands vs to doe good workes That God bidding vs be zelous of goâ—d workes should in effect bid vs be zealous of mortall Sinne. That to pray for the pardon of Sinne were a damnable Sinne. These and such other absurd Positions would be true if the protestants doctrine concerning the sinfulnesse of good workes may stand for good Hereunto we answere That these absurdities issue not out of our Doctrine but out of our Aduersaries malitious Imaginations Who like the ragine Sea casting vp mire and Dirt from its owne Bottome would faine throw all this filth in the face of the Reformed Churches to make them odious and hatefull to the world The best is Truth cannot bee disgraced though it may be belyed These foule Absurdities touch vs not but follow vpon that Doctrine which is none of ours Namely That the good works of the Regenerate are in their very Nature altogether sins and nothing else but sordes inquinamenta merae iniquitates Such an absurd assertion would indeed yeeld such an absurd consequence But we defended it not they abuse vs grosly wheÌ„ in their writings they report of vs the contrary that we doe mainetaine This onely we teach That mens good workes are in part sinfull Much good they haue in them but with all some euill mingled therewith Amongst the gold some drosse also will be sound that will not be able to abide the fire of Gods seuere Tryall Imperfections will appeare in our best workes so long as humane infirmity and mortality hangs vpon vs. This we teach and from this Doctrine all that haue reason may see that no such vnreasonable conclusions can be collected And let thus much suffice for the clearing of this third Proposition touching the imperfection of our obedience to the Morrall Law of God euen in the good workes which we performe From whence euery godly heart should leâ—rne both Christian Humilitie and also Industry First Humility not to boast in the flesh and glory in its owne Righteousnesse thinking that God must highly account off and reward largely that which is very little worth Secondly Industry in a faithfull indeauour after perfection That what cannot be done well as it ought wee may yet euery day be done better then before it was CHAP. IIII. Three generall exceptions against the truthes deliuered in this third Section THus we haue stood long in the confirmation of our second Argument touching the impossibility of Mans fulfilling of the Law in this Life and so consequently of iustification by the Law Against all that haue bin sayed for the profit of this point our Aduersaries haue three Common and generall Exceptions Which are these 1 That Concupiscence or Naturall Corruption in the first and second act of it is no sinne 2 That imperfection in our Charity and Obedience is no sinne 3 That smaller faults or as they tell them Veniaâ—â— sinnes doe not hinder the Iustice and goodnesse of any good worke To these three Positions they haue continually recourse For whereas they cannot deny but that their is in the Regenerate both a pronesse of Nature vnto Euill and also many inordinate Sinnefuâ—l motions arising thence they first deny that either these Naturall Corruptions or disordered Motions of the Heart be any sinnes Againe they confesse that no man hath such perfect loue of God and Man but that he may increase in charity nor be his good workes so perfectly good but that they ought still to striue to doe them
coinquinatum intrare potest Now sure this is admirable that such acts as these should defile a man deserue hell offend God in a word be sinnes and yet for all this neither commanded nor forbidden in any Law of God Was there euer such a toy heard of as this as Sinnes beside the Law T is a most ridiculous contradiction Peccatum praeter Legem He that doth any thing beside the Law not mentioned nor include â— therein by way of prohibition or command t is most apparent he sinnes not nor offends not at all For whom doth he offend or who can challenge him of Sinne Doth God the Law-giuer No for t was not his intention to command or forbid such an act and ergo be it done or not done it crosseth not his will nor hath he any reason to finde fault or be displeased at it Satan or Man cannot accuse him For let them then shew the Law that prooues him an offender If they cannot alleadge a Law against which he hath transgressed they wrongfully accuse him of a fault Were it not absurd accusation against a prisoner at the Barre to say that he hath indeed done nothing against the Lawes of the Land but many things besides the Law not forbidden nor commanded in the Law those hee hath done and deserues to be punished for it as an offender But now if those veniall sinnes bee mentioned in Gods Law then are such actions either commanded or forbidden If commanded then the not doing of such a thing is plainely contrary to the Law As for example To steale a penny or some other small matter to please an idle word to tell an officious lie these be veniall sinnes say our Aduersaries But how hnow they they be sinnes who told them so The Scriptures they will say Where In the 8 and 9 Commandement Aske them now Did God intend in those Commandements to forbid those actions of stealing and lying Yea or No If he intended it not then t is no sinne at all to doe them seeing it croâ—seth not Gods will nor offends him If he did intend to forbid vs those things then to doe them is a sinne manifestly contrary to the holy will of God the Lawgiuer Wherfore let vs here remeÌ„ber that excellent rule of Bernard Non iussa quïdem licitè vtrumlibet vel admittuntur vel omittuntur iussa vero sine culpa non negleguntur sine crimine non â—ontemnuntur For things not commanded we may either lawfully doe them or leaue them but for things commanded to neglect them is a sinne to contemne them is a haynous crime Wherefore this distinction of sins against and sinnes beside the Law falleth to dust and our Minor Proposition stands firme That he who committeth veniall Sinne transgresseth the Law of God and therefore is vnrighteous for his so doing Becanus here forsakes the Cardinall in this distinction and helpes him by an other deuisâ— He grants that Veniall Sinnes be against the Law and proues it because euery Veniall Sinne is moraliter malum and Ergo contra rectam rationemet Legem aeternam But here 's now the distinction It is one thing to be contra Legem another contra finem Legis All Veniall sinnes be against the Law but no veniall sinne is properly against the end of the Law that is against Charity the Loue of God or our Neighbour Is not this a superfine Inuention As if a Subiect that hath in many things broken the Law should say True my faults be against the Law of the Land but yet they are not against the end of those Lawes viz. obedience to my Prince and Loue to the good of him and my Country Though I break the Lawes yet I would not haue you thinke but I loue and honour my Prince and Country well enough Iust so the Iesuits A man may commit many sinnes against Gods Law and yet obserue the end of the Law in louing God with all his heart and his Neighbour as himselfe Then which nothing can be more senselesse that a man should offend God in breaking of his Law and yet not withstanding loue God with his whole heart That a man should wrong his Neighbour doing that to him which he would not haue done to himselfe and yet for all that loue his Neighbour as himselfe If ye loue mee keepe my Commandemâ—nts saith Christ. Iohn 14. 15. Nay say the Romanists we loue him and yet breake his Commandements Loue doth none euâ—l to his Neighbour saith the Apostle Romans 13. 10 Nay say the Iesuits Loue may doe euill to his Neâ—ghbour and yet keepe the name of loue A man may be angry with another without cause reuile him and call him Racha hee may defraude him in small matters for these they make veniall sinnes and yet in the meane time all this without breath of Charity Himselfe would not willingly be so vsed but hee will vse another in this sort and yet looke to bee thanked for his loue too Such grosse absurdities doe our Aduersaries runne in to by coyning such senselesse distinctions of Sinnes not against but besides the Law of sinnes not against the end of the Law though against the Law it selfe Our Consciences cannot be satisfied with such silly shiftes and therefore we leaue them vnto those that can content themselues and choake vp their Consciences with a little sophistry Men who make a pastime of sinne and take liberty to qualifie and dispence with Gods Law as they thinke agreeable to their Conscience hoping by tricks of wit and dodging Distinctions to a void the accusations of Conscience and to elude the seuerity of Gods Iudgement SECT 4. CHAP I Iustification by workes makes void the couenant of grace of the difference between the law the Gospel of the vse of the Law of the erroneous conceit of our Aduersaries in this point THus much of these three Exceptions of our â—econd Argâ—ment prouing the impossibiliâ—y of our Iustification by the workes of the Law because we cannot perfectly fulfill the â—aw We goe now forward vnto two Arguments more taken the one from the difference of the two Couenants God hath made with man First of works the other of grace and the other from the Nature of true Christian Libâ—rty obtained for vs by Christs death Argument That which makes voide the Couenant of Grace is a false and haereticall doctrine But Iustification of workes of the Law makes void the Couenant of Grace Ergo T is false and haeriticall so to teach For confirmation of the minor in this Argument wee must briefly shew 1 What the Couenant of Grace what the Couenant of workes is 2 What opposition their is betweene these two By the Couenant of Grace we vnderstand in one word the Gospell i. e. the gratious appointment of God to bring man to Saluation by Iesus Christ. In the administration of this gratious purpose of God we must obserue foure periods of time where in God hath diuersly ordered this meanes
apparant that perfect obedience was the condition required for the establishing of Adam in perpetuall blisse Other meanes there was not nor needed any be proposed vnto him But when Man had failed in that Condition and so broken the Covenant of Workes God to repaire Mans ruined Estate now desperate of euer attaning vnto happines by the first means he appoints a second offering vnto Adam a Sauiour that by Faith in him and not by his owne vnspotted Obedience hee might recouer Iustification and Life which he had lost So that what Adam should haue obtained by workes without Christ now hee shall receiue by Faith in Christ without Workes Since the time of Mans fall we must consider that the Law and Gospell though they goe together yet as they still differ in their vse and office betweene themselues so also the Law differs from it selfe in that vse which it had before and which it hath since the Fall To vs now it hath not the same vse which it had in Mans innocency It was giuen to Adam for this end to bring himselfe to Life and for that purpose it was sufficient both in it selfe as an absolute Rule of Perfection and in regard of Adam who had strength to haue obserued it But vnto Man fallen although the Band of Obedience doe remaine yet the End thereof viz. Iustification and Life by it is now abolished by the promise because the Law now is insufficient for that purpose not of it selfe but by reason of our sinfull flesh that cannot keepe it This is most manifest by the renewing of the first Couenant of Workes with the Iewes when God deliuered vnto them the Morall Law from Sinai at which time God did not intend that the Iewes should obtaine Saluation by Obedience to that Law God promised Life if they could obey and the Iewes as their duty was promised they would obey but God knew well enough they were neuer able to keepe their promise and ergo 't was not God's intention in this Legall couenant with the Iewes that any of them should euer attaine Iustification and Life by that meanes As that first the Promise need not to haue bin made vnto Adam if the Law could haue suffised for the attaining of Life so after the Promise was once made the Law was not renewed with the Iewes to that end that Righteousnes and Life should be had by the obseruation of it This is the plaine doctrine of the Apostle Gal. 3. in that his excellent dispute against Iustification by the Law The doubt that troubled the Galatians was this God had made an Evangelicall couenant with Abraham that in Christ he and his faithfull seed should be blessed that is Iustified Afterward 430 yeares he made a Legall couenant with Abraham's posterity that they should liue that is be justified and saued if they did fulfill all things written in the Law The Quaestion now was which of these two couenants should stand in force or whether both could stand together The Apostle answere that the former couenant should stand in force and that the later did not abrogate the former not yet could stand in force together with the former This he expresseth v. 17. 18. And this I say that the couenant that was confirmed afore of God in respect of Christ the Law which was 430 yeares after cannot disanull that it should make the Promise of none effect For if the inheritance viz of Righteousnes and life be by the Law it is not by the Promise but God gaue it to Abraham by Promise Heere now they might object Wherefore then serueth the Law If Men cannot bee iustified by keeping the Law to what end was it giuen so long after the Promise was made To this the Apostle answeres It was added vnto the Promise because of the transgressions Here 's the true vse of the Morall Law since the fall of Man not to justifie him and giue life but to proue him to be vniust and worrhy of death It was added because of transgressions that is 1. To convince Man of Sinne that he might be put in remembrance what was his duty of old and what was his present infirmity in doing of it and what was God's wrath against him for not doing it That seeing how impossible it was for him to attaine vnto life by this old way of the Law First appointed in Paradise he might be humbled and driuen to looke after that new way which God had since that time layed forth more heedfully attending the Promise and seeking vnto Christ who is the End of the Law vnto euery one that beleeues in him Which vse God pointed out vnto the Iewes figuring Christ vnto them in the Mercyseate couering the Arke wherein the Tables of the Couenant were kept and in the Sacrifices appointed for all sorts of Transgressions against this Couenant To admonish the Iewes a further thing was aimed at in giuing them the Law namely the bringing of them to Christ the promised seed in whom Remission of Sinnes and Life Eternall was to bee had 1. To restraine Man from Sinne. That the Law might be a perpetuall rule of Holinesse and Obedience whereby Man should walke and glorifie God to the vtmost of his power That so those Iewes might not thinke that God by making a gracious Promise had vtterly nullified the Law and that now Men might liue as they list but that they might know these bounds prescribed them of God within which compasse they were to keep themselues that so the ouer-flowing of Iniquity might be restrained These most excellent perpetuall and necessary vses of the morall Law God intended in renewing of the Legall couenant with the Iewes ergo the Apostle concludes that God did not crosse himself when first he gaue the Inheritance to Abraham by promise and afterwards made a Legall couenant with the Iewes his posterity Is the Law then against the Promises saith the Apostle God forbid For if there had beene a Law giuen which could haue giuen Life surely Righteousnesse should haue bin by the Law But the Scripture hath concluded all vnder Sinne that the promise by the Faith of Iesus Christ might be giuen to all that beleeue ver 21. 22. Whence it is most cleare that the Law and the Gospell in some things are subordinate and vphold one another in other absolute and destroy one another As the Law by the discouery of Sinne and the punishment of it humbles man and prepares him to receaue the Gospell 2. As the Law is a sacred direction for Holines and Obedience to those that haue embraced the Gospell and all others 3. As the Law requires satisfaction for the Breach of it and the Gospell promiseth such satisfaction thus the Law and Gospell agree well together and establish one another But as the Law giues life to them that perfectly obey it and the Gospell giues Life to them that stedfastly beleiue it thus the Law and Gospell are one against the other and ouerthrow one another And
Gospell not only proposeth what is to be done but withall giueth Grace and strength to doe it and therefore the Law giuen by Moses the Law-giuer cannot iustifie because it was giuen without the grace of fulfilling it but the Gospell giuen by Christ the Redeemer doth justifie because it is accompanied with the grace of the holy Ghost making vs able to keepe the Law For which cause also the Law of Moses is a yoake vnsupportable the Law of feare and bondage because it giues not grace to keepe it but onely conuinceth our Sinne and threatens vs punishment but the Law of Christ the Gospell is a light yoake a Law of loue and liberty because it giues grace to keepe it and of loue to God and man and so by fulfilling frees a man from feared punishment This is the summe of the Romish Doctrine touching the difference betwixt the morall Law and the Gospell in the point of Iustification as it is deliuered vs by Bellarmine the rotten pillar of the antichristian Synagogue Wherein we haue scarce a syllable of distinct Trueth but all peruerted by aequiuocations and grosse Ambiguities as shall appeare by a short surucy of the former discourse Whereas then he distinguisheth the Gospell into the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and into the Grace of the Holy Ghost let vs follow him in these two parts First for Doctrine We grant that the Gospell is often so taken but in this matter about Iustification this acception on is too large and not distinct enough For although by a Synecdâ—che of the chiefest most excellent part the whole Doctrine and Ministry of Christ and his Apostles with their successors be called the doctrine of the Gospell and the Ministery of the Gospell yet all things which they preached or wrote is not the Gospell properly so called But as Moses chiefly deliuered the Law vnto the Iewes though yet with all he wrote of Christ and so in part reuealed vnto them the Gospell so Christ and his Ministers though chiefely they preach the Gospell yet in its place they vrge the law withall as that which hath its singular vse in furthering our Christian faith and practise Wherefore when we speak of the Gospell as opposite to the Law t is a Iesuiticall equiuocation to take it in this large sense For the whole doctrine of Christ and his Apostles preached by them and written for vs in the Booke of the New Testament we follow the Apostle in his dispute of Iustification Gal. 3. 4. 5. And according as he doth take the Gospell strictly for the promise of Iustification and life made vnto man in Christ Iesus This is in proper tearmes the Gospell viz. that speciall Doctrine touching mans Redemption and reconciliation with God by the meanes of Iesus Christ the Reuelation whereof was indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the gladdest tidings that were euer brought to the eare of mortall man Which Gospell in strict teaÌ„rmes the Angels preached Lue. 2. 10. 11. Behold I bring you glad tidings of great ioy which shall be to all people That vnto you is borne this day in the Citie of Dauid a Sauiour which is Christ the Lord. And afterward Christ and his Apostles fully explained the mysteries thereof vnto the world According to this necessary distinction we answer That if we take the Gospell in that large Acception t is true which Bellarmine hath That the Gospell containes in it the Doctrine of workes viz. the Morall Law euen the very same precepts prohibitions threatnings promises which are deliuered in the Law All which as Christ and his Hpostles preached so may all Ministers without blame yea they must if they will auoid blame presse the same vpon their hearers seasonably and discreetly that the Law may make way for the better receiuing and entertainment of Grace in the Gospell But hence it followes not that the Gospell properly so taken is to be confounded as one and the same thing with the Law because the Law is conjoyned with it in the preachings and writings of the Ministers of the New Testament They still are deuided in their Nature and Offices nor hath the Gospell any affinity with the Law in praecepts threatnings or promises Wherefore when Bellarmine teacheth vs. That Euangelicall promises be made with condition of perfect fulfilling the Law T is a desperate errour and that in the very foundation You heard his proofes before recited see now a little how passing weake they be 1 Mat. 5. Except your righteousnesse c. To this wee answere The plaine meaning of the place is this Our righteousnesse must abound more then that of the Pharises that is It must not be outside onely as theirs was but inward Righteousnesse of the heart in inward sanctity of the thoughts and affections as well as of the outward Action or else such our hypocrisie will keepe vs from entring into Heauen But doth it hence follow that because we must be more perfect then these Pharisees we must be as perfect in all things as the Law requires we must exceed them ergo equall the holinesse of the Law in all points Because wee must be syncere without hypocrisie ergo we must be perfect in all things without blame Such consequents as these the Iesuit hath coÌ„cluded out of his own head not out of the text Touching that speech of Christ to the yong man Mat. 19. and the Lawyer Matt. 10. That if they did fulfill the Law they should liue We answere that Christ in so speaking vnto them did not preach the Gospell but shewed vnto them the Legall way to Saluation For these erring that grand error of the Iew in seeking for righteousnesse not by faith but by the works of the Law seuering the Law from Christ the end thereof as the Apostle shewes Rom. 9. 31. 32. 10. 3. and so supposing to be saued by doing some good thing Christ answeres them in their humour as euery one should be answered that swels with high conceits of his own righteousnesse workes That there was a Law to be kept and if they could fully obserue the righteousnes of it they should be saued sending them of purpose to the Law that they might be humbled thereby and see their great folly in seekeing for life by that which they were so vnable to keepe Against which answere the Iesuit hath nothing to rely but stands much in confuting of another answere made by some of our Diuines That Christ spake these things Ironically This Bellar. seeks to confute nor do I labor to confirm it though it might be justified for any thing he brings to the contrary 3 Vnto those those places of Scripture that euery where almost promise life blessednesse the fauour of God vpon condition of holinesse in life and conversation that we mortifie the lusts of the flesh walke in the Spirit ouercome the world c. We answere that Obedience is one thing perfect obedience is another We say that the promises of
from the guilt of sinne and course of the Morall Law Secondly Truth for the Ceremoniall Law the substance being brought in and the shadowes vanished wherefore the Iesuite erres greately in this point when he makes the grace of the New Testament to consist in this That strength is thereby giuen us to fulfill the Law The grace of God in the Gospell is chiefely our Iustification and Redemption from the curse of the Law and in the next place strength afforded vs to Obey the Law in some measure not perfectly as our Aduersaries would haue it In the next point he erres as much in saying that the Law of Moses was giueu without grace to obey it A false assertion For although the Law of it selfe giue not grace yet t is certaine that grace was giuen by Christ euen then when Moses published the Law Sufficient for the proofe hereof are 1 These excellent properties ascribed vnto the Law of God as in other places of the old Testament so spetially in the Booke of the Psalmes And amongst them in the 19. and 119. Psalmes Where the Law of God is said to giue light to the eiâ—s to conuert the Soule to reioice the Heart c. which it could not doe of it selfe had not the grace of the Holy Ghost being giuen in these times without which the Law could worke no such sauing Effects 2 Experienee of those times in the Faith Patience and â—bedience and all sorts of graces shining in those ancient Saints who liued before and after the Law was giuen Which graces they receaued from the Holy Ghost shed vpon their hearts by vertue of Christs mediation whereby they receaued strength to liue holily in Obedience vnto the Law of God The difference betweene these times and those vnder the Law is not That we haue grace and they had none but only in the mâ—asure and extent of the same grace bestowed both on vs and them In those times as the Doctrine of the Gospell was more obscurely reuealed so the grace which accoÌ„panies it was more sparingly distributed being confined to to a Church collected of one nation and bestowed vpon that Church in a lesser measure then now though yet suffitiently in that measure But in the times of the New Testament the light shines more brightly and grace is dispenced more liberally being extended indifferently to all Nations and poured vpon the Godly in a larger Abundance according as was promised Ieremiah 31. Though also this comparison must be restrained vnto whole Churches what generally is now done for no doubt in many particulars some men vnder the Law exceede for abundance of Grace many vnder the Gospell Wherefore it is a notable iniury vnto the Bounty of God and the honour of those Saints of old to exclude them from partaking of the Gospell to affirme that they were led only by the Spirit of Feare and not of loue that they receaued not the Spirit of adoption to cry Abba father as well as wee though not plentifully as wee and so that they were not Sonnes though vnder Tutors and gouernors as we confesse they were but very Seruants held in Bondage and excluded from the inheritance of Grace and glory till after Christs Death So that at best their adoptioâ— was but conditionall with regard of Time to come but for the preseÌ„t they were handled as slaues fear'd with temporall punishments allured by temporall rewards like a heard of Swine fed with base achors and huskes These be absurd Errors bred out of Scripture misvnderstood Especially that of Iohn 1. Grace came by Christ. Ergo not before Christs Inâ—arnation A sily Argument Christ is as old as the World and his Grace as ancient as the Name of Man vpon Earth grace alwaies came by Crhist was in its measure giuen by him loÌ„g before he appear'd in the flesh He was euer the head of his Church and that his Body which he alwaies quickned by the blessed influence of his Spirit ministered therevnto Whereby the Godly before as well as since his incarnation were made liuing members of that his misticall Body Wherefore it is apparant that grace is not to be tied to the Times of the Gospell and seuered from the Law Nay as of old the Law was not alwaies without grace so now many times the Gospel it selfe is without grace Christ himselfe being a stumbling stone and rocke of offence the Gospell a Sauiour of Death to those many vpon whome Grace is not bestowed to beleeue and embrace it I conclude then That this difference with our Aduersaries make betweene the Law and Gospell is false and that their Error is pernitious in makind the Gospel to be nothing but a Spirit added to the Law that man may fulfill it to his Iustification That thus a man may be saued by Christ through the perfect fulfilling of the Law Which is a monstrous and vncouth Doctrine laying an vnsupportable burthen vpon the conscience of man and hazarding his soule to â—ternall distruction whiles by this meanes he frustrates the Grace of God in Christ and withall frustrats his owne hopes of life expecting to obtaine it by that Law which he is neuer able to fulfill SECT 5. CHAP. I. Iustification by fulfilling the law ouerthrowes Christian libertie the parts of our Christian libertie SO much of the Third Argument The last followes drawne from the Nature of Christian Liberty Which is this 4. Arg. That which ouerthrowes our Christian Liberty purchased for vs by the death of Christ that 's no Euangelical but an Haereticall Doctrine But Iustification by the workes of the Law ouerthrowes the spirituall Liberty of Man obtained for him by Christ. Ergò 'T is an Haeresie against the Gospell For the proofe of the minor Proposition let vs in briefe consider wherein stands that Liberty wherewith Christ hath made vs free that so we may the better perceiue what part thereof this doctrine of Iustification by works doth nullifie and depriue vs of The Liberty wee haue in Christ is either in regard of the Life to come or of this praesent life The first is the Liberty of Glory consisting in a fuâ—l deliuerance from that state of vanity and misery both sinfull and painfull wherevnto we are now subiect And not we only but the whole Creation which with vs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 groaneth and trauaileth in paine till with vs it also be deliuered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From the bondage of Corruption into the Glorious libertie of the Sonnes of God as the Apostle declares Rom. 8. 19. seq This Liberty we haue in hope not in possession The next we actually injoy in this life and that is the Liberty of Grace This we may diuide not vnfitly into 3 branches 1 Freedome from Sinne. 2 Freedome from the Law 3 Freedome from Men. 1 Our Freedome from Sinne stands in 2 things 1 In our deliuerance from the Punishment of Sinne. For whereas euery Sinne of it's owne Nature brings with it guiltines and
them without breach of Conscience in disobeying and violâ—ting also Gods Commandement But otherwise for any immediate power over the conscience to restraine the inward liberty thereof no man without praesumption may arrogate its nor any without slauish basenes yeeld to another as the Apostle commands ye are bought with a price be not yee seruants of men This is in breife the Doctrine of Christian or spirituall lâ—berty which we call Christian 1. from the cause of it Christ by whose purchase we enioye it 2. From the subject of it Christians in opposition to the Iewes who had not this liberty in all parts of it as we haue Namely in freedome from the Ceremoniall Law and restraint in things indifferent In all other parts they in their measure were freed by Christ as well as we Againe we call it spirituall in opposition to ciuill and bodily Liberty because it stands in the freedome of Soâ—le and Conscience not in the freedome of the outward man the bondage and subjection whereof is no impeachment to this spirituall freedome As Anabaptisticall Libertines would perswade the world contrary to the Apostles decision 1. Cor. 7. 22. He that is called in the Lord being a seruant is the Lords Free-man CHAP. II. Iustification by workes subjects vs to the rigour and curse of the Law WE are now in the next place to see which braunch of our liberty is cut off by the doctrine of Iustification by workes Not to meddle with others whereat it giues a backblow but to take that which it directly strikes at we say it destroies our Liberty from the moral Law which stands heerein that we are not obliged vnto the perfect fulfilling of that Law vpon paine of aeternall Daemnation if we doe it not This gratious liberty Christ hath enfranchised vs withall whosoeuer beleiue in him and they that now teach we are justified by workes of the Law doe rob our Consciences of this heauenly Freedome bringing vs again vnder that miserable boÌ„dage vnto the Law wherein all men are holden which are in state of infidelity vnregeneration from whom the Law in extremest rigour exacts perfect ObedieÌ„ce if they will be sauâ—d For the cleering heereof this in the first place is manifest That he which will be justified by the workes of the Law is necessarily tied to fulfill the whole Law seeing ti 's impossible the Law should justifie them that transgresse it In the next place then we must proue that for a mans Conscience to be thus tyed to the fulfilling of the Law for the obtayning of Iustification is an vnsupportable yoake of spirituall Bondage contrary to that liberty wherewith Christ hath made euery beleeuer free This shall appeare in confirming of this Proportion A Man regenerate endued with true faith in Christ Iesus is not bound in Conscience vnto the fulfilling of the whole Law for his Iustification This Proposition seemes very strange vnto our adversaries and to be nothing else but a ground-plot wherein to build all licenciousnes and Libertinisme as if we did discharge men of all Alleageance to God subjection to his Lawes But their Calumnies are not sufficient confutations of orthodox Doctrine for the stopping of their mouthes we throw them this distinction whereon they may gnaw while they breake their teeth before they bite it in pieces Mans conscience stands bound vnto the Law of God in a two fold obligation Either 1. Of Obedience that according to the measure of Grace receiued he endevour to the vtmost of his power to liue conformably to the Law of God in all things 2. Of fulfilling the Law that in euery jot and tittle he obserue all things whatsoeuer it commands vpon paine of everlasting condemnation for the least transgression We teach that no true Beleeuer is freed from the Obligation vnto Obedience but so farre as by grace giuen him he is enabled he ought to striue to the vtmost to performe all duties towards God man commanded in the Law if he will justifie his faith to be sound without Hypocrisy And ergò our Doctrine is no doctrine of Licentiousnes But on the other side we teach That euery true beleeuer is freed from that obligation vnto the fulfilling of the Law for the attaining of life justification by it Which materiall difference for the cleering of our doctrine not obserued or rather suppressed by Bellarmine causeth the Iesuite to labour much in a needlesse dispute to proue against vs That a Christian man is tyed to the obseruation of the morall Law He tells vs that Christ is a Law-giuer aswell as a Redeemer of his Church praescribing orders for all in common for each one in particular That he is a Iudge that sentenceth according to Law That he is a King that ruleth ouer subjects vnto a Law That Christ by his comming did not destroy but fulfill the Law expounded it enioyned it to be observed by vs. That his Apostles vrge it in euery Epistle That a Christian man sinniug offends against the Law ergò is bound to keepe the Law In all which the Iesuite encounters his owne phantasy not our doctrine which is not wounded by such misguided weapons For we grant without striuing that every Christian is tyed to obserue the Morall Law and we averre that it is a most vnchristian Iesuiticall slaunder to affirme as he doth that we teach Christianum nulli Legi obnoxium subjectum esse in Conscientia coram Deo Nay we teach that he is bound to obey to the vtmost of his power and from this obligation no authority of Man or Angell Pope or Deuill can discharge him So much we grant the Arguments alleaged by the Cardinall doe enforce and nothing else They proue Obedience necessary to a beleeuing Christian but they can neuer proue perfect fulfilling of the Law to be necessarily required of him From this heauy burthen Christ hath eased the shoulders of all such as are in him by a liuely Faith of whom God doth no longer exact perfect Obedience to his Law in those strict and rigorous termes that they shall be accursed if they fulfill it not This we proue by these Scriptures 1. Gal 1. 2. 3. Stand fast saith the Apostle in the Liberty wherein Christ hath made vs free and be not entangled againe with the yoake of bondage But what is this Yoake of Bondage Is it onely the obseruation of the Ceremoniall Law No. That was indeed part of the yoake which the Apostles sought to lay on the Consciences of the Galatians But 't was the least and the lightest part the weightiest burthen was the fulfilling of the Morall Law wherevnto by the doctrine of the false Apostles the Galatians stood obliged This is plaine by the Text in the words following Behold I Paul say vnto you that if you be circuÌ„cised Christ shall profit you nothing For I testifie againe to euery man which is circumcised that he is bound to keepe the whole Law The Apostles
fall as our adnersaries haue done into that Errour of Iustification by workes That blessed Apostle in the second Chapter of his Epistle seemes not only to giue occasion but directly to teach this doctrine of Iustification by workes For in the 21. ver c. He sayeth expressly that Abraham was justified by workes when he offered his sonne Isaack vpon the altar and also that Rahab was in like manner justified by workes when she entertained the spies Whence also he sets downe ver 22. a generall Conclusion That a Man is justified by workes and not by faith alone Now in shew nothing can be spoken more contrary to St. Paule his Doctrine in his Epistle to the Romans and else-where For in the fourth chap. speaking of the same example of Abraham he saieth cleane contrary that Abraham was not justified by workes for then he might haue boasted ver 2. And in the 3 chap. treating generally of mans Iustification by faith after a strong dispute he drawes forth this conclusion That a man is justified by Faith without the workes of the Law v. 28. Which Conclusion is in appearance contradictory to that of St. Iames. This harsh discord betweene these Apostles seemes vnto some not possible to be sweetned by any qualification who knowing that the Holy Ghost neuer forgets himselfe haue concluded that if the spirit of trueth spake by St. Paul it was doubtlesse the spirit of error that spake by the author of this Epistle of Iames. For this cause most likely it was doubted of in ancient times as Eusebius and Hierâ—me witnes But yet then also publiquely allowed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in many Churches and euer since receaued in all Out of which for the same cause Luther and others of his followers since him would againe throw it forth accounting the author of it to haue built not gold and siluer but straw and stubble vpon the foundation Erasmus assents to Luther And Musculus agrees with them both who in his Commentaries vpon the fourth to the Romans speakes his mind simply that he sees not how Iames and Paul can agree together and therefore he turnes out St. Iames for the wrangler supposing that this Iames was one of the Desciples of Iames the Apostle the brother of Christ who vnder pretence of his Master's name and authority continually snarled at the Apostle Paul and opposed his Doctrine Howbeit his Epistle got credit in after times cum veritas paulatim inualescente mendacio proculcari caeperit That is When error by degrees praevailed against the trueth But this medicine is worse then the disease and is rather violence then skill thus to cut the knot where it cannot bee readily vntied A safer and milder course may be holden and some meanes found out for the according of this grand difference without robbing the Church of somuch pretious Treasure of diuine knowledg as is stored vp in this Epistle Wherefore both they of the Romish and we of the reformed Churches admitting this Epistle for canonical doe each of vs search after a fit reconciliation betweene the Apostles But they and we betweene our selues are irreconcileable in our seuerall reconcileations of them They reconcile them thus By distinguishing 1. of Iustification 2 of Workes Iustification say they of two sortes 1. The first when a man of vnjust is made just and holy by the Infusion of Grace or the Habit of Charitie 2. The 2. When a man of just is made more just by the augmentation of the Habit of Grace first giuen vnto him Againe they diuide workes into two sortes 1. Some goe before Faith being performed by the meere strength of nature and free-will without the helpe of grace and such workes as these are not meritorious 2. Some follow Faith being performed by the aide and assistance of grace giuen vnto man and such workes as these be meritorious These distinctions praepared the worke is now ready for the soddering which they finish artificially glewing togeather the proposition of the two Apostles in this sorte St. Paul saieth that Abraham and all men are justified by Faith without workes This say they is to be vnderstood of the first Iustification and of workes done before Faith without grace by the strength of nature So that the meaning of Paule's proposition Abraham and all men are justified by faith without workes is this Neither Abraham nor any other can deserue the Grace of Sanctification whereby of vnjust and vnholy they be made just and holy by any workes done by them when they are Naturall Men destitute of Grace but only by Faith in Christ Iesus or thus No Man merits Grace to make him a good Man of a Bad by any thing he doth before he beleeue in Christ but by beleeuing he obtaineth this On the other side S. Iames saith that Abraham and all others are iustified by Workes not by Faith only This say the Romanists is meant of the second Iustification and of such workes as are done after Faith by the aide of Grace So the meaning of the Proposition shal be this Abraham and other Men being once made good and just deserue to be made better and more just by such good workes as they performe through the helpe of Grace giuen vnto them not by faith only Being once sanctified they deserue the increase of SanctificatioÌ„ through that merit of their Faith and good workes out of Faith and Charity Is not this difference between these Apostles finely accorded think you They will now walke together being in this sort made friends through the mediation of the Schoole-men But it is otherwise They are so far from reconciling them that they haue abused them both and set them farther asunder making them speake what they neuer meant Neither in S. Paul nor S. Iames is there any ground at all whereon to raise such an interpretation of their words And therefore we respect this reconcilement as the shifting quercke of a Scholeman's braine that hath no footing at all in the text Which we doe vpon these Reasons 1. That distinction of Iustification that is of Sanctification into the first giuing of it and the after increase of it howsoeuer tolerable in other matters is vtterly to no purpose as it is applied vnto the doctrine of these Apostles Who when they speake of Iustification of a sinner in God's sight doe vnderstand thereby the Remission of Sinnes through the imputation of Christ's Righteousnes and not the infusion or increase of inherent Sanctity in the soule of man This confusion of Iustification with sanctification is a prime error of our adversaries in this article as hath bin shewed in clearing the acceptions of the word Iustification and shall be shewed more at large in handling the forme of our Iustification 2. The distinction of Iustification taken in their owne sense is falselie applied to St. Iames as if he spake of the 2. Iustification and to St. Paul as if he spake of the first For first Bellarmine himselfe being