amici Dei ac domestici facti euntes de virtute in virtutem renouantur vt Apostolus inquit de die in diem exhibendo ea arma iustitiae in sanctificationem per obseruantiam mandatorum Dei Ecclesiae in ipsâ iustitiâ per Christi gratiam acceptâ cooperante fide bonis operibus crescunt atque magis iustificantur sicut scriptum est Qui iustus est iustificetur adhuc Being therefore thus iustified and made the friends and of the houshold of God going on from vertu to vertu they are renewed as the Apostle saith from day to day and vsing those armes of iustice to sanctification by the obseruance of the commandements of God and the Church theyr faith cooperating with theyr good workes they increace through the grace of Christ in the iustice which they haue receiued and are iustified more and more as is it written he who is iust let him be iustified still Conc. Trid. ibidem can 9. Si quis dixerit solâ fide impium iustificari ita vt intelligat nihil aliud requiri quod ad iusticationis gratiam consequendam cooperetur nullâ ex parte necesse esse eum suae voluntatis motu praeparari atque disponi anathema sit If any one shall say that a wicked man is iustified by faith only soe that he meanes that nothing els is required which may cooperate to the obtayning the grace of Iustification and that it is noe way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the motion of his will let him be accâ—rsed From these authorities of the Council it is manifest that in this matter of Iustification the Church of Rome theaches 1. that noe workes done by the mere naturall force of our freewill 2. nor by the sole doctrine or knowledge of the diuine law can iustifie a sinner in the sight of God Can. 1. 3. That noe vniust persone can without the preuenting inspiration of the holy Ghost doe any thing as it should be done to obteyne the grace of iustification can 3. 4. That neyther faith nor workes done by the inspiration of the holy Ghost before Iustification can merit Iustification for it is a free grace of God giuen not of workes but by the sole mercy of God and for the sole merits of Christ. cap. 8. 5. That though the iustification of a sinner cannot be merited yet a soul may be disposed prepared to instification by acts inspired by the holy Ghost c. 6. 6. That we are not thus disposed by faith only but also by other good motions of our will preuented and assisted by the grace of God can 9. 7. That being thus freely iustified become the childeren of God through the assistance of Gods grace in Christ we may doe good workes and by them accepted through Christ's merits become more and more iust in the sight of God cap. 10. where in cheefly consists the Roman doctrine of Iustification by good workes This doctrine supposed we will now take a vew of those texts which Protestants vsually presse out of Scripture mistaken against it hauing first proued the Roman doctrine The Catholicke Position Faith only iustifyeth not YOu see that a man is iustifyed by workes and not by faith only which must needs be vnderstood of a true and internall iustification before Allmighty God for it must be that iustification which comes by faith but that is true and internall iustification as appeares by all the texts cited hereafter in the paper for proofe of iustification by faith only that the iustification which S. Iames speakes of here is the very same with that which comes by faith is most cleare out of the words themselues Yee see that a man is iustifyed by workes and not by faith only For it would be quite contrary to common sense to vnderstand a iustification before men in the first part of this sentence yee see that a man is iustifyed by workes and a true internall iustification in the sight of God in the latter part and not by faith only For the word only clearly demonstrates that the same iustification is to be vnderstood in both parts of the sentence Now that the iustification common to both members of this place must necessarily be meant of a true iustification only in the sight of God is out of all question to such as ponder what is deliuered in it for it would be most false were it vnderstood of a iustification only before menâ— no lesse then this manner of speech yee see that this man is vnderstood by his words and not by his thoughts only would be wholly false were there only mention made of a man's being vnderstood amongst men for amongst them he is not vnderstood at all by his thoughts and so the latter part of this proposition would not be true and therefore to verify this manner of speech it must of necessity be meant of a man's being vnderstood by Allmighty God who only by his own power vnderstands both thoughts and words and so it is truly sayd yee see that a man is vnderstood to wit by Allmighty God by his words and not by his thoughts only And for the very same reason this proposition of S. Iames wee see that a man is iustifyed by workes and not by faith only cannot be vnderstood of a iustification before men for we are no more iustifyed by saith before men then we are vnderstood amongst them by our thoughts and therefore it must be interpreted of a iustification before Allmighty God who only vnderstands our faith as he does our thoughts by his own power and knowledge and can only see whether our faith be true sincere and iustifying or no faith being nothing else but a thought assent or iudgement of the soul. And as all Protestants in the ensuing texts vrged for iustification by faith only vnderstand an internall iustification in the sight of God so must they will they not be vnreasonably and willsully partiall vnderstand the same by iustification by faith in this place of S. Iames which is cleared v. 2. was not Abraham our father iustifyed by worket when he had offered Isaac his sone vppon the altar for this hauing beene done priuatly in the desert could not when it was done iustifie him before men and yet more clere v. 22. seest thou not how faith wrought with his workes and by workes was faith made perfect what is here spoken of but the operation of faith and workes in the soule iustifying in God's sight For faith cannot be truly made perfect but declared to be perfect by workes soe farre as they iustifie only before men And it is further demonstrated v. 23. And the Scripture was fulfilled which sayth Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed vnto him for righteousnesse and he was called the friend of God Can any Protestant deny this to be meant of an imputation of righteousnesse as they terme it or a iustification before Allmighty God seeing it is the very
same iustification which is mentioned by S. Paul to the Romanes which they mainly contend to be a true iustification in the sight of God or if they will haue it here a iustification only before men they must acknowledge that the same mentioned to the Romanes is no other then before men and so by endeauoring by such shifts to weaken the force of this text against themselues they take away all force from that of Rom. 4. to conclude any thing against vs. Besides this iustification of Abraham here mentioned by S. Iames can be no other then that which is true and interuall before God for as it followes in the text he was called a friend of God and that truly for he was indeede as he was called a friend of God and hence it follows ineuitably that the iustification which S. Iames deduces from that of Abraham by works and not by faith only as appeares by the word then wee see then c. is a true intrinsecall iustification in the sight of God for no other saue that could be rightly inferred from the former And indeed though we had none of the foresayd euidences to conuince the true meaning of S. Iames yet what man of iudgment can imagine that this holy Apostle would labour so much to proue that Christians are iustifyed by their good works before men when that is a matter too cleare and known to need proofe and too light and friuolous to deserue it or what considerate man can thinke that this Blessed Apostle or the holy Ghost by whose inspiration he writ this would so earnestly exhort Christians to abound in good works to the end that they may be iustifyed before men seeing corrupt human nature is too too prone to doe good workes for such by endes as these and hath more need of a bridle then a spurre in this particular and rather to be deterred from it then put vppon it as our Sauiour did the Stribes and Pharisees who did their works to be seene and consequently to be praysed and iustifyed before men This text therefore hauing been demonstrated to be meant of iustification before Allmighty God by works and not by faith only seeing S. Paul inspired by the same holy Spirit in what is cited out of him in the insuing text cannot possibly contradict S. Iames here as he must needs be thought to haue done if he sayd as Protestants would haue it that we are iustifyed in the sight of God by faith only and not by good works working with faith and perfecting it informing and vinificating it as S. Iames describes them here we will now see in what sense S. Paul's words are to be vnderstood and reconcile them with this text of S. Iames. The Protestant Position Iustification by faith only This is proued by Scripture mistaken Therefore wee conclude that a man is iustifyed by faith without the works of the law Being iustifyed by faith we haue peace with God through our Lord Iesus Christ. For therein is the righteousnesse of God reuealed from faith to faith as it is written the iust shall liue by faith Knowing this that a man is not iustifyed by the works of the law but by the faith of Christ Iesus that we might be iustifyed by Iesus Christ and not by the works of the law for by the works of the law shall no liuing flesh be iustifeyd The first mistake The word only is not found in any of these texts In all these texts is not once the words faith only to be found which is put in this Protestant Position was to be proued by them Neither iâ— iâ— consequent a man is iustifyed by faith without the works of the law therefore a man is iustifyed by faith only no more then this follows a man is nourished by bread without the grasse of the field therefore a man is nourished by bread only for though the grasse of the feeld do not nourish vs yet many other things besides bread de nourish vs. in like manner though the woreks done by force of the grace of God and not by force of the law do iustify vs and so we are not iustifyed by saith only nor at all by the works of the law but by faith and good works done by the grace of Iesus Christ and not by the kâ—owledge of rhe law The Second mistake The workes of the law misunderstood That S. Paul here vnderstands only by works of the law such works as are done by force and knowledge of the law before the faith of Christ infused into a soul or that it is inlightned and assisted by his grace and by this law is vnderstood the law written in the books of Moyses both morall in the ten Commandements and ceremoniall as circumcision and other rites and ceremonyes of the Iewes That by works of the law I say are vnderstood by S. Paul only such works as are done by force of knowledge of the law befotc the inlightning of the faith and grace of Christ is euident out of this chapter Rom. 3. v. 14. Now we know that what things soeuer the law sayth it sayth to thcm that are vnder the law that euery mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God Here he speakes of the law speaking or teaching what is to be done according to it and then adds presently as a conclusion from that knowledge got by the law v. 10. therefore by tbe deeds of the law no flesh shall be iustifyed in his sight for by the law is the knowledge of sin The reason why the deeds of the law iustify not is because they come from the knowledge of the law by the law is the knowledge of sin wherunto he opposes the tighteousnesse of God which is by faith of Iesus Christ vnto all in the first texts following verses 21. but now the righteousnetre of God without the law is manifested being witnessed by the law and Prophets v. 22. euen the righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Iesus Christ unto all and vppon all them that beleeue for there is no difference This is the known doctrine of all Roman Catholikes against the Pelagians that no worke can iustify which comes only by doctrine and light of the written law but all iustifying works must come from the faith and grace of Christ so that we all confesse and conclude with S. Paul that a man is iustifyed by faith vvithout the vvorkes of the lavv that is wirhout such works as are meerly of and from the law as are opposed here by S. Paul to the grace and faith of Christ. Secondly by the law in this place is vnderstood both the motall law written by Moyses in the ten Commandements and the ceremoniall conteyned in the bookes of Leuiticus Deuteronomij c. for the morall law Protestants themselues doubt not that the Apostle speakes of it and that the ceremonial is here meant is euident in the two next following Verses
that is to say put bread into the hands of his disciples before they tooke it into their hands which is impossible or that he bad them take what they had already taken which were absurd because S. Matthew relates the institution so that he mentioneth first gaue and then take Iesus tooke bread and blessed and brake and gaue to his disciples and sayd take eate this is my Body If indeed the Scripture had affirmed that our Sauiour gaue to his disciples after he had sayd This is my Body the argument had been of force but sâ—eing it sayes not so but only mentioneth first gaue and after the words of consecration as it mentioneth gaue before it mentions take and that common sense tells vs they must be done at the same tyme there is nothing against the reall presence by this rather mistake them argument Obiection 3. S. Paul obserues that after he brake and gaue he sayd This is my Body which is broken for you Answer S. Paul's words according to the Protestant translation are these tooke bread and when he had giuen thankes he brake it and sayd Take eate This is my Body where there is no expresse mention of giuing to his disciples at all and therefore what the obiection here affirmes that S. Paul obserues that after he brake and gaue he sayd This is my Body is very farre from truth Againe though S. Paul sayd This is my Body yet he sayes not that after he brake he sayd This is my Body as the obiection affirmes Neither sayd S. Paul when he had broken he sayd Take and eate as he sayes when he had giueÌ„ thankes This is my Body for that would haue some shew of proofe that he pronounced the words after he had broken but only affirmes he brake and sayd This is my Body which words may as properly signify that he brake and spake these words morally at the same tyme as that he first beake and then pronounced them As when it is sayd in S. Matthew In those dayes came Iohn Baptist preaching in the desert and saying Repent c. where though saying be put after preaching in the text yet no man is so senselesse as to thinke that he preached before he sayd somthing or that he preached before he sayd what the Euangelist affirme him to haue sayd as the subiect of his preaching Repent c. So also in Iob different tymes Almighty God Iob and his friends are affirmed in the English Bibles then Iob answered and sayd c. Then the Lord answered and sayd c. where though answered be put before sayd yet no child will imagine they answered before they spake or spake before they sayd what the text affirmes them to haue sayd Whence it is most euident that words which are set one after another signify not alwayes nor euer certainly meerely because they are set one before another that the actions done and signifyed by them follow one another iust as these words do And so meerely thence can be drawn no forcible argument in this particular And yet if we should grant for other reasons and circumstances that our Sauiour brake the bread before he pronounced the words of consecration whilst it was yet but bread what would this helpe our aduersaryes or hurt vs for then it would follow that bread was broken whilst it remained in its own substance but giuen to the disciples after it was changed into the Body of Christ or morally speaking whilst our Sauiour was giuing it vnto them Obiection Here wee see plainly both by theyr own rules and our Sauiours actions that it was bread which he brake and gaue and not the species of bread which was broken and giuen that is to say the bredth coulour and tast of bread but noe bread This word broken must needs haue relation to that bread broken before he sayd This is my Body because he did not break it againe after he said it was his Body Answer If we vnderstand by broken mentioned by S. Paul when he sayd He brake and sayd Take eate this is my Body that he brake the bread changed into his Body by consecration or in a morall vnderstanding whilst he changed and consecrated it by these words This is my Body it might happily containe no great absurdity to grant that this second word is broken may haue relation to the former he brake for in both of them according to this opinion his Body was mysteriously and sacramentally broken for vs. But if we vnderstand by brake as the Obiection supposes vppon a false ground as I hauc already demonstrated the breaking of naturall bread before he sayd This is my Body then it is wholy false and iniurious to our Sauiour and the worke of our Redemption to vnderstand that these words whith is broken for you haue relation to brake which was mentioned before For that were to say that a meere piece of bread before it was made either a Sacrament or his Body or so much as a signe of his Body was hroken for vs which neither Catholike nor Protestant nor Christian doth or can affirme without blasphemy for before these words This is my Body were pronounced all agree that the bread was neither made his Body nor any SacrameÌ„tall signe of it Neither can it possibly stand with the other Euangelists that broken here should be only a breaking of common and naturall bread before it was made a Sacrament by these words This is my Body for it is certaine that S. Paul here vnderstands by broken for you the same which S. Luke signifyes by this is my Body which is giuen for you especially seeing that by breaking giuing thinges belonging to eating whether temporall or spirituall the same thing is signifyed in many places of Scripture according to the Hebrew phrase Now to say that a piece of naturall bread vnconsecrated was giuen for vs is an intolerable blasphemy And yet this is clearer in the other species of the chalice for S. Marke relates it thus This is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for many and S. Matthew VVhich shall be shed for many for the remission of sinnes Which no hart truly Christian can imagine to haue any relation to pure and common wine before consecration To that which the Obiection adds that therefore broken for you must haue relation to that bread broken before he sayd This is my Body because he did not breake it againe after he had sayd these words I answer first that it can neuer be prooued from the words of S. Paul that the first breaking here mentioned by S. Paul was not presently speaking in a morall sense after these words were pronounced for though it be mentioned before yet it followes no more thence that it was not presently after then when S. Marke sayes speaking of the chalice and they dranke all of it before he mention the consecration of the chalice that the disciples dranke not after the consecration of