Iustification are reckoned vp 1 Faith 2 The Feare of God 3 Hope in his mercy 4 Loue of God as the Fountaine of Iustice ad benefactoris saith Bellarmine 5 Repentance a sorrow and detestation of sinne 6 A desire of receiuing the Sacrament of Baptisme 7 A purpose to leade a new life and keepe Gods Commandements All these saith Bellarmine doe iustifie a Man Praeparatoriè antecedentèr dispositiuè Faith that 's the roote and beginning of our Iustification the rest follow in order all must goe before as needfull preparations and Iustification followes as the effect of all in common c. Ergo Not of Faith alone The Iesuite goes ouer euery particular to shew by Scriptures what force each of those graces haue to Iustifie But t is not worth-while to repeate his proofes Vnto the Argument wee answere two things 1 That it is framed vpon the errour which puts out of frame the whole dispute of our Aduersaries about this Article of Iustification namely that Regeneration and Sanctification is all one thing with Iustification and that to Iustifie a sinner is nothing but to doe away inherent corruption by infusion of inherent righteousnesse This we haue heretofore by the Scriptures cleared to be false and therefore this Argument proouing our Sanctification to be wrought by other graces as well as by faith toucheth not the point of Iustification in the Remission of sinnes which faith alone obtaineth through the promise 2 Touching these graces which they make preparatory vnto Iustification that is to Sanctification Wee answere that t is a Philosophicall dreame of such as measure out the workes of Gods Spirit in mans conuersion according to Aristotles Physickes and those disputes touching praeuious or fore-going dispositions that qualifie the matter for receiuing of the Forme We acknowledge that in mans Regeneration all graces of the Spirit are not perfected at once But as the ioynts and sinewes in the bodily so the graces of Sanctification in the spirituall New-birth are at first weake and feeble Which in continuance of time gather more strength according to our growth in Christ. But yet these are true for the substance though imperfect in their degrees and measure There is now true Spirituall life in such a one which was before dead in sinne although there be not the free and able exercise of all the vitall powers Health there is but not entire from all degrees oâ— sicknesse and euery kinde of disease Wherefore we affâ—â—me that these vertues which are by our Aduersarics reckoned onely as dispositions vnto Regeneration are if they be true and not counterfeit Mettall the maine parts and fruits of Regeneration Hence we beleeue that these are foule errors viz. To teach that a man without grace by the power of his free-wil may dispose himselfe to his Regeneration by beleeving in Christ fearing and louing of God hoping of his Mercy repenting of his sinnes resoluing vpon amendment and all this with true and sincere affection or to teach if a man cannot do these things of his owne meere strength and free-will yet by the Spetiall aide of God inciting and helping him 〈◊〉 may doe them whilst he is vtterly vnsâ—nctified in statu peccati That true Faith and Feare and Hope and Loue and Repentance and purpose of Reformation are Vertues and Graces in a Man that is yet gracelesse and without Vertue because destitute of Sanctification That these Graces consisting in the inward motion of the soule and change of the Affections are wrought in Man not by any sanctifying Grace of the Holy Ghost inwardly touching the heart but by some other kind of Vertue and aid they know not what externall exciting and helping forward the strength of Nature All these are monstrous and mis-shapen imaginations bred in proud hearts that would faine share the glory of their Conversion betweene Gods grace and their owne free-will and maintained by curious heads whom Philosophicall speculations haue transported beyond the simplicity of diuine Truth The Scripture speaks otherwise of these Graces as of those that belong to such as are not in the way to be made good but are made so already Ye are al the Children of God by Faith in Iesus Christ saith the Apostle Paul Gal. 3. 28. Whosoeuer shall confesse that Iesus is the sonne of God God dwelleth in him and he in God saith Iohn 1. 1. Ioh. 4. 15. and Chap. 5. 1. Whosoeuer beleeueth that Iesus is that Christ is borne of God Doe we by true Faith become the Children of God borne of him in whom hee dwelleth and we in him when as yet in the meane time we are yet vnsanctified vnholy vncleane not in the state of Grace Bellarmine will proue that a man may haue Faith yet not the Child of God ouâ— of Iohn 1. 12. As many as receiued him to them he gaue power to become the Sonnes of God euen to them thâ—t beleeue on his name See sâ—â—th he they that beleeue are not yet but haue power if they list to become the Sonnes of God viz. by going on further from Faith to Hope and Loue and the rest of the Tridentiâ—e dispositions For t is Loue properly and not Faith that makes vs the Sons of God as he would proue contrary to that expresse place of the Galat. out of the 1 Ep. of Iohn where the Apostle hath much excellent matter but nothing to that purpose To the place of Iohn wee answere that the Iesuite playeth with the ambiguity of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not here a liberty to doe what we list as if we could at our pleasure become Gods adopted sonnes but t is a right and priuiledge which Christ the naturall Sonne bestowes on true beleeuers to be made Gods adopted sonnes and so coheires with him of the heauenly inheritance When is this priuiledge of Adoption bestowed Then when they beleeue and assoone as they beleeue before they be Regenerate No Saint Iohn denies it He giues power to be the Sonnes of God euen to those that beleeue in him Who be they Hee answeres vers 15. Which were borne not of bloud nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God Faith then is not a Preparatiue to Iustification but a part of it And is not Feare of GOD too No saith Bellarmine That is the beginning of wisedome that is of a perfect Iustification A bad interpretation but a worse Argument T is the beginning therefore not part Nay If the feare of God be the Alpha of Christian graces certainely it selfe makes one Letter of that Alphabet T is such a beginning of wisdome as its selfe is wisdome too Else God himselfe deceaues vs who as it is Iob 28. 28. Sayd vnto man Behold the feare of the Lord that is wisdome and to depart from euill is vnderstanding And therefore to take it in the Iesuits glosse Feare of God is Iustification as well as the beginning of it For
Grace Both Sentences are squint eyed and looke quite awry from the Apostles ayme in this dispute touching Iustification Is it his intent Rom. 3. to proue that a sinner destitute of grace cannot be made inherently holy by Morality or outward workes of Piety or thus That a Sinner cannot attaine to Sanctification by his owne strength but he must attaine to it by the grace of God Take a suruey of the Chapter and follow the Apostles Argumentation All both Iewes and Gentiles are vnder sinne verse 9. therefore euery mouth must be stopped and none can pleade innocency and all the world must be guilty before God and so liable to condemnation verse 19. What followeth hence now Therefore by the workes of the Law shall no flesh be iustified in his sight verse 20. How strange were this Conclusion taken in our Adversaries Construction Ergo By Obedience vnto the Morall Law done without grace no flesh can attaine Sanctification in his sight For neither doth the Apostle speake of Sanctification but of absolution as is apparant All are sinners against the Law Ergo by pleading innocency in the keeping of the Law no Man can be wholy sanctified nor Iustified nor absolued from Blame in Gods sight Nor yet will the Reason immediately annexed admit that glosse Workes without Grace By the workes of the Law shall no flesh be Iustified in his sight Why For by the Law commeth the Knowledge of Sinne that is By the Law Men are conuinced of Sinne and declared not to be innocent Which reason is not worth a Rush according to our Aduersaries Construction He that without grace shall doe the workes of the Law he is not thereby made holy Why Because the Law is the knowledge of sinne The Law thus obserued tels him he is a sinner In which reason there is no force vnlesse it bee true on the other side He that by the helpe of grace doth the workes of the Law is thereby sanctified because the Law thus kept tels him he is not a sinner which is most vntrue In as much as not onely those which are destitute of grace but those that haue grace also and by the helpe thereof keepe the Law in some measure are by the Law notwithstanding convinced to be sinners The Apostle yet goes forward If we be not iustified by the workes of the Law by what then He answeres verse 21. But now is the righteousnesse of God made manifest without the Law We are iustified by the righteousnesse of God But what is that It is saith the distinction that obedience to the Law which we performe by Gods grace A glosse apparantly false For the righteousnesse of God here is a Righteousnesse without the Law But obedience to the Law though performed with grace is a Righteousnesse with the Law because t is the Righteousnesse of the Law For t is all one he that obeyes the Law by his owne strength if he doe it perfectly he hath the righteousnes of the law he that obeyethit perfectly by Gods grace hath still the same righteousnes of the law and no other For so the Law be kept it alters not the righteousnes thereof that we keepe it by our own strength that wee haue of our selues or another helpe that giues vs strength to doe it For then that strength which he giues vs is our owne Which point duely obserued cuts in sunder the sinewes of this distinction for t is cleare the Apostle distinguisheth the Righteousnesse of the Law and of God as different in thir kindes these make them to be one and the same thing Obedience to the morall Lawe but done by diuers helpes one by meere nature the other by Grace This is most contrary to the Scriptures and specially to that excellent place Rom. 10. 3. 4. c. where the Apostle shewing the differeÌ„ce betweene the Righteousnesse which is our owne or of the Law and that which is the Righteousnesse of God or Faith tels vs. The Righteousnesse of the Law is thus described Th Man that doth these things shall liue thereby but the Righteousnesse of Faith speaketh on this wise whosoeuer beleeueth on him i. e. Christ shall not be ashamed Can any thing be more plaine then that the Apostle opposeth heere Doing of the Law and Beleeuing in Christ Not doeing the Law by our owne strength and doeing of the Law by Gods grace These are Iesuiticall glosses that corrupt Apostolicall Doctrine and strangely peruert the worke of Christ in our Redemption as if he had done no more for vs but this viz. procured that where as we could not liue by doeing of the Law through our owne strength God will now aide vs by his grace that we may fulfil the Law and by that Legall Righteousnesse obtaine Iustification and remission of Sinnes We abhorre such Doctrine and doe reiect as vaine and imaginary that distinction wheÌ„ce such absurdities necessarily follow More might be sayed in confutation thereof were it needefull but we haue dealt long vpon this point and t is time to hasten forward By the way vnto the Iesuits Arguments in the defence of this Distinction We answere 1 We confesse Faith is a worke and in doeing of it we obey the Law because as Saint Iohn speakes Iohn 3. 23. This is Gods Commandment that we beleeue in the name of his Sonne Iesus Christ. And therefore the Gospell is called The Law of Faith because the promise of grace in Christ is propounded with Commandment that Men beleeue it But now we deny that Faith iustifies vs as 't is a worke whiâ—h we performe in Obedience to this Law It iustifieth vs onely as the Condition required of vs and an Instrument embracing Christs Righteousnesse Nor can the contrary be proued 2 The Iesuits are mistaken in the scope of the Apostle Rom. 3. whose intent is not to shew the Iew or Gentile could not attaine Sanctification without Gods grace by such Obedience to the Law as they could performe through the meere strength of Naturall Abilities They affirme it strongly but their Proofes are weake being manyfestly confuted by the whole File of the Apostles disputation who clearely and plainely exclude both Iewes and Gentiles from being Iustified by the workes of the Law without making mention or giueing the least Intimation by what meanes these workes must be performed whether without grace or by the Helpe of grace Yea it had been quite besides his purpose so to haue done For the Apostles argument is cleare as the Light and strong as a threefold cord All are Sinners against the Law therefore by obedience vnto the Law Let Men performe which way they list or can without grace or with grace no Man is in Gods sight pronounced innocent 3 To the Last argument out of Rom. 4. 4. we answere The Apostle there proues that the Faithfull children of Abraham are not iustified by workes Because Abraham the Father of the Faithfull was Iustified by Faith and not by workes Where wee affirme
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
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
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
credere Terrae Georg. 1. And if we list not to be contentious 't is plaine enough that in those places where the Apostle treats of Iustification by faith viz the grace of God in Christ opposing workes and faith that is the Law and the Gospell the Righteousnesse of the Law to the righteousnesse of the Gospell which is no other but the Righteousnesse of Christ. Thus faith is taken Gal. 3. 23. Where he expresly treats of Iustification But before Faith came we were kept vnder the Law shut vp vnto the Faith which should afterward be reuealed That is Before Christ came and the cleare exhibition of the Gospell and the Righteousnesse thereof the Church was kept vnder the Ceremoniall Law as vnder a Schoole-master directing her vnto Christ that so Wee might be iustified by Faith that is not by the Lesson of the Law but by Christ typified and figured vnto vs therein 2 Vnto the other Argument prooving the merit of faith we reply That in those places is no ground at all for such a conceit Thy Faith hath saued thee saith Christ to some whō he cured both in Body Soule But what was it by the efficacy and for the word of their faith that this was done No As 't was vertue went out of Christ that cured their bodily diseases and his compassion that mooued him to it so 't was his grace and merits and free loue that healed their soules and brought them pardon of their sinnes in the sight of GOD Yet he saith Their faith saued them because by beleeuing in the Sonne of God they receiued this fauour though for their beleeuing they did not deserue it God bestowes mercy where he findes faith not because faith merits such fauour at his hands but because he is pleased to disperse his fauours in such an order as himselfe hath appointed and vpon such conditions as hee thinkes good To that of the Canaanitish woman Her great faith could not claime by desert that fauour which Christ shewed vnto her daughter onely Christ was pleased to honour her faith by his testimony of it and to helpe the daughter at the Mothers entreaty Christ did it vpon that request of hers so instant and full of faith But yet who can say she merited ought at CHRISTS hands by that her faithfull and instant petition Her selfe yet liuing would deny it and shee doth deny it there counting her selfe a dogge vnworthy of the childrens bread when yet shee beleeued strongly and was a child of Abraham according to the faith To that of Abraham who gaue glory to God and of Henoch and others who pleased God by their faith Wee answere That it is one thing for a man to glorifie and please God by his Obedience 'T is another by so doing to deserue ought at his hands If God in much grace and fauour accept of the honour and contentment wee are able to doe him by our Faith and Obedience It followes not that therefore we must in iustice merit at his hands Other Arguments for them there are but so weakely knit they fall in sunder of themselues Against them we haue to obiect the Scriptures that so often say We are iustified gratiâ and gratis and the Councell of Trent which they respect more then the Scriptures which hath defined thus Nihil eorum quae Iustificationem praecedunt siue fides siue opera ipsam Iustificationis gratiam promeretur Sess. 6. Cap. 8. How then can they say Faith merits Iustification Heere our Aduersaries haue two shifts to runne vnto whereby they would avoide the absurdity of this Assertion 1 That this merit is not from vs but of God Because Faith is the gift of Gods grace and therefore though we be iustified by merit yet we are iustified by grace because merit is of grace 'T is of grace that our faith merits This you may be sure is some of that smoake of the bottomelesse pit wherein hell vented out the Iesuites and they their darke Imaginations all to confound whatsoeuer is cleare and lightsome in Scripture Scripture opposeth these paires Grace and Nature Grace and Merit As the Pelagians of old confounded Nature Grace teaching that we were saued by Grace yet affirming that we are also saued by Nature and the naturall strength of free-will Which they salued thus To be saued by Nature is to be saued by Grace for Nature is of Gods grace and giuing So these confound Grace and Merit making a thing Meritorious because it s of Grace Faith merits because its Gods gracious gift Nothing more contradictory If it be his gift how doth it merit or of whom Of man it may of God it cannot vnlesse we will senslesly affirme that the gift deserues something of the giuer That he that giues an hundred pound freely is thereby bound to giue an hundred more Had they sayed that faith is good because of Gods giuing that were true and we may grant them that God is honoured and pleased with his owne gifts but that euery good thing merits and that we can deserue of God by his owne gifts is affirmed without all Reason or Scriptures and will neuer be proued by either But there is yet another shift 2 Faith merits Iustification Non de condigno of the worthinesse of it but de Congruo of the fitnesse that is God in Iustice is not bound to bestow Iustification where there is faith but yet in fitnesse he ought to doe it So that if he doe not iustifie him that beleeues he is likely to omit a thing very fit and agreeable This distinction is a meere Imposture and collusion Bellarmine in dealing with it seemes to haue a dog by the eares he is loath to loose him yet knowes not well how to hold him If he be vrged where Scriptures make any the least Intimation of such a distinction hee referres you to Divines that is Popish Schoole-men who out of their owne imagination haue forged it and in time made it Authenticall But he stickes in the mire when he is to shew what merit of Condignity and merit of Congruity is Merits of Condignity are workes to which wages is due of Iustice. What then are merits of Congruity Such workes whereto wages is not due by any Iustice. As for example He that labours the whole day in the Vineyard merits a penny of Condignity because in Iustice his labour is worth his hire But he that for an houres worke receiues a penny he deserues it of Congruity because though his labour be not worth it yet he was promised a penny by him that set him on worke Then which fond imagination nothing can be more ridiculous and contrary to common sense For the merit of any worke is the proportionablenesse of 't is worth with the Reward Now in reason wherein ariseth this proportion of any work with that reward Stands it in the dignity of the worke it selfe or in the compact made betweene him that worketh and him that rewardeth It is
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere dico imputari in iustitiam idque sensu proprio non metonymice The same is the opinion of his fellowes the Remonstrants of Vorstius of Peter Bertius of Episcopius and the rest With whom Bellarmine agrees pat Liber â— de Iust. cap. 17. When vpon that Rom 4. His faith is imputed for righteousnesse he saith thus Vbiipsa fides censetur esse Iustitia ac per hoc non apprehendit fides iustitiam Christi sed ipsa fides in Christum est iustitia In summe their opinion runnes thus God in the Legall Couenant required the exact obedience of his Commandement but now in the Couenant of grace he requires faith which in his gracious estimation stands in stead of that obedience to the Morall Law which wee ought to performe Which comes to passe by the Merit of Christ for whose sake God accounts our imperfect saith to be perfect obedience This Assertion we reiect as erronious and in place thereof we defend this Proposition God doth not iustifie a man by Faith properly impuring vnto him faith in Christ for his perfect obedience to the Law and therefore accounting him iust and innocent in his sight Which we proue by these Reasons 1 We are not Iustified by any worke of our owne But beleeving is an Act of our owne Therefore by the Act of beleeving we are not Iustified The Maior is most manifest by the Scriptures which teach that we are saued by grace Ephes. 2. 5. and therefore not by the workes of Righteousnesse which we had wrought Tit. 3. 6. For if it be of Works then were grace no more grace Ro. 11. 6. The Minor is likewise evident That Faith is a worke of ours For though Iohn 6. 29. it bee said This is the worke of God that ye beleeue in him whom hee hath sent yet will not our adversaries conclude thence that Faith is Gods worke within vs and not our worke by his helpe For so should they runne into that absurdity which they would fasten vpon vs. viz. That when a Man beleeues t is not man beleeues but God beleeues in him To beleeue though it be done by Gods aide yet 't is we that doe it and the Act is properly ours And being so we conclude that by it we are not iustified in Gods sight Here two Exceptions may be made 1 First that we are not iustified by any worke of our owne viz which we our selues doe by our owne strength without the help of grace But yet we may be iustified by some worke which we doe viz by the aide of Grace and such a worke is Faith Wee answere This Distinction of workes done without Grace and workes done by Grace was devised by one that had neither Wit nor Grace being a Tâ—icke to elude the force of such Scriptures as exclude indefinitely all workes from our Iustification without distinguishing either of Time when they are done before or after or of the ayde helpe whereby they are done whether by Nature or by Grace Wherefore it is without all ground in Scripture thus to interpret these Propositions A man is not iustified by workes that is by workes done by worth of Nature before and without Grace A Man is iustified by Grace that is by workes done by aide of Grace These Interpretations are meere forged inventions of froward Minds affirmed but not proved as we shall more hereafter declare 2 That we are not Iustified by any workes of our own that is by any works of the Law but by a worke of the Gospell such as faith is we may be iustified Male res agitur vbi opus est tot Remedijs saith Erasmus in another case T is a certaine signe of an vntrue opinion when it must be bolstered vp with so many distinctions Nor yet hath this distinction any ground in Scripture or in Reason for both tell vs that the workes commamded in the Law and workes commanded in the Gospell are one and the same for the substance of theÌ„ What worke can be named that is enioyned vs in the New Testament which is not also coÌ„manded vs in that summary precept of the Morall Law Thou shalt loue the Lâ—rd thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soule and with all they strength and with all thy mind and thy neighbour as thy selfe Luc. 5. 27. Deut. 6. 5 What sinne is there against the Gospell that is not a transgression of the Law If the Gospel coÌ„mand Charity is it any other then that which the Law commands If the Gospell coÌ„mand Faith doth not the Law enioine the same you will say No. It doth not command Faith in Christ. I answere yea it doth For that which commands vs in generall to Beleeue what euer God shall propose vnto vs commands vs also to beleeue in Christ assoone as God shall make knowne that t is his will we should beleeue in him The Gospell discouers vnto vs the Obiect the Law commands vs the obedience of beleeuing it Wherefore Faith for the Substance of the Grace and works done by vs is a worke of the Law and so to be Iustified by the Action of beleeuing is to be Iustified by workes and by our owne Righteousnesse contrary to the Scriptures and that Phil 5. 9. That I may be found not c. This of the first Reason 2 God accounts that only for perfect Righteousnâ—sse of the Law which is so in deed and truth But Faith is not the perfect fulfilling of the Law Therefore God doth not account it â—or such The Minor is granted by our adversaries That Faith is not the exact Iustice of the Law such as can stand before the severity of Gods Iudgments The Maior must be proued That God accounts not that for perfâ—ct Iustice which is not perfect indeed This appeares by that Rom. 2. 2. The iudgement of God is according to trueth Where therefore any thing is not truly good and perfect there God esteemes it not so Here also twil be excepted That God some time Iudgeth Iudicio iustitiae according to exact Iustice and then he â—udgeth nothing perfectly iust but that whiâ—h hath true perfection of Iustice in it Sometimes he iudgeth iudicio misericordâ—ae according to mercy and so he may esteeme a Man perfectly righteous for that which is not perfect righteousnesse in it selfe namely for his Faith Surely this is a trimme distinction thus applyed that sets Gods Mercy and Truth together by the Eares As who would say When God iudgeth out of Mercy hee then doth not iudge according to truth The Scriptures doe not acquaint vs with any such mercifull iudgement of God This they doe acquaint vs with That God iudgeth according to mercy not when he doth pronounce and cleare a Sinner to be perfectly righteous for that righteousnesse which is truely imperfect but when he iudgeth a Sinner to be righteous for that righteousnesse which is perfect but is not his owne In this Iudgement there is both Truth
and Mercy Truth in that he esteemes me perfectly righteous for that righteousnesse sake which is euery way perfect and mercy that he accepteth for sinne that righteousnesse which is performed for me by Christ my surety but is not mine owne Other mercifull Iudgement of God besides this we acknowledge none 3 We are not iustified by two righteousnesses existing in two diuers subiects But if wee be iustified by the worke of Faith we shall be iustified partly by that righteousnesse which is in vs viz. of Faith partly by the righteousnesse of Christ without vs. Ergo we are not iustified by Faith properly The Minor is apparant The Righteousnesse of Faith is â—nherent in vs. and by it we are iustified say our Aduersaries The righteousnesse of Christ is inherent in him and by it are we iustified say the Scriptures Being now iustified by his blood we shall be saued from wrath through him Ro. 5 9. v. 19. By the obedience of one many shall be made iust Wherefore either we are properly iustified by both or there is an errour and one part must stand out We cannot be properly iustified by both for our own faith and Christs obedience too for if we be perfectly iust in Gods sight for our own Faith what need the Imputation of Christs obedience to make vs iust If for Christs righteousnes we be perfectly iustified how can God accouÌ„t vs perfectly iust for our faith Arminius and his friends seeing these things cannot stand together haue according to the good will which they beare toward the righteousnesse of Christ kept in our faith and thrust out Christs obedience denying vtterly that it is imputed vnto vs for righteousnesse But my Brethren which I hope make a better choice seeing it cannot part with ours part with our owne righteousnesse leaning wholy vpon the righteousnesse of Christ and seeking for the comfort of our Iustification in his perfect obedience and not in our weake and imperfect saith These Reasons may suffice to shew the errour of that Assertion We are iustified by Faâ—â—h sensu propâ—rio God accepting the Act of beleeuing for the perfect obedience of the Law And therefore that in those places where 't is said Faith is imputed for righteousnesse the Phrase is to be expounded metonymice that is Christs righteousnesse beleeued on by Faith is imputed to the beleeuer for righteousnesse Whereas our Aduersaries say that faith of its owne dignity and desert doth not obtaine this fauour of God to be esteemed for the perfect righteousnesse of the Morall Law but this comes to passe onely by the Merits of Christ who hath procured this grace vnto vs that God should thus accept of our Faith wee answere that this is affirmed but 't is not prooued They speake a little more fauourably then the Romanists who make faith of it selfe to merit Iustification these will haue it not to merit it but to be graciously accepted for righteousnesse But wee find not in Scripture any such Doctrine as this Christ hath merited that wee should bee iustified for our faith or Christ hath merited for our faith that faith should be esteemed by God for that perfect Iustice of the Law whereby we are iustified in Gods sight These things the Scriptures teach not they teach that Christ is our righteousnesse and that we are iustified by his blood and obedience But that he hath merited by his obedience that we should be iustified by our owne obedience and righteousnesse is a peruerse assertion of men that loue to runne about the bush and leauing the streight to runne in crooked and froward wayes And it differs little from the like shift of the Disciples of Rome who to maintaine Merit of our workes and of Christ too salue it with this tricke Christ hath merited that wee might merit But we acknowledge as no other merit but that of Christ so no other righteousnesse to Iustification but his alone Thus much of the second Assertion CHAP. III. The confutation of Popish Doctrine that other graces doe iustifie vs and not faith alone THe third and last followes wherein the Controuersie is betweene vs and those of Rome whose Assertion is that 3 A sinner is not iustified by faith alone but also by other vertues and graces as Hope Loue Repentance Feare of God c. This we also reject as an error contrary to the Scriptures wherby we are taught That a man is iustified by faith alone For opening the truth of which point you must call to minde the different acception of the word Iustifie wherein it is taken by vs and by our Aduersaries With them to Iustifie is all one as to Sanctifie of vnjust and vnholy to make inherently iust and holy With vs to Iustifie is to absolue an offender quitting him from blame and punishment According to these different Acceptions this proposition A man is iustified by faith alone hath a double meaning one thus A man by faith alone is inherently sanctified another thus A man by faith alone obtaines absolution in Gods Iudgement from all faultinesse and punishment This latter meaning onely is true and t is that onely which is defended by vs of the Reformed Churches Namely that faith onely is the grace of God whereby a sinner beleeuing the promise and resting himselfe vpon the righteousnesse of Christ receiues mercy from God in absoluing him from the fault and punishment of all his Transgressions and to be accounted Righteous for Christs sake Which gracious priuiledge God hath annexed vnto faith as vnto the Condition of the New Covenant and not vnto Loue Hope Feare Repentance or any other grace For not these but Faith onely respecteth the promise of the Gospell The former sense of that Proposition is false and absurde viz. A Man by faith alone is inherently sanctified nor doe any of the Reformed deteine such a Construction thereof Wherefore when Bellarmine and his Complices dispute eagerly against Iustification by faith alone those Arguments wherewith they suppose to smite through the Truth of our Assertion are let flye at a wrong Marke being all aymed at this Butte viz to proue That a man is sanctified by other inherent Graces as well as faith Which point we easily yeeld them confessing that inherent righteousnesse consists not of one but of the manifold graces of Gods Spirit wrought in the heart of such as are Regenerate Neuerthelesse for the shewing of some points which may be doubted of Let vs briefely take a view of the chiefe passages of Bellarmines long discourse which he maintaines from the twelfth Chapter of his first booke de Iustificatione to the end For to proue that a Man is iustified not by faith alone Of his Arguments which are few I shall name three onely which are materiall 1 If other vertues Iustifie as well as Faith then not faith alone But other vertues doe Iustifie Therefore c. The Minor he prooues out of the Councell of Trent Sess. 6. cap. 6. where seauen preparatory graces to
Hope If it be true viz. That which makes not ashamed Which is the Anchor of the Soule sure and stedfast that entereth within the Vaile It would bee knowne what difference the Iesuite will put betweene that Hope which is in a man before and that which is in him after his Sanctification If he say It differs onely in degree then hee grants t is the same in substance whence wee haue a faire position That man sanctified and vnsanctified is alike capable of the sauing graces of Gods Spirit The like we say for Loue of God if it be sincere and without dissimulation bred in the heart Vpon those spirituall considerations not onely of Gods Mercy in Christ but also of his Iustice and infinite Righteousnesse For so the Trent Fathers will haue this Loue to respect God vt fontem Iustitiae then we affirme this spirituall Loue is not to bee found but onely in those Hearts that are in some measure Regenerate and made spirituall In whom this Loue of God is shed abroad by the Holy Ghost that is giuen to them as the Apostle speaketh This Bellarmine is soâ—ne forced to grant yet he puts it off with a distinction No man can loue God perfectly with all his heart without the Holy Ghost but loue him he may imperfectly without the Holy Ghost dwelling in him though not without the speciall aide of God Whereto we answere 't is one thing to loue God perfectly and another to loue him truely To loue him perfectly is to loue him with all the heart all the soule all the minde all the strength which we grant no man can doe without the Holy Ghost but we also affirme that no man did or shall euer doe it in this life so long as there is lustfull corruption in him causing any the least auersion of his soule from God in any motion thereof So that if none haue the Holy Ghost abiding in them but such in whom Loue is thus perfected he must be confined with the Saints in heauen and not haue his dwelling with the faithfull on earth But if imperfect Loue of God be also from the Holy Ghost dwelling in the hearts of the Godly who loue God truely in vnfeigned vprightnesse of heart though in much imperfection by reason of sinne which diuerts the heart vnto other pleasures then it must be knowne of the Iesuite what he meanes by imperfect Loue. Is it false Loue such a meere naturall Man may conceiue vpon generall grounds That God is good the chiefest good iust holy and full of all excellency He will not say for shame this is a true preparatiue vnto Iustification Is it true loue but in its degree imperfect not so vigorous so vehement so hot as coales of Iuniper yet such as hath some strength and warmth of spirituall affection Then we require that these men will draw vs out a line by the Rule of the Scriptures and to tell vs how farre the true Loue of God may come without the grace of the Holy Ghost sanctifying the heart But after t is past such a degree then there is required the sanctifying grace of the Holy Ghost for it T will trouble their Mathematickes to describe vnto vs in what degree of Perfection that Womans loue was situated whose example they alleadge for a proofe of this point out of Luke 7. 47. Her sinnes which were many are forgiuen her for she loued much Can Bellarmine tell vs how much this was that so by that patterne we may know how farre men goe in the true Loue of God before they bee at all sanctified by inherent Grace For such wonders they would make vs beleeue concerning this penitent Sinner that when her soule was full of Faith and Loue to Christ her heart full of sorrow her eyes full of teares for her sinnes yet for all that she was a gracelesse vnholy person whose Loue and Faith and Sorrow came not from the sanctifying grace of the Holy Ghost but onely from free-will helped with some kinde of externall aide of God We haue not Faith to beleeue such Mysteries as these Nor yet in the last place can we conceiue how there should be true repentance with a sincere purpose of Reformation and obedience where the Heart is not changed and renued by the Holy Ghost That Godly sorrow and Hatred of sinne should spring out of a gracelesse heart that so holy a Resolution of Amendment of Life should be in an vnholy person be Assertions so contradictory and iarring that no Christian Eare can with patience endure to heare them We conclude then touching these dispositions vnto Sanctification that if these Graces be true they are parts and chiefe Branches of inherent Righteousnesse But if they be false and counterfeit they are not so much as Preparations therevnto So much of this first Argument wherein yet one of these 7 dispositions first reckoned vp is omitted viz. a Desire of receauing the Sacrament of Baptisme that is A Man that 's baptised in his youth afterward before he be Iustified must haue a desire to be Rebaptised For what is it for one baptised to desire to receaue that Sacrament againe This conceit is so absured that howeuer Bellarmine reckon it vp among the other Dispositions because of the Authority of the councell of Trent yet Becanus giues it ouer in plaine Feild numbring these fore naming sixe graces onely choosing rather to venter the Councells credit then his owne by defending an vnreasonable position 2 Argument If Faith alone doe iustifie vs then it may dâ—eâ—t when other graces are absent as well as when they are present For seeing the Vertue of Iustifing vs depends vpon Faith alone and that in this act it receaues no aide from any other grace It followeth that it needs not the coÌ„pany of any other grace as in the law of sense If the whole force of Burning proceed onely from Heat then where Heat is though there be no other Qualities yet there will be burning yea if Faith only haue force to Iustifie it will follow that it may iustifie not onely in the absence of other graces but in the presence of the coutrary vices For as the absence of other graces doth not hinder so the presence of other vices will not hinder Faith one jot in it office of Iustifying But t were absurd to affirme that Faith can Iustifie without other vertues with other vices Ergo The force of Iustifying is not in Faith alone To this we answere That this sophisme is fashioned vpon the same Block with the former that to Iustifie and Sanctifie are all one In which sense we confesse the Consequence is vnauoydable If Faith alone by it owne vertue and force did sanctifie then it would effect this not onely in the absence of other graces but in the presence of their contrary Corruptions and the similitude which we bring to illustrate our assertion would confirme that of the Aduersaries T is
the eye onely sees say our Men yet the Eare is in the Head too Yea reply they But the eie could see well notwithstanding the Eare were deafe T is the Heate onely of the fire or Sunne that warmes though there be light ioyned with it True say they But if there were no Light yet if heate remained it would warme for all that as the Heate of an Ouen or of Hell burnes though it shine not Thou holdest in thy hands many seedes T is the old comparison of Luther on the 15 of Gen. I enquire not what t is together but what is the vertue of each one single Yea reply our Aduersaries that 's a very needelesse question indeed For if among them many seedes there be some one that hath such soueraigne vertue that it alone can cure all diseases then t is no Matter whether thou haue many or few or none at all of any other sort in thy hand Thou hast that which by it owne vertue without other ingredients will worke the Cure Nor haue we ought to make answere in this case If as the Eye sees heate warmes seeds and other simples doe cure by their owne proper Vertue so Faith alone by its owne efficacy did sanctifie vs. But there is the Errour Faith works not in our sanctification or Iustification by any such inward power vertue of its own from whence these effects should properly follow For Sanctification Faith as we haue seene is part of that inherent Righteousnesse which the Holy Ghost hath wrought in the Regenerate and t is opposed to the Corruption of our Nature which stands in Infidelity Faith sanctifies not as a cause but as a part of insused grace and such a part as goes not alone but accompanied with all other Graces of Loue Feare Zeale Hope Repentance c. Inasmuch as Mans regeneration is not the infusion of one but of the Habit of all graces Againe 't is not the Vertue of Faith that iustifies vs The grace of Iustification is from God he workes it but t is our Faith applies it and makes it ours The Act of Iustification is Gods meere worke but our Faith onely brings vs the Benefit and Assurance of it Iustification is an externall priuiledge which God bestowes on beleeuers hauing therein respect onely to their Faith which grace onely hath peculiar respect to the Righteousnesse of Christ and the promise in him Whereby t is manifest that this argument is vaine Faith alone is respected in our Iustification therefore Faith is or may be alone without other graces of Iustification Bellar would vndertake to proue that true saith may be seuered from Charity and other Vertues but wee haue heretofore spoken of that Point and shewed that true Faith yet without a Forme true Faith dead and without a soule be Contradictions as vaine as A true Man without reason A true Fire without heate We confesse indeed that the faith of Iesuites the same with that of Simon Magus may very well bee without Charity and all other sanctifying graces a bare assent to the truth of Divine Reuelations because of Gods Authority As t is in Diuels so t is in Papists and other Heretickes But we deny that this is that which deserues the name of true Faith which whosoeuer hath hee also hath eternall life As it is Iohn 6. 47. 3 Argument That which Scripture doth not affirme that is false doctrine But the Scripture doth not affirme that wee are Iustified by Faith alone Ergo so to teach is to teach false Doctrine This Argument toucheth the quicke and if the Minor can be prooued we must needs yeeld them the Cause For that the Iesuites conceiue that this is a plaine case for where is there any one place in all the Bible that saith Faith alone Iustifies They euen laugh at the simplicity of the Heretickes as they Christen vs that glory they haue found out at last the word Onely in Luc. 8. 50. in that speech of Christ to the Ruler of the Synagogue Feare not beleeue onely and shee shall be made whole And much sport they make themselues with Luther That to helpe out this matter at a dead lift by plaine fraud hee foysted into the Text in the 3. to the Romans the word Onely When being taught with the fact and required a Reason He made answere according to his Modesty Sic volo sic iubeo stet pro ratione voluntas T is true that Luther in his Translation of the Bible into the Germane tougue read the 28. verse of that Chapter thus We conclude that men are iustified without the workes of the Law onely through Faith Which word onely is not in the Originall Where in so doing if he fulfild not the Office of a faithfull Translator yet he did the part of a faithfull Paraphrast keeping the sense exactly in that Alteration of words And if he be not free from blame yet of all men the Iesuites are most vnfit to reproue him whose dealing in the corrupting of all sort of Writers Diuine and humane are long since notorious and infamous throughout Christendome What Luthers Modesty was in answering those that found fault with his Translation we haue not to say Onely thus much That the impudent Forgeries of this Generation witnesse abundantly that it is no rare thing for a Lie to drop out of a Iesuites or Fryers penne But be it as it may be T is not Luthers Translation Nor that place in the 8. of Luke that our Doctrine touching Iustification by Faith alone is founded vpon We haue better proofes then these as shall appeare vnto you in the confirmation of the Minor of this Syllogisme Whatsoeuer the Scriptures affirme that 's true doctrine But the Scriptures affirme a man is iustified by Faith alone Therefore thus to teach is to teach according to the word of whole-some doctrine Our Aduersaries demaund proofe of the Minor We alleadge all those places wherein the Scriptures witnesse that we are Iustified by faith without the workes of the Law Such places are these Rom. 3. 28. Therefore we conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the Law Rom. 4. 2. 3. If Abraham were iustified by workes hee hath whereof to glory but not before God For what saith the Scripture Abraham beleeued God and it was counted to him for righteousnesse And vers 14. 15. 16. For if they which are of the Law be heires faith is made void and the promise made of none effect Because the Law worketh wrath for where no Law is there is no transgression Gal. 2. 16. Knowing that a man is not iustified by the workes of the Law but by the Faith of Iesus Christ Euen we haue beleeued in Christ that we might be iustified by the Faith of Christ and not by the workes of the Law For by the workes of the Law shall no flesh be iustified Gal. 3. 21. 22. Is the Law then against the promises of God God
forbid For if there had beene a Law giuen which could haue giuen Life verily righteousnesse should haue beene by the Law But the Scripture hath concluded all vnder sinne that the promise by the faith of Iesus Christ might be giuen by them that beleeue Ephe. 2. 8. 9. For by grace ye are saued through Faith and that not of your selues It is the gift of God Not of workes least any man should boast Phil 3. 8. 9. Yea doubtlesse and I count all things but losse for the excellency of the Knowledge of Christ Iesus my Lord. For whom I haue suffered the losse of all things and doe count them but dung that I may winne Christ. And be found of him not hauing mine owne righteousnesse which is of the Law but that which is through the faith of Christ the Righteousnesse which is of God by Faith Out of which places not to name more expresly touching this point of our Iustification we argue thus A Man is iustified either by the workes of the Law or by faith in Christ. But hee is not Iustified by the workes of the Law Ergo He is iustified onely by faith in Christ. In this disiunctiue Syllogisme they cannot find â—ault with vs for adding the word onely in the Conclusion which was not in the Praemises For Reason will teach them that where two Tearmes are immediately opposite if one bee taken away the other remaines alone So that in euery disjunctiue Syllogisme whose Maior Proposition standeth vpon two Tearmes immediately opposite if one be remoued in the Minor the Conclusion is plainely equivalent to an exclusiue Proposition As if we argue thus Eyther the wicked are saued or the godly But the wicked are not saued Thence it followes in exclusiue Tearmes Therefore the godly onely are saued Our Aduersaries cannot deny but that the Proposition A Man is iustified by workes or by Faith consists of Tearmes immediately opposite For else they accuse the Apostle Paul of want of Logicke who Rom. 3. should conclude falsely A man is iusitified by faith without workes if he be iustified either by both together or else by neither Seeing then he opposeth Faith aÌ„d workes as incompatible and exclude workes from Iustification wee conclude infallibly by the Scriptures That a man is iustified by faith alone This Argument not auoidable by any sound aÌ„swere puts our aduersaries miserably to their shifts Yet rather then yeeld vnto the truth they fall vnto their distinctions whereby if t were possible they would shift off the force of this Argument Whereas therefore the Scriptures oppose Workes and Faith the Law of Workes and the Law of Faith Our owne righteousnesse which is of the Law and the Righteousnesse of God by Faith manifestly telling vs that we are Iustified Not by Workes by the Law of Workes nor by our owne Righteousnesse which is of the Law but that we are iustified by Faith by the Righteousnesse of God by Faith Our Aduersaries haue a distinction to salue this Matter withall They say then Workes are of two sorts 1 Some goe before Grace and Faith and are performed by the onely strength of free-will out of that Knowledge of the Law whereunto Men may attaine by the light of Nature or the bare Reuelation of the Scriptures These workes or this obedience vnto the law which a meere naturall man can performe is say they that Righteousnesse which the Scripture cals our owne By this kinde of Righteousnesse and Workes they grant none is Iustified 2 Some follow Grace and Faith which are done by Mans free-will excited and aided by the speciall helpe of Grace Such Obedience and Righteousnesse is say they called the Righteousnesse of God because it is wrought in vs of his gift and grace And by this Righteousnesse a man is iustified By this Invention they turne of with a wet finger all those Scriptures that we haue alleadged Wee are Iustified not by the workes of the Law that is by the Obedience of the Morall Law which a man may performe without Gods Grace But we are Iustified by Faith of Christ that is by that obedience of the Morall Law which a man may performe by faith and the helpe of Gods grace Boasting is excluded saith the Apostle by what Law By the Law of workes that is by the Law performed by the strength of Nature Nay For he that performes the Law by his owne strength hath cause to boast of it By what Law then By the Law of Faith that is by faith which obtaines Gods grace to fulfill the Morall Law Now he that obeyes the Law by Gods helpe hath no cause to boast Israel which followed the Law of righteousnesse could not attaine vnto the law of righteousnesse Wherefore Because they sought it not by Faith that is they sought not to performe the Law by Gods Grace But as by the workes of the Law that is by their own strength Thus Paul desires to be found in Christ not hauing his owne righteousnesse which is of the Law that is that righteousnesse he performed without Gods grace before his Conversion But the righteousnesse of God which is by faith i.e. That righteousnesse which he performed in obeying the Law by Gods grace after his Conversion For confirmation of this distinction and the Interpretations thereon grounded Bellarmine brings three reasons to shew that when workes and faith are opposed all workes of the Law are not excluded 1 It s manifest Faith is a worke and that there is a Law of Faith as well as workes If therefore Rom. 3. all workes and all Law be excluded from Iustification then to be iustified by Faith were to bee iustified without faith 2 It s plaine the Apostle Rom. 3. intends to proue that neither Iewes by the naked obseruation of the law of Moses nor the Gentiles for their good workes before they were conuerted to the faith of Christ could obtaine righteousnesse from God 3 The Apostle shewes Rom. 4. 4. what workes he excludes from Iustification viz. such whereto wages is due by debt not by grace Now workes performed without Gods helpe deserue reward ex Debito but workes performed by his helpe deserve wages ex gratia I doubt but notwithstanding these seeming Reasons the fore-named distinction and expositions of Scripture according thereto appeare vnto you at the first sight strange vncouth farr besides the intent of the Holy Ghost in all those fore-reckoned passages of Scripture Let vs examine it a little more narrowly and yee shall quickly perceiue that in this Schoole distinction there is nothing but fraud shifting By workes done by the strength of Nature wee are not iustified By workes done with the helpe of grace wee are iustified This is the distinction resolue it now into these tearmes which are more proper it runs thus A man is not sanctified by those workes of the Moraâ—l Law which he doth without grace but a man is sanctified by those workes of the Morall Law he doth by
That the Apostle excludeth all the workes of Abraham from his Iustification both such as he performed when he had no grace and those he did when he had grace For those workes are excluded wherein Abraham might glory before Men. Now Abraham might glory before Men as well in those workes which he did by the helpe of Gods grace as those which he did without it Nay more in those then in these As in his obedient Departure from his owne Country at Gods command his patient expectation of the promises his ready willingnesse euen to offer his owne Sonne out of Loue and Duty to God his religious and Iust demeaning of himselfe in all places of his abode In those things Abraham had cause to glory before Men much more then in such works as he performed before his Conuertion when he serued other Gods beyond the Flood Therefore we conclude that Abraham was Iustified neither by such workes as went before Faith and grace in him nor yet by such as followed after This is most cleare by the v. 2. If Abraham where iustified by workes he had wherein to glory but not with God Admit here the Popish Interpretation and this speach of the Apostles will be false Thus If Abraham were iustified by workes that is by such workes as he performed without Gods gratious helpe he hath wherein to glory viz. before Men but not with God Nay that 's quite otherwise For its euident If a Man be Iustified by obeying the Law through his own strength he may boldly glory before God as well as before Men seing in that case he is not beholding to God for his helpe But according to our doctrine the Meaning of the Apostle is perspicuous Abraham might glory before Men in those excellent workes of piety which he performed after his vocation and in mens sight he might be iustified by them But he could not glory in them before God nor yet be iustified by them in his sight So then all workes whatsoeuer are excluded from Abrahams Iustification and nothing lest but Faith which is imputed vnto him for Righteousnâ—sse as it is v. 3. Whence it followes That as Abraham so all others are Iustified without all Merit by Gods free grace and fauour For so it followes verse 4. 5. Now vnto him that worketh the wages is not counted by fauour but by Debt but to him that worketh not but beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly his faith is counted for Righteousnesse These words runne cleare till a Iesuite put his Foote into the streame to raise vp the Mudde To him that worketh that is which fulfileth the Righteousnesse of the Morall Law the wages of Iustification and Life is not counted by fauour but by debt for by the perfect Righteousnesse of the Law a Man deserues to be iustified and saued But to him that worketh not that hath not fullfilled the righteousnesse of the Law in doing all things that are written therein But beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly That is relyeth vpon Christ who by his Righteousnesse obtained absolution for him that is Rightousnesse in himselfe His Faith is imputâ—d for Righteousnesse that is He by his Faith obâ—aynes Iâ—stification in Gods sight not by Merit of his owne but Gods gratious acceptation of Christs Righteousnesse for his But here our Aduersaries trouble the water by a false Inteâ—â—retation To him that worketh that is say they that fulfil the Law by his owne strength Wages is not counted by fauour but by debt but if he fulfill it by Gods grace his wages is paiâ—â— him by fauour not of debt Where vnto we reply That 1 This glose is a plaine corruption of the Text. For by workes in this fourth verse the Apostle vnderstands that kind of workes were of mention is made v 2 By which Abraham was not Iustified and these as we haue shewed where works done by the helpe of Grace not by the meere strength of Nature 2 And againe for the Assertion it selfe namely He that fulfils the mâ—rrall Law by the helpe of Gods grace is iustified by fauour not by debt we say t is ether a manifest falshood or at best an ambiguous speech For t is one thing to bestow Grace on a Man to fulfill the Law and t is another thing to Iustifie him when he hath fulfilled the Law If God should giue strength to a Man exactly to fulfill the Morralâ— Law that were indeed of his free fauour and grace but when this man that hath receaued this streâ—gth shall come before God with the perfect Righteousnesse of the Law pleading that in euery point he had done what was required God is bound in Iustice to pronounce him innocent and of due Debt to bestow on him the wages of eternall Life Adams case is not vnlike to such a Man For God gaue Adam what strength he had yet Adam fulfilling the Law by that strength should haue merited Iustification and Life Therefore when the Apostle speake 〈◊〉 all workes in the perfect fulfilling of the Law he saiâ—h that to him that worketh Wages is not counted by fauour but but by debt he speaketh exactly and the Iesuits in excluding workes done by Grace comment absurdly Thus much touching the third point concerning Mans Iustification by Faith alone as also of the first generall Head promised in the Beginning Namely the condition required of vs vnto Iustification viz. Faith SECT 3. CHAP. I Of the righteousnesse whereby a man is iustified before God that it is not his own inherent in himselfe that in this life no 〈◊〉 hath perfection of holinesse inherent in him I Proceede vnto the second Generall of the Matter of our Iustification where we are to enquire what Righteousnesse it is for which a Sinner is Iustified in Gods sight Iustificatâ—on and Iustice aâ—e still coupled together and some Righteousnesse there must be for which God pronounceth a Man Righteous and for the sake whereof he for Giâ—eth vnto him all his Sinnes Noâ— is a Sinner iust before God because Iustified buâ— hee is therfore Iustified because he is some way or other Iust. The Righteousnesse for which a Man can be Iustified before God is of necessity one of these two 1 Eyther inherent in his owne Person and done by himselfe 2 Or inherent in the Person of Christ but imputed vnto him A Man is Iustified either by something in him and performed by him or by some thing in another performed for him The wisedome of Angels and Men hath not bin able to shew vnto vs any third Meanes For whereas it is affirmed by some that God might haue reconciled Mankind vnto himselfe by a free and absolute parden of their Sins without the interuention of any such Righteousnesse eitheâ— in themselues or in Christ whereby to procure it to that we say That God hath seene it good in this matter rather to follow his owne most wise Counsailes then these Mens foolish Directions T is to no purpose now to dispute what God might
judge St. Iames in the example of Rahab speakes of the first Iustification because as he saieth she was then at the first made a beleeuer of an infidell a righteous woman of an harlot And againe Paul he speakes of the 2. Iustification in the example of Abraham which is alleaged by both the Apostles Heere 's then a confusion insteed of a distiction Paul speakes of the first Iames speakes of the 2. and yet both do speake of both Iustifications Againe when they say Iames speakes of the second Iustification whereby of just a man becomes more just ti 's a groundlesse imagination for asmuch as it was to no purpose for the Apostle Iames to treat of the second Iustification whereby men grow better when those Hypocrites with whom he had to doe had erred from their first iustification whereby they were not as yet made good as the learned Iackson obserues Nay there is not in all St. Iames his dispute any sâ—llable that may giue any just suspicion that by Iustification he meanes the increase of inhaerent Iustice. Bellarmine catcheth at the clause v. 22. By workes Faith was made perfect which is in the Iesuites construction Abraham's inhaerent justice begun by faith receiued increase and perfection by his workes But this is onlie the Iesuites phrensie Abraham his faith and his Righteousnes whereof his Faith is but a part was not made but declared to be perfect by so perfect a worke which it brought forth as euen Lorinus another of that sect expounds it orthodoxly 3 Thirdly that distinction of workes done before Faith without grace and after Faith by grace is to as litle purpose as the former in this matter of our Iustification Heretofore we haue touched vpon that distinction and shewed the vanitie thereof in limiting St. Paul to workes done without grace when simplie he concludes all workes from our Iustification And St. Iames though he require workes of grace to be ioyned with that Faith which must justifie vs yet he giues them not that place and office in our Iustification from which Paul doth exclude them and wherein our adversaries would establish them as it shall appeare anon Leauing then this sophisticall reconcilement coined by our aduersaries I come to those reconciliations which are made by our diuines wherein we shall haue better satisfaction vpon better grounds Two waies there are whereby this seeming difference is by our Men reconciled 1. The 1. by distinguishing the word â— Iustification which may be taken either 1 For the absolution of a Sinner in Gods iudgement 2 For the declaration of a mans Righteousnes before men This distinction is certaine and hath its ground in Scripture which vseth the word Iustifie in both acceptions for the quitting of vs in Gods sight and for the manifestation of our innocency before man against accusation or suspicion of faultines They applie this distinction for the reconciling of the two Apostles Thus. St. Paul speakes of Iustification in foro Dei S. Iames speakes of Iustification in foro hominis A man is justified by faith without workes saieth S. Paul that is in God's sight a man obtaines remission of Sinnes and is reputed just only for his Faith in Christ not for his workes sake A man is justified by workes and not by Faith onely saieth S. Iames that is in mans sight we are declared to be just by our good workes not by our Faith onely which with other inward and invisible Graces are made visible vnto man onely in the good workes which they see vs performe That this application is not vnfit for to reconcile this difference may be shewed by the parts 1. For S. Paul ti 's agreed on all sides that he speakes of mans iustification in God's sight Rom. 3. v. 20. 2. For S. Iames we are to shew that with just probability he may be vnderstood of the declaration of our Iustification and righteousnes before men For proofe whereof the Text affords vs these reasons 1. Verse 18. Shew me thy Faith without thy Workes and I will shew thee my Faith by my workes Where the true Christian speaking to the Hypocriticall boaster of his Faith requires of him a declaration of his faith and Iustification thereby by a reall proofe not a verball profession promising for his part to manifest and approue the trueth of his owne Faith by his good workes Whence it appeares that before man none can justifie the soundnes of his Faith but by his workes thene proceeding 2. V. 21. Abraham is saied to be justified when he offered vp his sonne Isaak vpon the Altar Now ti 's manifest that Abraham was justified in Gods sight long before euen 25. yeares Gen. 15. 6. Therefore by that admirable worke of his in offering his Sonne he was declared before all the world to be a just man and a true Beleeuer And for this purpose did God tempt Abraham in that triall of his Faith that thereby all beleeuers might behold a rare patterne of a liuely and justifying Faith and that Abraham was not without good cause called the Father of the Faithfull 3. V. 22. It is saied that Abrahams faith wrought with his worke and by workes was his faith made perfect Which in the iudgement of popish Expositors themselues is to be vnderstood of the manifestation of Abrahams faith by his workes His Faith directed his workes his workes manifested the power and perfection of his Faith It is not then without good probability of Reason that Caluin and other Expositors on our side haue giuen this solution vnto this doubt Bellarmine labours against it and would faine proue that justification cannot be taken heere pro declaratione Iustitiae But his Argument cannot much trouble any intelligent reader and therefore I spare to trouble you with his sophistry This now is the first way of reconciling the places Howbeit the trueth is that although this may be defended against any thing that our aduersaries objected to the contrary yet many and those very learned divines chose rather to tread in another path and more neerely to presse the Apostles steps whom also in this point â— willingly follow 2 The second way then of reconciling these places is by distinguishing of the word Faith which is taken in a doubled sense 1. First for that Faith which is true and liuing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Faith which worketh through loue and is fruitfull in all manner of Obedience 2. Secondly for that Faith which is false and dead being onely a bare acknowledgment of the trueth of all Articles of Religion accompanied with an outward Formality of Profession but yet destitute of sincere Obedience This distinction of this word Faith is certaine by the Scriptures as hath heretofore bin shewed in handling of that Grace Our Men now apply it thus S. Paul when he affirmes that we are justified by Faith onely speakes of that Faith which is true and liuing working by Charity S. Iames when he denies a Man is justified by
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.
God in a word in the Renovation of his Facâ—lties Which what is it else but Sanctification or Regeneration or Conuersion Only stiled by that tearme of Vocation in regard of the meanes whereby it is ordinarily effected that is the preaching of the word He must needs coyne vs some new Mystery in Divinity who will perswade vs that some other worke of Grace is meant by Vocation and not that of Sanctification Therefore wee haue neither one Linke snapt out nor two shuffled together in this chaine of our Saluation But foure as distinct as vndivideable Election Sanctification whereto we are called by the Gospell preached 2 Thess. 2. 14. Iustification by Faith which is a fruit of Sanctification and Glorification The fourth place is that in the Epistle to the Hebrewes Chap. 13. 14. For if the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling them that are vncleane sanctifieth as touching the purifying of the flesh how much more shall the blood of Christ who through the eternall Spirit offered himselfe without fault to God purge our consciences from dead workes to serue the liuing God Hence they argue That as Leuiticall Sacrifices and Washings did sanctifie the flesh from outward Legall impurity so the Sacrifice of Christ doth purge the Conscience from inward spirituall vncleanenesse of dead Workes or Sinnes This purging of the conscience is nothing but iustification of a sinner Wherefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be all of one meaning To which I answere That the Apostle in that Chapter and the next disputing of the vertue and efficacy of Christs death far exceeding the force of all Leuiticall Sacrifices the shadowes of it ascribes vnto it what could not be effected by those viz. eternall Redemption verse 12. purging of the conscience from dead workes verse 12. the putting away of sinne verse 26. The Sanctification of the Elect Chap. 10. 7. 10. made Heires according to the hope of eternall life In neither then of those places is our sanctification confounded with our Iustification but both distinctly declared as two seuerall partes of graces and meanes of the Accomplishment of our eternall Happinesse 'T is scarce worth the labour to examine those other Scriptures produced by our Aduersaries whereof some part doe directly crosse and the rest doe but onely in apparance confirme their assertion In generall therefore for them thus much wee confidently affirme that let the Concordance be studied and all those places examined wherein either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is vsed in the Old or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament there will not one be found no not one in which those wordes carry any other meaning then that which we stand for viz. the clearing of a parties innocence questioned as faulty and blame-worthy Take a taste of some places 1 Iustification is sometimes applyed to 1. God when Man iustifies God As Psal. 51. 4. Rom. 3. 4. That thou mightest be iustified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in thy saying and mightest ouercome when thou art iudged Matth. 11. 19. And wisedome is iustified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of her children Luke 7. 35. Luke 7. 29. And the Publicans iustified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God being baptized with the baptisme of Iohn Can there be any other meaning of Iustification hereâ— but this onely That God is then iustified when his workes his wisedome his sacred ordinances being accused by prophane men as vntrue vnequall vnâ—ust and foolish are by the Godly acknowledged or any other meanes evidently cleared vnto all men to be full of all Truth Equity Wisedome and Holinesse 2 Man and that 1 Before Man in things betweene Man and Man When Man iustifies Man Deut. 25. 1. If there be a controversie betweene Men and they come vnto iudgement that the Iudge may iudge them then they shall iustifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the righteous and condemne the wicked Isaiah 5. 23. Woe to them whâ—ch iustifie the wicked for a reward and take away the righteousnesse of the righteous from him Prouerb 17. 15. He that iustifieth thâ— wicked and condemneth the iust euen they both are an abomination to the Lord. 2 Sam. 15. 4. Oh that I were made Iudge in the Land that euery man that hath any suit or cause might come to me and I would doe him Iustiâ—e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In these many the like places to Iustifie is in iudâ— ciall proceeding to absolue a party from fault blame whether it be rightfully or wrongfully done Ezek. 16. 52. Be thou confounded and beare thy shame in that thou hast iustified thy sisters speakes God vnto Ierusalem in comparison of whose abhomination the sinnes of Sodome and Samaria were scarce to be accounted any faults They were Saints to her Of the Pharises Christ speakes Luke 16. 15. Yee are they that iustifie your selues before men but God knoweth your hearts That is You stand vpon the defence and ostentation of outward Holinesse and deeming it sufficient to make it appeare before Men you are holy without regard of acquitting the sincerity of your hearts before God 2 Before God where God iustifies Man Exod. 23. 7. The innocent and the righteous slay thou not for I will not iustifie the wicked by esteeming him as innocent and letting him goe from punishment Isaiah 50. 8. Hee is neere that iustifieth me who will contend with me saith the Prophet in the person of Christ signifying God would make it appeare that he was blamelesse for the rejection of his people the Iewes who perished for their owne and not his fault Rom. 5. 18. As by the offence of one iudgement came on all Men to condemnation So by the righteousnesse of one the free gift came vpon all men to the Iustification of life Rom 8. 33. 34. Who shall lay thing to the charge of Gods Elect It is God that iustifies who shall condemne 1 Cor. 4. 4. I know nothing by my selfe yet in this am I not iustified Hee that iudgeth me is God q. d. I haue kept a good conscience in my Ministery but God is my iudge though my conscience pronounce me innocent yet God is my sole Iudge that iudgeth me and my conscience Acts 13. 38. 39. Through this Man is preached vnto you the forgiuenesse of sinnes and from all things from which yee could not be iustified by the Law of Moses by him euery one that beleeueth is iustifyed By which places not to name more it appeares plâ—inly that Iustification is opposed to Accusation and Condemnation and therefore can signifie nothing else but the defence absolution of a persoÌ„ accused for an offender Which thing is so cleare and euident that it cannot be gaynsayed except by those alone who are wilfully blind and obstinately resolued to coÌ„tradict any truth that makes against their inveterate errors For our selues we may not nor dare not shut our eyes against so cleare Light nor ought we to be so bold wheÌ„ God hath
iudged according to this Righteousnesse and Innocency oh how soone his mouth would be stopped And this confession wrung out from out his Conscience All my Righteousnesse is as filthy Raggs And againe Vilis sum I am vile what shall I answere thee But that other Righteousnesse of Iustification is without vs in Christs possession but ours by Gods gratious gift and acceptation and this euery way perfect and vnreproued in the seuerest Iudgment of God And therefore when a sinner is drawne before the Barre of Gods Iudgment accused by the law Satan his Conscience conuicted by the euidence of the Fact and to be now sentenced and deliuered to punishment by the vnpartiall Iustice of God In this case he hath to alleadge for himself the al-sufficient righteousnesse of a Mighty redeemer who onely had Done and suffered for him that which hee could neuer doe nor suffer for himselfe This Plea alone and no other in the world can stop vp the Mouth of hell confute the accusations of Satan chase away the Terrors that haunt a guilty conscience and appease the infinite Indignation of an angry Iudge This alone will procure fauour and absolution in the presence of that Iudge of the whole world This alone brings downe from Heauen into our Consciences that blessed peace which passeth all vnderstanding but of him that hath it Whereby we rest our selues secure from feare of Condemnation being provided of a defence that will not faile vs when after death wee shall come into Iudgment SECT 2. CHAP. I. The Orthodoxe opinion concerning the manner of Iustification by Faith and the confutation of Popish errours in this point HAuing thus cleared the meaning of this word Iustification and shewed that the Scriptures when they speake of the Iustification of a sinner before God doe thereby vnderstand the absolution of him in Iudgement from sinne and punishment Wee are now vpon this ground to proceede vnto the further explication of this point to enquire by what Meanes and in what Manner this Iustification of a sinner is accomplished That we may goe on more distinctly I will reduce all our ensuing discourse of this point into three heads First touching the condition required in them that shall be iustified Secondly the matter of our Iustification viz. What righteousnesse is it wherefore a sinner is Iustified Thirdly touching the forme of Iustification in what the quality of this iudiciall Act of God iustifying a sinner consisteth Concerning the first at this time The condition required in such as shall be partakers of this grace of Iustification is true faith wherunto God hath ordinarily annexed this great priuiledge That by faith and faith onely a sinner shall bee iustified This the Scriptures witnesse in tearmes as direct and expresse as any can be Rom 3. 28. We conclude a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the Law and Rom. 4. 9. For we say that faith was imputed vnto Abraham for righteousnesse and Rom. 5. 1. Then being iustified by faith we haue peace towards God through Iesus Christ our Lord. With other the like places Whence it is agreed vpon on all sides that a sinner is iustified by faith but touching the manner how he is said to be iustified by faith there is much controuersie and brawle betweene the Orthodoxe of the reformed Churches and their Aduersaries of Rome and Holland the Arminians and the Papists The sentence of the reformed Churches touching this point consisteth of two Branches First that a sinner is iustified by faith not properly as it is a quality or action which by it's owne dignity and merit deserues at Gods hands Remission of sinnes or is by Gods fauourable acceptance taken for the whole and perfect righteousnesse of the Law which is otherwise required of a sinner but onely in relation vnto the obiect of it the righteousnesse of Christ which it imbraceth and resteth vpon Secondly that a sinner is iustified by faith in opposition vnto the Righteousnesse of workes in the fulfilling of the Law Whereby now no man can be iustified In this relatiue and inclusiue sense doe the Reformed Churches take this proposition A man is iustified by faith They explaine themselues thus There are two Couenants that God hath made with man By one of which and by no other meanes in the world saluation is to be obtained The one is the Couenant of workes The tenor whereof is Doe this and thou shalt liue This Couenant is now vtterly void in regard of vs who through the weaknes of our sinfull flesh cannot possibly fulfill the condition of Obedience required therby and therfore we cannot expect Iustification Life by this means The other is the Couenant of grace the Tenor whereof is Beleeue in the Lord Iesus and thou shalt be saued The condition of this couenant is Faith the performance whereof differs from the performance of the condition of that other Couenant Doe this and Liue is a compact of pure Iustice wherein wages is giuen by debt so that he which doth the worke obeying the Law may in strict Iustice for the worke sake claime the wages eternall life vpon iust desert Beleeue this and liue is a compact of freest and purest Mercy wherein the reward of eternall life is giuen vs in fauour for that which beares not the least proportion of worth with it so that he which personnes the condition cannot yet demand the wages as due vnto him in seuerity of Iustice but onely by the grace of a freer promise the fulfilling of which hee may humbly sue for By which grand difference betweene these two Couenants clearely expressed in Scriptures it appeares manifestly that these two Propositions A man is iustified by workes A man is iustified by Faith carry meanings vtterly opposite one to the other The one is proper and formall the other Metonymicall and Relatiue In this Proposition A Man is iustified by workes we vnderstand all in proper and precise termes That a righteous man who hath kept the law exactly in all points is by and for the dignity and worth of that his obedience iustified in Gods sight from all blame and punishment whatsoeuer because perfect obedience to the morall Law in it selfe for it owne sake deserues the approbation of Gods seuere Iustice and the reward of Heauen But in that other Proposition A man is iustified by Faith We must vnderstand all things relatiuely thus A sinner is iustified in the sight of God from all sinne and punishment by faith that is by the obedience of Iesus Christ beleeued on and embraced by a true faith Which Act of Iustification of a sinner although it be properly the onely worke of God for the onely merit of Christ yet is it rightly ascribed vnto faith and it alone for as much as faith is that mayne condition of that new Couenant which as we must perform if we will be iustified so by the performance thereof we are said to obtaine iustification and life For when God by
But a Man may doe more then the Law requires Ergo He may doe as much The minor Bellarmine proues by the example of the young Man Mat 〈◊〉 9. who telling Christ that he had obserued all the commandements and that from his youth our Sauiour bids him doe one thing more and then he should be perfect If thou wilt be perfect go sell that thou hast and giue to the poore and follow me ver 20. Now if the young Man had done this he had done more then the Law required In as much as whatsoeuer the Law required he had obserued formerly For do you not beleeue him that he spake true All these things haue I obserued from my youth verse 9. Whereto we answere That we doe not beleeue the Testimony of that vaine young Man touching his owne Righteousnesse Who boosted of keeping the 2. Table in the outward duties thereof when as yet he wanted inward Charitie towards his Neighbuor and Loue towards God He auouâ—hed that he had kept all perfectly fulfilling that commandment Thou shalt loue thy neighbour as thy selfe and there vpon is so bould as to aske Christ. what lacke I yet Christ to conuince him of his pride and wants put him to the Triall If thou hast such perfect Charity towards Man then certainely if God command thee to bestow that a part but all thy goods vpon the poore vpon promise of better things to thy selfe thy duty vnto God and singular Charity to Men will make thee doe so Goe then sell all that thou hast and giue to the poore Vpon this speciall Commandment this couetous mind shews it selfe Nay 't is plaine he loued not his Neighbour so well as his riches He is neither so dutifull to God nor charitable to the poore as for either of their sakes to part with his possessions But might he say what will not ordinary almes or a little more then ordinary serue the turne Must I giue away all Indâ—ede the Law requires that I be mercifull to the poore but where 's any Law that bids me sell my whole estate and distribute to them that want Christ layes an vnnecessary burden vpon me if I cannot be perfect without vndoâ—ing my selfe I will content my selfe as I am and not seke after such perfection Heere a Papist will say he speake reason seeing Christs speech was but acounsaile of more perfection then the Law required Now a Man is not to be blamed if he chuse only to be as perfect as the Law commands him and so this young man was if you 'le beleeue him or them But the Scripture makes it plaine that he did euill in disobeying Christ and that if he had obeyed him in that particular he had done no more then the Law required at his hands For obedience to euery speciall Commandment is included in the generall The Law indefinitely commands vs to giue almes now if God by a speciall commandment limite how much we shall giue whether halfe or all our Estates to obey such a perticular precept is not to do more then the generall Law requires vs. Such a particular Commandment was this of Christ vnto the young Man wherein he sets him a spell according to that conceit of perfection which he had of himselfe putting him to the practise of the highest duty which the Law of Liberality can possible require of a Man viz. to part with all This he ought to haue done vpon Christs particular commandment in not doing of it he brake the Law and proclaimed his heart to be full of couetousnesse deuoide of faith in God and true Charity towards his Neighbour From this place then our aduersaries cannot proue that this young Man might haue doen more then the Law required or that wee are bound at any time to doe as Christ bid him Christs command was for his particular Triall not for our Imitation They that take it otherwise be a generation of men that professe Beggery and possesse Kingdomes who were willing enough to part with that little they had of there owne that so they may liue the more Largely and plentifully vpon other Mens Wee goe forward to the next argument 4 If the Law were impossible to be kept it were no Law for there is no Law of things impossible Yea God were more cruel and foolish then any Tyrant too command vs to doe that which is impossible for vs to doe To this wee answere That the consequences were true if God had giuen a Law which Men neuer had strength to performe But now the Law written in tables on Mount Sina was but a reuiuing and repetion of the same Law which was written in Adams heart the Characters whereof were now defaced in his sinnefull Posterity Adam had strength sufficient to fulfill it which as he receaued for himselfe and vs so he lost it for both Neuerthelesse though Strength to obey be lost yet the obligation to Obedience remaines We are no more discharged of our duties because we haue no strength to doe it then a debter is quitted of his Bands because he wants money to make payment Nor is this cruelty or folly in God that when he published this Law vnto the Isralites he did not qualifie the exactnesse thereof fitting the precepts to there abilities commanding theÌ„ to do iust as much as they could or would do Had God made a Law in that sort in fauour of mans sinfull nature they might with better reason haue layd folly to his charge for bending the rule to the crokednesse of mans heart and not leuelling it according to the streightnesse of the Rule God was to set forth a Law of Liberty that should not flatter but freely rebuke Man of all vnrighteousnesse a perfect Law containing in it a full description of Holynesse and Iustice which Man ought to haue and performe towards God and his Neighbour in this case God had iust reason to haue respect vnto mans duty not his ability which once he had but now had forfited and lost The next Argument is 5 Euery Prayer made in Faith according to Gods will is heard and granted But we pray that we may fulfill the Law perfectly For we pray that we may doe Gods will in Earth as it is in Heauen Ergo God heares vs and giues vs such grace that we can doci Hereto we answere That this prayer shewes vs what we are bound too and what is our duty continually to endeuour That we may doe Gods will euery day more perfectly cheerefully and constantly then other And so farre God heares the faithfull prayers of his louing children enabling them to better performance the longer they liue But that such perfection of Obedience is giuen to vs in this life as the Saints enioy in Heauen will not be graunted by our Aduersaries themselues Wherefore they must also grant that that Prayer is heard and granted vs by degrees In this Life we attaine such perfection as God sees fit for vs afterwards that which is
sufficient to barre vs from Iustification by them For we deserue not reward for what is well done except all were well done But neuerthelesse it shall not hinder Gods gracious acceptation of our good workes who is well pleased with the obedience of his children so farre as it is good and holy and when it failes for Christs sake he mercifully pardoneth their Trespasses Thus much of the second Argument The third is from reason grounded on Scriptures 3 Where there are sufficientia principia rectae operationis sufficient causes and meanes of well-doing there a good worke may be done without all fault But in a man Regenerate there are causes and meanes sufficient for well-doing Ergo He may doe well and not offend They proue the Minor thus To the performance of any good worke there is required nothing but these things Knowledge of what is to be done will and power to do it But now a Regenerate man hath all these For first his vnderstanding is enlightned so that hee can easily know what is good to be done Secondly his will and affections are sanctified and aided by grace to desire and endeauour the performance of it And thirdly and lastly hee hath power to put in practise what he knowes and desires there being no impediment inward or outward that should hinder him Ergo he may doe well and sinne not Here we desire them to shew vs. How a man Regenerate is enduded with such perfect abilities as may helpe him and quite rid him of all such impediments as might hinder hiâ— in well doing This they say is done by the grace of Sanctification giuen vnto a Regenerate man whereby hee is freed from all contagion of sinne and such incombrances as hinder him in well-doing For by this grace giuen to him hee is made a good tree now A good tree cannot bring foorth â—ad fruit Matth 7. 18. And ergo a good man cannot doe bad workes 〈…〉 made a fruitfull Branch of Christ the true Vine as it is Iohn 15. 5. I am the Vine yea are the branches he that abideth in me and I in him the 〈◊〉 beareth much fruit And Ergo That fruit onely which is good Which Similitude of a Branch much illustrates the matter in their Imagination For as in a Vine-Branch If first it haue sufficient moisture from the Body of the Vine Secondly if it haue sufficient heat of the Sunne to digest that moysture And thirdly if it be not hurt nor hindred by Frosts Wette Windes Wormes or other such discommodities of the Ayre and Soile then certainely it will be are very much and very good fruit so is it in a man regenerate From Christ he receiues sufficient moisture of Diuine Grace which is in him as a well of water springing vp vnto euerlasting life Iohn 4. 14. He hath heat sufficient of spirituall affection to cause him to bud forth into good workes For Christ saith I am come to send fire on the earth and what will I if it be already kindled Luke 12. 49. And Did not our hearts burne within vs said the two Disciples that went to Emaus Luk. 24. 32. Ergo they haue heat enough Finally they haue no impediment Neither inward For why It is written Rom. 8. 1. There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus Ergo no inward impediment to well-doing Nor outward For it written nothing shall separate vs from the Loue of God that is in Christ Iesus our Lord Rom. 8. 38. Ergo no outward impediment of good workes Hereunto we make answer That this Argument is a sophisticall cauillation which proues that which we do not deny They say that a Man Regenerate hath sufficientia principia rectae honestae operationis We say so too confessing that hee is made a good tree a fruitfull Branch that hee is enlightened sanctified and strengthened by the spirit of God vnto the performance of good workes We grant that now he is enabled to doe well who before his Regeneration could doe nothing saueâ—ll but the question still remaines whether now he doe so well as that he doth nothing ill when he doth best We grant that the Vine which in former time yeelded nothing but wild grapes now being transplanted and grafted into the best Vine beares good grapes but we deny that they are so weet and kindly in euâ—â— respect as not to haue a little relish still of their former wildnesse and sowrenesse Wherefore our Aduersaries doe but trifle with vs to tell vs that Men Regenerate haue meanes sufficient to doe those workes that be good this we deny not but we question whether they haue helpe sufficient to performe any worke so absolutely and perfectly good that God himselfe cannot charge it with any Sinne at all This we constantly deny And to their discourse That a regenerate Man hath sufficient Knowledge Power and will to doe good perfectly in this they affirme more then will euer bee proued Our imperfections in euery one of these three particulars witnessed to our Conscience by Scripture and experience doth disable vs euer froÌ„ doing any worke entirely and totally good Knowledge we haue but much darkned by ignorance We haue a will to doe good but that also corrupted with much forward RebellioÌ„ A power we haue to do good but alwayes crossed and much restrained by manyfold Lusts within and Temptations without vs. How is it possible for vs being compassed about with so many infirmities but wee should offend in one thing or other Becanus here brings vs an instant of a good worke and bids vs shew what sinne there is in it If sayth he A Man regenerate read or heare those words of Christ. Mat 6. giue almes hee being enlightned knowes that this is a worthy and honest worke Wherupon he is toucâ—ed in heart and stirred vp to do it He consents to this motion and resols vpon the execution which supposing that he be rich nothing now can hinder because he is both able and willing to giue Now then this almes being thus giuen out of knowledge and a pious motion of the Heart tending to Gods honour and our Neighbours good the Iesuit desires to knew of vs where their is any Sinne in it Wee say there is some euill in euery good worke and therefore hee would haue vs tell him what euill there is in this Almesdeed Vnto this we say that this enquiry of the Iesuite is the most ridiculous and absurd thing that can be He asketh vs where is the Sinne what if we answere him we doe not know Is hee now euer the wiser what hath he gained hereby Are other Mens worke without all faults because we know not what they be Nay are they without fault because themselues know not whether there be any in them or no what silinesse were it to argue in this sort Therefore when wee come to this point strictly to examine the workes of Men. First we tell the Iesuite that he must not put Cases touching generalities suppose
better but then here also they deny that this imperfection of our charity and good works is any sinne Lastly they grant that no man can auoide veniall sinnes scarse in the best workes he doth but then they deny that veniall sinnes be contrary to the Law so that albeit a man commit them yet he may perfectly fulfill the Law of God I cannot stand largely in the refutation of these foule errors The confutation whereof belongs properly to the Article of remission of sinnes where the nature and kindes of sinnes are to be handled For this present I shall but touch on them briefly and proceed to the matter 1 For the first we defend this conclusion The vitious inclination and pronnesse of Nature vnto euill as also the inordinate motiâ—ns of concupiscence which goe before consent they are sinnes euen in a man regenerate That the inclination and pronnesse of Nature to sinne is a sinne we proue thus It is expresly so called by the Apostle Rom. 7. not once nor twice but almost in euery verse of the Chapter I am carnall sold vnder sinne The sinne that dwelleth in me ver 17. 20. The Law of sinne verse 23. 25. In it selfe it is sinne and deserues the wages of sinne eternall death For which cause the Apostle there cals it The body of this death verse 24. Because this inward Corruption which is like a Body that hath many members consisting of diuerse euill affections spreading themselues throughout his whole Nature made him lyable to eternall death from which onely Gods mercy in Christ could deliuer him 2 To rebell against the Law is Sinne. Ergo To haue a rebellious inclination is sinne likewise For if the act bee euill the habite must needes be naught if the Law forbid one it must needs forbid the other If it be euill to breake any Commandement in act is it not euill to haue a pronenesse and readinesse of minde to breake it The habit denominated a man sinfull and not the act Nor doth God lesse abhorre the pronnesse of man to offend him then wee doe abhorre the rauenous disposition of a Wolfe though it be a Cubb not yet vsed to the prey or one tyed vp in a chaine and kept from rauening That the euill motions of the heart without consent be sins 1 They are forbidden in the Morrall Law In the tenth Commandement Thou shalt not couet For motions with consent are forbidden in the other Commandments As appeares manifestly in Christs exposition of the Commandements Mat. 5. 22. were not only the outward act of Adultery but the inward desire is also forbidden if wee beleeue Christ the best interpreter of the Law When Ergo the tenth Commandement forbids coueting of our Neighbours Wife it either meanes the same kind of lusting with a needelesse Tautology or a different viz. that which is not consented vnto Nor can our Aduersaries shift this off though Becanus most impudently denies it with out any reason of his so doing 2 We proue it thus Whatsoeuer is inordinate and repugnant to right Reason that is Sinne. But these Motions without confent be inordinate Ergo They be Sinne The Minor is confessed That these Motions be inordinati recta Rationi repugnantes The Maior is apparant For what is Ordo recta Ratio in Moralibus but that course of doing any thing which is conformable to Gods Law and his will God is the God of order His Law is the rule of order in all humane actions Recta Ratio what is it but the conformity of mans vnderstanding and will vnto Gods will which only is the rule of righteousnesse We neuer purpose and will matters aright but when wee will them agreeably to Gods will Wherefore it is a grosse absurdity to deny the Sinnefulnesse of these disorderly motions seeing no man can breake those orders which God hath made and yet be faultlesse Nor is it possible a Man should doe that which is contrary to Gods will And yet be without Sinne in doing of it These motions then without consent be confusions in Nature opposites to the righteousnesse of the will of God and vnto that euen and streight order expressed in his Law We conclude then that Concupiscence and inordinate motions of the Soule not consented vnto are Sinnes contrary to our Aduersaries assertion They bring some Reasons to proue they are not 1 Originall sinne is taken away in Baptisme But concupiscence is not taken away in Baptisme as appeares by experience in the regenerate in whom it remaines Ergo concupiscence and pronnesse to Sinne is no sinne This Argument is friuolous In Originall sinne there are two things First the guilt Secondly the inherent corruptions We say in Baptisme the guilt is altogether washed away from the Baptized Elect by the blood of Christ. And for the corruption thereof it is part done away by the sanctifying Spirit of Christ powred out vpon the Regenerate which by degrees purgeth out the inherent sinfulnesse of Nature by replanting the graces of Sanctification in all parts Concupiscence then notwithstanding Baptisme remaines in the Regenerate and is a sinne in them the guiltinesse whereof God mercifully pardons in Christ. 2 What is not in our power to auoide that God doth not forbid vs by his Law But t is not in our power to auoide the Motions of the heart that preuent Reason and consent Ergo they be no sinnes forbidden vs. To this we answere The Maior is true in things meerely Naturall that fall out by the Necessity of Nature well disposed So we say Gods Law were vncouth should he command a man neuer to be an hungry or thirst which things he cannot auoide but they come vpon him will he nill he by the meere necessity of Nature But concerning inordinate motions there 's no such matter God hath layed no such necessity on Nature in her creation but we by our sinne haue brought it upon our selues Now such a necessity excuses vs not In this case it helpes a man no more to say I cannot auoid euill thoughts and desires then it doth a desperate sinner that by countenance hath hardened himselfe in euill courses or then it helpes the Diuels and the damned if they should say Wee cannot chuse but doe euill 3 They argue thus That which would haue beene naturall and without fault in man if he had beene created in puris Naturalibus that is no sinne nor fault in vs. But motions preuenting consent would be naturall and without fault in men so made Ergo In vs they be no faults of themselues Heere our Aduersaries haue made a Man of white Paper or the like to Materia prima that hath not any quality in him morally good or bad That is A Man that hath neither the Image of God in knowledge righteousnes and holines engrauen on his vnderstanding will affections and whole person nor yet though it haue it not hath in him any contrary euill quality that comes vpon him by
of Mans saluation 1 The first is from Adam vntill Abraham Werein God made the promise to Adam anone after his miserable fall and renued it as occasion serued vnto the Patriarches and Holy men of that first Age of the world viz. That the seede of the woman should breake the Serpents head This blessed promise containing the whole substance of mans redemption by Christ was religiously accepted of and embrased by the seruants of God in those times who witnessed their Faith in it by their offering of sacryfice as God had taught them and thier Thankfulnesse for it by their Obedience and holy Conuersation The second is from Abraham to Moses After that men had now almost forgot Gods promise and their owne duty and Idolatry was crept into those Families wherein by succession the Church of God had continued God cals forth Abraham from amongst his Idolatrous kinred with him renues that former promise in forme of a League and Couenant confirmed by word solemne Ceremonies God on the one side promising to be the God of Abraham and of his seed that in his seed all the Nations of the earth should be blessed Abraham for his part beleeuing the promise and accepting the condition of â—bedience to walke before God in vprightnesse This Couenant with Abraham is ratâ—fied by two externall Ceremonies One of a fiâ—e-brand pâ—ssing between the pieces of the Heifer and other Beasts with Abraham according to custome in making of Leagues had diuided in twaine Gen. 15. The other the Sacrament of Circumcision vpon the flesh of Abraham and his posterity Gen. 17. The third period is from the time of Moses vntill Christ. When after the Church multiplyed vnto a Nation and withall in processe of time and continuance among the Idolatrous Aegyptians grew extremely corrupt in Religion and Manners God againe reuiues his former Couenant made with Abraham Putting the Iewes in remembrance of the Couenant of grace in Christ. 1 By adding vnto the first Sacrament of circumcision another of the Passeouer setting forth vnto the Iewes the Author of their deliuerance as well from the spirituall slauery and punishment of sinne as from the bodily bondage and plagues of Aegypt 2 Afterwards by instituting diuers Rites Ceremonies concerning Priests sacrifices c. all which were shadowes of good things to come viz. of Christ the Churches Redemption by his death Which things were prefigured vnder those types though somewhat darkely yet plainely enough to the weake vnderstanding of the Iewes Who in that Minority of the Church stood in need of such Schoolemasters and Tutors to direct them vnto Christ. The fourth period and last is from Christs death to the end of the world Who in the fulnesse of time appearing in our flesh accomplished all the Prophecies and promises that went before of him and by the Sacrifice of himselfe confirmed that Couenant a new which so long before had beene made with the Church Withall hauing abolished whatsoeuer before was weake and imperfect hee hath now replenished the Church with aboundance of knowledge and of grace still to continue and increase till the consummation of all things In all these periods of time the grace of God that brings saluation to man was euer one and the same onely the Reuelation thereof was with much variety of circumstances as God saw it agreeable to euery season In the first t was called a Promise in the second a Couenant in the two last Periods a Testament the Old from Moses till Christs death the New from thence to the worlds end in both Remission of sinnes and Saluation bequeathed as a Legacy vnto the Church and this bequeast ratified by the death of the Testator typically slaine in the Sacrifices for confirmation of the Old Really put to death in his owne Person for the Sanction of the New Testament But notwithstanding this or any other diuersity in circumstance the substance of the Gospel or couenant of Grace is but one the same throughout all ages Namely Iesus Christ yesterday and to day and the same for euer In the next place By the Couenant of Workes we vnderstand that we call in one word the Law Namely That meanes of bringing man to Saluation which is by perfect obedience vnto the will of God Hereof there are also two seuerall Administrations 1 The first is with Adam before his fall When Immortality and Happinesse was promised to Man and confirmed by an externall Symbole of the Tree of Life vpon condition that he continued obedient to God as well in all other things as in that particular Commandement of not eating of the Tree of knowledge of good and euill 2 The second Administration of this Couenant was the renuing thereof with the Israelites at Mount Sinai where after that the light of Nature began to grow darker and corruption had in time worne out the Characters of Religion and Vertue first graued in mans heart God reuiued the Law by a compendious and full declaration of all duties required of man towards God or his Neighbour expressed in the Decalogue According to the Tenor of which Law God entred into Couenant with the Israelites promising to be their God in bestowing vpon them all blessings of Life and Happinesse vpon condition that they would be his people obeying all things that he had commanded Which Condition they accepted of promising an absolute Obedience All things which the Lord hath said we will doe Exod. 19. 24. and also submitting themselues to all punishment in case they disobeyed saying Amen to the Curse of the Law Cursed be euery one that confirmeth not all the words of this Law to doe them and all the people shall say Amen Deut. 27. 26. We see in briefe what these Couenants of Grace Workes are In the second place we must inquire what opposition there is betweene these two Grace and Workes the Gospell and the Law The opposition is not in regard of the End whereat both doe aime They agree both in one common end namely the Glory of God in Mans eternall Saluation The disagreement is in the meanes whereby this End may be attained which are proposed to Men in one sort by the Law in another by the Gospell The diuersity is this The Law offers life vnto Man vpon Condition of perfect Obedience cursing the Transgressors thereof in the least point with eternall Death The Gospell offers Life vnto Man vpon another condition viz. Of Repentance and Faith in Christ promising Remission of sinnes to such as repent and beleeue That this is the maine Essentiall and proper difference betweene the Couenant of workes and of Grace that is betweene the Law and the Gospell we shall endeauour to make good against these of the Romish Apostasy who deny it Consider we then the Law of Workes either as giuen to Adam before the promise or as after the promise it remained in some force with Adam all his posterity For the time before Mans fall It is
the Gospell bee all vpon condition of obedience but none vpon condition of perobedience T is an iniury done vnto vs whē they say we teach that Euangelicall promises be absolute and without condition as if God did promise and giue all vnto vs and wee doe nothing for it on our parts We defend no such dotage The promises of the Gospell be conditionall viz. Namely vpon condition of repentance and amendment of life That we study to our power to obey God in all things but this is such a condition as requires of sincerity and faithfulnesse of endeauour not perfection of obedience in the full performance of euery jot and Tittle of the Law Vnto the last Argument from the tenour of the New Couenant viz. That we must beleeue if we will be saued ergo the promise of the Gospell is with condition of fulfilling the Law This is an Argument might make the Cardinals cheeke as red as his Cap were there any shame in him Faith indeed is a worke and this worke is required as a condition of the promise but to doe this worke To beleeue though it be to obey Gods Commandement yet it is not perfectly to fulfill the whole Law but perfectly to trust in him who brings mercy and pardon for transgressions of the Law CHAP. II. Of Bellarmines erroneous distinction of the word Gospell SO much of the first member of the Iesuits distinction wherin his sophisticall fraud appeares taking the Gospel for the whole doctrine of the New Testament published by Christ and his Apostles and ergo confounding the Law Gospell as one because he findes the Law as well as the Gospell deliuered vnto vs by our Sauiour and his Ministers I proceed to the second branch of it The Gospell saith he is taken for the grace of the holy Ghost giuen vs in the New Testament whereby men are made able to keepe the Law T is so taken But where is it so taken The Iesuit cannot tell you that Vt verum fatear saith he nomen Evangelij non videtur in Scripturis uspiam accipi nisi pro doctrind No good reason for it in as much as t is euident to all me that there is great difference betweene the doctrine of Mans saluation by the Mercy of God through the Merits of Christ which is properly the Gospell and the graces of the Holy Ghost bestowed on man in his Regeneration whereby he is made able in some measure to doe that which is good But the fault is not so much in the name in calling the grace of God in vs by the name of Gospell as in the mis-interpretation of the matter it selfe Wherein two errours are committed by the Iesuite 1 In that he maketh the grace of the New Testament to be such strength giuen to man that thereby he may fulfill the Law 2 In that he saith The Law was giuen without grace to keepe it In both which assertions their is ambiguity and Error For the first We grant that grace to doe any thing that is good is giuen by the Gospell not by the Law The Law commands but it giues no strength to Obey because it persupposeth that he to whome the command is giuen hath or ought to haue already in himselfe strength to Obey it And Ergo we confesse it freely that we Receaue th◠Spirit not by the workes of the Law but by the hearing of Faith preached as it is Gal. 3. 2. The Donation of the Spirit in any measure whatsoeuer of his sanctifying graces is from Christ as a Sauiour not as a Lawgiuer Thus when we agree That all Graces to doe well is giuen vnto vs by the Gospell but next we differ They teach that the Gospell gies such grace vnto man that he may fulfill what the Law commands and so be Iustified by it we deny it and say that Grace is giuen by the Gospell to obey the Law sincerely without hyppocricy but not to fulfill it perfectly without infirmities In which point the Iesuite failes in his proofes which he brings 1 Out of those places where contrary Attributes are ascribed to the Law and Gospell Vnto the Law That it is the ministry of death and Condemnation Killing Letter that it workes wrath that it is a Yoake of Bondage a Testament bringing forth Childeren vnto Bondage But vnto the Gospell that it is The ministry of Life and of Reconciliation the Spirit that quickeneth the Testament that bringeth forth Childeren to Liberty which opposition Bellarmine will haue to bee because The Law giues precepts without affording strength to keepe them but the Gospell giues grace to doe what is Commanded But the Iesuite is here mistaken These opposite attributes giuen to the Law are ascribed to it in a twofold respect 1 Inregard of of the punishment which the Law threatens to offenders viz. Death In which regard principally the Law is said to be the ministry of Death to worke wrath to be not a dead but a Killing Letter in asmuch as being broken it leaues no hope to the Transgresser but a fearefull expectation of eternall Death and condemnation of the Law vnder the Terrors whereof it holds them in bondage But on the Contrary the Gospell is the ministery of Life of reconciliation of the quickening spirit and of Liberty because it reueales vnto vs Christ in whom we are restored to Life from the deserued Death and condemnation of the Law vnto Gods fauour being deliuered from the wrath to come vnto liberty being freed from slauish feare of Punishment This is the cheefe Reason of this opposition of Attributes Secondly the next is in regard of Obedience In which respect the ministry of the Law is said to be the Ministery of the Letter written in tabels of stone but that of the Gospell is called the ministery of the Spirit which writes the Law in the fleshly tables of the heart Because the Law bearely commands but Ministers not power to obey so is but as a dead Letter without the Vertue of the Spirit But in the Gospell grace is giuen from Christ who by the Holy Ghost sanctifieth the heart of his Elect that they may liue to Righteousnesse in a sincere thought not euery way exact conformity to the Law of God The like answere we giue vnto another proofe of his 2 Out of that place Iohn 1. 17. The Law came by Moses but Grace and truth by Iesus Christ. that is saith Bellarmine The Law came by Moses without grace to fulfill it but grace to keepe it by Christ. We answere The true interpretation of these words is this Moses deliuered a twofold Law morall and ceremoniall Opposite to these Christ hath brought a twofold priuiledge Grace for the morall Law whereby we vnderstand not only power giuen to the regenerate in part to obserue this Law which strength could not come by the Law it selfe but also much more Remission of sinnes committed against the Law and so our Iustification and freedome
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
dispute is heere evident The Galatians may not be circumcised not obserue the Ceremoniall Law why Because if they did Christ should not profit them at all But what reason is there for this that Circumcision the Ceremonies should frustrate the benefit of Christs death The Apostle alleageth a good reason because the obseruation of the Ceremoniall Law tied them also to the fulfilling of the whole Morall Law The Argument is thus framed They who are bound to keep the whole Law haue no profit at all by Christ. But they who are circumcised are bound to keepe the whole Law ergo They that be circumcised haue not profit at all in Christ. The minor in this Argument is the expresse words of the Text and the proofe of it is euident in Reason because the retaining of Legall ceremonies did in effect abolish Christ's comming in the Flesh who by his comming in the Flesh had abolished them And ergo they who in reviving them denied Christ's death had no meanes at all to be saued but only by the fulfilling of the Morall Law Wherevnto they were necessarily bound if they meant not to perish Which reason yet is of no force before Christ his comming and ergo then circumcision and other legall ceremonies did not lay vpon the Iewes such a strict obligation to fulfill the whole Law The Maior Proposition is the very reason of the Apostles Enthymeme thus Men circumcised are bound to keep the whole Law Ergo Christ shall not profit them The Reason of the consequence is this Proposition Whosoeuer are bound to keepe the whole Law Christ profiteth them nothing at all This Argument and the Reason thereof will hardly passe with approbation in the Iesuites Schooles Men are bound to the whole Law ergo Christ shall not profit them Nay will they reply That 's a non sequitur For by that doctrine Christ's death hath cancelled that streight obligation of fulfilling the Law But euery one that beleeues the promise of saluation in Christ is yet notwithstanding obliged to fulfill the whole Morall law For this is say they the very Condition wherevpon he must haue benefit by the promise euen Perfecta Mandatorum â—bservatio and therefore he is so farre from being freed by Christ from this obligation vnto the Law that for a certaine except he fulfill it he shall neuer be saved as Bellarmine peremptorily and bloodily determines These Men when they list are wondrous mercifull toward Sinners and can teach them trickes by very easie meanes to merit Heauen and Remission of Sinnes But their crueltie betrayes their kindnes in other matters in as much as when all comes to the vpshot a Sinner is driuen to this If he wil be saued by Christ he must as he is bound perfectly keepe the whole law else there 's no hope for him This is cold comfort for the poore beleeuer but 't is happy we haue not Iesuites Pharaoh's taske-masters set ouer vs to exact the whole Tale of Bricke but a Iesus who hath freed our soules from this bitter thraldome and deliuered vs from the power of so rigorous and strict commands of the Law We beleeue an Apostle of Christ against all the Sycophants of Rome and tell them that they giue the holy Ghost the lie when they teach that in beleeuers the obligation to keepe the whole Law stands still in full force vertue not discharged by the death of Christ directly contrarie to this Argument of the Apostle Ye are bound to keep the whole law ergo Christ shall not profit you Whence we argue thus Whosoeuer are bound to keepe the whole law to such Christ is vnprofitable But vnto true beleeuers Christ is not vnprofitable Ergo True beleeuers are not bound to keepe the whole law A conclusion most certaine as from these irrefutable praemisses so from most euident Reason For if such as beleeue in Christ Who through the Spirit waite for the hope of Righteousness through Faith as the Apostle speakes here v. 5 if such be yet bound to fulfill the whole Law for their Iustification to what end is it to belieue in Christ vnto Righteousnesse and Iustification If when all is doen we must be saued by doing what profit comes there by beleeuing Can the conscience find any benefit and comfort at all in Christ when we shall come to this wofull Conclusion that notwithstanding there is in Scripture much talke of Faith of Christ of Promises of Grace yet all this will bring vs no commoditie except this condition be performed on our parts that we perfectly keepe the Law of God If any thing in the World this is to imprison the soule in wretchlesse slauerie and to lay the conscience vpon the racke of continuall Terrors if Heauen be not to be had but vpon such hard termes And this is most apparantlie to frustrate all benefit of Christ of Promise of Faith of Grace of the whole worke of Redemption seeing in fine 't is the Law that we must liue by and not by Faith the perfect fulfilling of the Law must make vs righteous in God's sight and not our beleeuing in Christ that we may be justified For he that keepes the whole Law is thereby righteous and by nothing els Here 't is but a bare shift to say Though we be bound to fulfil the Law yet Christ profits vs because he giues vs Grace to performe our Band in exact Obedience This evasion might it stand good Saint Paul were indeed finally confuted as a weake disputant But the Errour of this hath bin touched before and if nothing els were said this Apostolicall Argument is sufficient to refute it I proceed to other Scriptures 2. 1 Tim 1. 9. Ye know that the Law is good if a man vse it lawfully knowing this that the Law is not made for a righteous man but for the lawlesse and disobedient for the vngodly for Sinners for vnholy and prophane c. The Law is not giuen to the Righteous How must this bee vnderstood Is it not giuen quoad directionem as a Rule prescribing what is to be done what is not to be done Yes vve all agree in that Hovv is it then not giuen 'T is ansvvered quoad coactionem maledictionem as it compels to obedience and curseth the Transgressors Thus is it not giuen to the Iust. This ansvver is full of ambiguitie and needes some explication that vve may knovv vvhat is the coaction or compelling force of the Lavv from vvhich the Iust are freed In vnfolding vvhereof our aduersaries and vve differ Whether are in the right we shal see by the proposal of both our Interpretations They say The Law hath no coactiue or compelling power ouer the Iust because the Iust doe obey it spoute libentèer alacritèr ex instinctu charitatis that is vvillinglie out of Loue but it hath a compulsiue force ouer the vniust because they recalcitrant cogi quodammodò debent ad obsequium that is they obey vnvvillinglie being forced to
proofe yet because hypocrisie is euer armed vvith sophistrie for a plainer Conviction the Apostle proues it by this manner of Argumentation That Faith which saues a Man is a true Faith But a Faith without workes is not a true Faith Ergo A Faith without workes will not saue a Man The Maier is euident to all that haue Reason The Minor S. Iames proues by diuerse Arguments 1. dravvneâ— pari from comparison vvith another like vertue Namely Charity tovvards the poore The Argument is thus If Charity towards the poore professed in Words but without workes be counterfeit then Faith in God professed in like manner without Obedience is also counterfeite not true But Charity towards the poore in words professed without deeds is a counterfeit Charity Ergo Faith in God without Obedience is a counterfeit and false Faith The Reason of the maior Proposition is euident from the similitude that is betweene all Vertues and Graces There is no vertue but men may counterfeit and falsely arrogate it to themselues as they may boast of a false Faith so also as Salomon and experience speakes of a false Liberality false Valour false Prudence c. Now there is but one way to discouer this counterfeiting in any kind and that is to goe from words to workes from praesumptions and boastings to actions This way all count most certaine nor will any man beleiue words against workes or be persuaded by faire speaches that the habites of vertues and graces be truly seated in his mind whose tongue tells vs they be so but his doeings confute his sayings Wherefore the Apostle in his comparison proceedes on an vndeniable ground Now for the minor that the Charity which is rich in good words and poore in almesdeeds is not true but counterfeit pitty the Apostle shewes by an ordinary instance If a brother or sister be naked and destitute of daily food that is If a beleiuing Christian want food and raiment or other necessaries and one of you say vnto them depart in peace and be ye warmed and filled If he giue him kind words Alas poore soule I pitty thee and wish thee well I Would I had to giue thee goe in God's name where thou mayest be releiued and so let him passe with a few pittifull Complements notwithstanding yee giue them not those things which are needfull for the body what doth it profit Is the poore man's backe euer the warmer or his belly the â—â—ller with a few windy complements Can such a man persuade any that he hath in him indeed the bowells of mercie and compassion towards the needy when they find such cold entertainment at his Gates 'T is manifest that this is but a meere mockery and that such pittifull words come not from a heart that 's truely mercifull The Apostle now applies this touching Charity vnto Faith v. 17. Euen so Faith if it haue not workes is dead being alone As that Charity so also that Faith which men professe without Obedience is false and fained and therefore vnprofitable to saue a man It is dead How must this be vnderstood Faith is a quality of the soule and qualities are then saide to be dead when they are extinguished As if we should say such a man's Charity is dead it is because he hath lost it that which was in him is abolished But this is not the meaning For then when St. Iames saieth that Faith is dead being alone his meaning should be that Faith seuered from workes is no Faith at all but quite extinguished Now this is not so For there 's a Faith seuered from workes in Hypocrites Haeretiques Reprobates and Deuills Which Faith is a generall assent to all diuine truthes and this Faith in them hath a true being but no sauing vse Wherefore it is called â— dead faith in regard of the effect because 't is nothing availeable to bring them in whom it is to Life and Saluation as a true and liuâ—ng Faith is Heere our Aduersaries haue much strange Contemplation telling vs that Faith without workes though it be a dead Faith yet 't is a true Faith Euen as an Instrument is a true Instrument though it be not vsed So that in their Philosophy ti 's one and the same true Faith which is dead without and liuing with workes Euen as 't is one and the same Body which liues with the Soule and is dead without it or as water is the same whether it stand still in a Cisterne or runne in a Riuer Whence they proceed to discourse that Charity is the forme of Faith and conclude that it is not the inward and Essentiall forme of it as the Soule is the forme of a man for that workes are not essentiall to Faith nor the accidentall forme as whitenes is of Paper because Faith according to their Schooles is in the vnderstanding and Charity in the will But it is the externall Forme of it because it giues to Faith a merit and worthines for the deserving of Heauen These fond speculations of the Forme and merit of Faith I passe by now hauing touched vpon them heeretofore To that which they say That a liuing Faith and a dead Faith is one and the same true Faith 't is vtterly false they differ asmuch as Light and Darknes 1. In their subject a dead Faith is in the Reprobate Men and Deuills A liuing Faith only in the Elect. 2. In their Object A dead Faith assents to diuine Reuelations as barely true or good onely in the generall a liuing Faith assents to them as truer and better in themselues then any thing that can be set against them 3 in their Nature A dead Faith is no sanctifying Grace but a common gift of Creation as in the deuill of ordinary illumination as in Reprobate Men. A liuing Faith is a sanctifying Grace a part of inhaerent holines wrought in the heart by the speciall power of the Holy Ghost All which haue bin heeretofore cleared in handling the Nature of Faith Wherefore vnto those arguments or Sophismes rather which Bellarmine brings to proue that Iames speakes of a true diuine infused Catholique Christian Faith though it be dead faith I answere breifely That we grant a dead Faith to be a true Faith but it is in its kind Because it hath a true being in men and deuils in whom it is and ti 's directed toward true objects But it is not that true Faith which is Catholique Christian sauing This is of another kind and in comparison of this that other is but a meere shadow and counterfeit resemblance of true Faith Wherefore when those Hypocrites accounted themselues to haue that faith which is truely Christian and sauing S. Iames shewes them that this their faith which was alone naked of Obedience was nothing so but a Faith of another kind a dead faith hauing onely a false shew of a true and liuing faith This of the first Argument 2 The Argument is contained v. 18. being drawne from an impossibility in
prouing the trueth of it The Argument stands thus That Faith which is truely Christian may be shewen and proued so to be But a Faith without workes cannot be demonstrated to be a true faith Ergo. A Faith without workes is no true Faith The major is omitted as most euident of itselfe Because there is no morall vertue or grace of the Holy Ghost truely planted in the heart but it may be knowne by some externall Actions which it is apt to bring forth Euen as life is knowne by breathing or beating of the Pulse The trueth of an inuisible Grace hath it's demonstration in visible workes But now for the Minor S. Iames proues that Faith without Obedience cannot appeare by any proofe to be true faith Which he doth in a Dialogue betweene a true beleeuer and a Hypocrite Yea a man may say thou hast Faith and I haue Workes shew me thy faith without workes and I will shew thee my faith by my workes That is Thou saiest thou hast a true Faith though thou hast no workes I say I haue true faith because I haue workes Come wee now to the triall and let it appeare who saieth true thou or I. If thou saiest true proue thy Faith by something or other to be true Shew me thy Faith without thy wotkes Workes thou hast none whereby to shew thy faith make it then appeare by something else But that 's impossible Where workes are wanring ther 's no demonstration else whereby to justifie the trueth of faith And therefore thou art driuen to confesse that thou vainely boastest of that which thou hast not But on the otherside saieth the true Beleeuer I can make good that which I say prouing that my faith is true by my workes I will shew thee my faith by my workes My sincere Obedience is a reall demonstration that my beleife is no verball ostentation and vaine bragg This proofe of S. Iames is very conâ—incing and gripes the Consciences of Hypocrites smiting them with shame and confusion when they come to this triall and so haue their false and fraudulent hearts laied open But heere it will be asked what workes doe demonstrate the trueth of faith and also how they doe proue it Whereto wee answere Workes are of two sortes 1. Ordinary such workes of Sanctity Obedience as are required to a holy Conuersation 2. Extraordinary viz Miracles We say S. Iames vnderstands the former and those onely our aduersaries conclude both But erroneously for asmuch as S. Iames speakes not of the doctrine of faith but of the Grace of faith The Grace requires good workes of Piety and Charity as perpetually necessary for the conmirmation of it's Trueth So doeth not the doctrine of Faith alwaies require Miraculous workes for the confirmation of it's divinity But oney at the first publication thereof Wherefore Lorinus is very ridiculous who vpon this place tels vs that they may justly demaund of vs Haeretiques For so they bedust vs Miracles for the confirmation of our new and false Doctrine Indeed were it new and false their request were not vnreasonable that we should make our doctrine credible by doing of Miracles But sure the Iesuite iudgeth of our doctrine by his ovvne vvhich did he not suspect for a nevv Error vvee see no reason they should still require Miracles for confirmation of an olde Truth For our selues we seeke not the aide of a lying Wonder to vphold a true doctrine nor doe we count it any disgrace at all to our Religion that we cannot by our Faith so much as cure a lame Horse as the Iesuite out of Erasmus scoffes at vs. Now surely if such a beast as Bellarmine's deuout Mare want helpe to set her on all foure we cannot be yet so well perswaded of that vertue of Romish Faith as to thinke that a Frier will doe more good at such a jadish miracle then a Farrier But whereas the Iesuite goes forward to require of vs the other sort of good workes of Piety and Charity for the demonstration of our Faith hee hath reason so to doe though not so much as he imagines when hee chargeth vs with neglect of good Workes and vnbridled licentiousnesse Would to God we could cleere our practise from such neglect as well as we can our doctrine from teaching it But yet by their fauour if we come to comparisons we know no Reason why we should runne behind the dore as more ashamed of our practises then they may justly be of theirs in which case we boldly bid him amongst them that is without sinne to cast the first stone at vs. To proceed Seeing Workes of Obedience are the proofâ—s of a true Faith it must be considered in what sort they proue it For may not good Workes be counterfeited as well as Faith I answere That in this triall the judgment of verity infallibility belongeth vnto God who only knowes the heart and conscience being able to discerne euery secret working of the Soule and so to judge exactly whether or no all outward appearances come from inward syncerity But for the judgement of Charity that belongs to vs. If we behold in any man the Workes of Obedience to God's will of such a Man we are to judge that he hath true Faith Though yet herein we must as farre as humane frailtie will giue leaue iudge also not according to appearance but iudge righteous iudgment Mens practises must be examined if hypocrisie bewray it self as 't is hard for a Counterfeit not to forget himself at some one time or other if he be duly obserued there Charity must not be blinde it must see and censure it 'T is not a charitable but a peruerse Iudgment to call euill good nor is it any offence to call that a barren or bad Tree that beares either no fruit at all or none but bad And thus of this second Argument of the Apostle that these Hypocrites Faith was vaine because when it comes to the proofe it cannot be iustified to be found and good 3 The Argument is v. 19. from the example of the diuels themselues in whom there is a Faith without Workes as well in hypocrites and ergo it is in neither of them a true Faith The Argument is brought in to confute a Cauill with the hypocrite might make against the former reason True might he say I cannot shew my Faith by my Workes yet for all that I haue a true Faith And why Because I beleeue the Articles of Religion that there is one God with the rest Hereto the Apostle replies That such a beliefe is not a true Christian Faith because it is to be found euen in the diuels The Argument runnes thus That faith which is in the diuels is no true Christian faith But a bare assent to the Articles of Religion without Obedience is in the Diuels Ergo A bare assent without Obedience is no true Christian faith The Maior of this Argument will easily be granted That the diuels haue not
to assent vnto and apprehend diuine Reuelations without further helpe then of their owne naturall Abilities Man in his fall sustained greater losse in the spirituall powers of his soule therefore stanâ—s in need of helpe Which helpe is afforded euen vnto the vngodly but this is by ordinary illumination not by speciall infusion of any sanctifying Grace Enlightned they are aboue the ordinary pitch of naturall blindnes but not aboue that whereto a meere naturall vnderstanding may be aduanced Yea were Mans Vnderstanding raised vp to that perfection which is in diuels this were more then Nature yet lesse then Grace This common gift of Illumination bestowed on wicked Men but not on diuels is no proofe that their Faith is of a diuerse kinde As to the last difference we are not so far studied in Moralities as to conceiue wherein the dishonestie of the diuel 's Faith and the honestie of Hypocrites Faith doth lie To ordinarie vnderstanding it seemes euery way as honest commendable a matter for a wicked fiend as for a wicked Man to beleeue what God reueales vnto him If not we must expect to be further informed by these Iesuites Men that are better read in that part of Ethickes whether diabolicall or hypocriticall 4. This of the Apostle's third Argument we come to the fourth The 4. Argument is contained in the 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25 verses Before which the Apostle repeates his maine Conclusion That Faith without Obedience is a false and dead Faith But wilt thou know O vaine Man or hypocrite that Faith without workes is dead v. 20. For the convincing of him further he proceeds to a new Argument to proue it vnto him The Argument is this That Faith which will not iustifie a Man is a false and dead Faith But the Faith which is without workes will not iustifie a Man Ergo 'T is a dead and a false Faith The Maior the Apostle omits as most evident of it selfe The Minor he proues by an induction of two Examples Thus. If Abraham and Rahab were instified by a working faith thou that Faith which is alone without workes will not iustifie But Aâ—raham and Rahab were so iustified viz. by a working Faith Ergo Faith without workes will not iustifie a man The Reason of the Consequence is manifest Because as Abraham and Rahab so all other must be justified The meanes of justification and Life were euer one and the same for all men Which also the Apostle intimates in that clause v. 21. Was not our Father Abraham c. implying that as the Father so also the children the whole stocke and generation of the Faithfull were and are still justified by one vniforme meanes The two instances the Apostle vrges that of Abraham v. 21. 22. 23. that of Rahab v. 25. The conclusion with aequally issues from them both he interserts in the middest after the allegation of Abrahams Example v. 24. I shall goe ouer them as they lie in the Text. In the example of Abraham the Apostle v. 21. sets downe this proposition That Abraham was justified by a working Faith For this interrogatiues Was not our Father Abraham justified by workes must be resolued into an affirmatiue Abraham our Father was justified by workes That is a working Faith Which proposition the Apostle confirmeth by it's parts 1. Shewing that Abrahams Faith was an operatiue faith declared and approued by his workes Secondly prouing that by such a working Faith Abraham was justified in God's sight That the faith of Abraham was operatiue full of life and power to bring forth Obedience vnto God the Apostle alleageth one instance insteed of all the â—est to proue it And that is that singular worke of Obedience vnto God's command When he offered vp his sonne Isaak vpon the Altar Many other workes there were performed by Abraham abundantly justifying the trueth of his Faith But the Apostle chooseth this aboue all other as that worke which was of purpose enjoyned him by God for a triall of his faith Wherein Abraham mightily ouerâ—oming all those strong temptations to disobedience and infidelity made it appeare that his faith was not an idle dead and empty Speculation but an actiue and working Grace Wherefore the Apostle adds ver 22. Seest thou how faith wrought with his workes and by workes was faith made perfect That is as in other workes of that holy Patriarch so specially in that sacrificing his sonne all that can see may plainely behold the strength and life of his faith Faith wrought with his workes That is His faith directed and supported him in the doing of that worke as the Apostle Paul expounds it Heb. 11. 17 By faith Abraham offered vp Isaack that worke had not binne done if faith had not wrought it In euery circumstance thereof faith did all in all from the beginning of the worke to the end This interpretation is most simple and generally receaued Faith wrought with That is In or by his workes vnto the performance whereof the force of faith was in spaeciall manner assesting Pareus reads the words by a tmesis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 scilicet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Faith being with his workes wrought What his Iustification But this construction seemes somewhat hard and not necessary for this place The other sense is much plainer shewing vs by or with what vertue Abraham's workes were wrought viz. By the vertue of his faith which in most powerfull manner incited and inabled him to obey The Apostle goes forward And by workes was faith made perfect That is declared to be perfect For workes did not perfect Abrahams Faith essentially in asmuch as long before this time it was perfect as is plaine in that Abraham was justified by it 25 yeares before the oblation of his sonne Isaack and also by the strength of his Faith had done many excellent workes and obtained great blessings at the hand of God So that the offering vp of Isaack was not the cause but a fruite of the perfection of Abrahams Faith the great difficulty of that worke shewed the singular petfection of that Grace which was able so to encounter and conquer it The goodnes of the fruit doth not worke but declare the goodnes that is in the tree the qualities of the fruits alwaies depending vpon the nature of the Tree but not on the contrary Thus then the first part of the Proposition is plainly proved by the Apostle That Abrahams Faith was a liuely and working Faith declaring and approuing it's owne trueth by the workes of his Obedience The next part Namely That Abraham was justified in God's sight by such a working Faith he proueâ— 1. By a Testimony of Scripture 2. By an effect or consequent thereof Both are expressed in the 23. v. The first in these words And the Scripture was fulfilled which sayeth Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed vnto him for Righteousnes The application of this testimony is very heedfully
workes and faith are two Coordinate causes by their ioynt-force-working our Iustification but the Apostle vtterly excludes Faith onely from Iustification and attributes it wholy vnto workes For by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Faith onely he vnderstands faith alone that faith which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 17. alone solitary by itselfe without workes And such a dead faith whereof these hypocrites boasted S. Iames excludes wholly from justifying of a man I say then that he is not iustified by faith onely but that he is iustified by workes That is a working faith that is fruitfull in Obedience The Apostle goes forward from the Example of Abraham vnto that of Rahab verse 25. Likewise was not Rahab the Harlot iustified by workes That is in the same manner as Abraham so also Rahab was iustified by a working saith Which appeared to be so by that which shee did when she receaued the messengers entertained the two spies which were sent to search the land lodged them in her house without discouering them And when by accident they were made knowne hid them secretly vpon the roofe and afterwards sent them out another way conveied them away priuily not by the vsuall but by another way that is through the window letting them downe ouer the wall by a Cord as the story hath it Ios. 2. In this dangerous enterprise wherein this weake woman ventured her life in succouring the Enemies of her King and Country it appeares plainly that she had a strong and liuely Faith in the God of Israel and that the confession which she made with her mouth to the spies The Lord your God he is the God in Heauen aboue and in the Earth beneath Iosh. 2. 11. proceeded from a truely beleeuing heart insomuch as her words were made good by works that followed them Wherefore the Apostle iustly parallels these 2 examples of Abraham offering his sonne and Rahab in the kind vsage of the Spies because both those facts were singular trialls of a liuely faith which was able in that sorte to ouercome what was hardest to be conquered viz. Naturall affection In Abraham both fatherly affection to the life of a deere and only sonne and in Rahab the Naturall loue to ones Country and a mans owne Life did all stoope and giue way when once true Faith commands Obedience Here againe our adversaries trouble themselues and the Text with needlesse speculations telling vs that now the Apostle hath altered his cliffe and gone from the second Iustification in Abrahams example to the first Iustification in this of Rahab That Rahab was conuerted at this time of receauing the spies being made a beleeuer of an infidell a good woeman of a bad That she by this good worke did expiate her former sinnes and merited the grace and fauour of God notwithstanding that she committed a venial sinne in handling of the businesse telling a downe-right lie which though she should not haue done yet it hindred not the meritoriousnes of the worke with such other fond imaginations peruerting the simplicity of the Trueth But first they are not agreed among themselues whether the Apostle doe in that sort shift from one Iustification to another Bellarmine affirmes it and many moe But others deny it as may be seene in Lorinus his exposition of the. 21. v. of this Chapter And were they agreed vpon it sure I am they should disagree from the Apostle who makes this second instance of the same nature with the former 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In like manner saieth he was Rahab iustified viz. as Abraham was Againe when they say Rahab became a true beleeuer at that time of receauing the spies not before 't is more then they can proue By the circumstances of the story it appeares plainely that she beleeued before they came by the relation of the great workes which God had done for his people and the promises that were made vnto them that they should possesse Rahabs countrey This bred feare in others but faith in her by the secret working of the holy Ghost See Ioshua 2. 9. c. And certainly had she not had Faith before the spies came who can thinke she would haue giuen entertainment to such dangerous persons But she knew them to be the Seruants of the God of Israel in whom shee beleeued and therefore by this Faith she receaued them peaceably though Enemies of her Countrey Lastly to that of the Meritâ—riousnes of the worke of Rahab to deserue Grace and Life aeternall we reiect it not only as a vaine but an impious conceit which neuer entred into the humble hearts of the Sâ— of old but hath bin set on foote in the last corrupt ages of the world by men drunken with selfe-Loue and admiration of their owne Righteousnes Thus we haue these 2 Examples whereby the Apostle hath proued sufficiently that the Faith which is separated from Obedience will not justifie a Man therefore that it is a dead Faith and not a true liuing Faith according as was proposed v. 20. Now for a close of this whole dispute he againe repeates that conclusion adding thereto anew similitude to illustrate it by in the last verse of the Chapter For as the Body without the Spirit is dead so faith without workes is dead that is As the Body without the Spirit i. e. the Souls or the Breath and other Motion is dead vnable to performe any liuing action whatsoeuer So Faith without workes is dead that is vtterly vnable to performe these liuing actions which belong vnto it What are those Two 1. To repose it stedfastly vpon the promise of life in Christ which is the proper immediate liuing Action of Faith 2. To justifie a Man in the sight of God which by a speciall priuiledge is the consequent of the former These liuing actions cannot be performed by that Faith which is dead being destitute of good workes That Faith which hath not power to bring forth Obedience is thereby declared to be a dead Faith deuoide of all power to embrace the promise with confidence and relyance as also to justifie A Man would thinke this were plaine enough and needed not to be troubled with any further Câ—villations But 't is strange what a coile our Adversaries make with this similitude writhing and straining it to such Conclusions as the Apostle neuer intendeâ— Hence they gather 1. That as the Soule giues life to the Body as the â—â—rme of the Body so Workes giue life to Faith as the forme of it 2 That as the Body is the same true Body without the Soule with it so Faith is one and the same true Faith without workes and with them which are nothing but sophisticall speculatiâ—â—â— besides the purpose of the Text. The Apostle intends nothing but to shew the Necessity of the Copulation of a liuing Faith and Obedience together by the similitude of the like Necessitie of the vnion of a liuing Body and the Soule But his purpose is not to shew that the
manner of their Connection is the same that just in euery point as the Soule is to the Body or the Body to the Soule so Workes are vnto Faith and Faith vnto Works It sufficeth to his intent that as in the absence of the Soule the Body so in the absence of Obedience Faith is dead But thence it followes not that workes by their presence doe the same thing to Faith as the Soule to the Body by it's presence or that Faith in the absence of Workes remaines the same as the Body doth in the absence of the Soule If we must needs be tied to the strict termes of the Similitude let vs a little examine the comparison and we shall see our Aduersaries all flye off first from it Let the comparison be first thus Betweene the Body and the Soule Faith and Workes as the termes be in the Text. As the Body without the Soule is dead because the Soule giues life i. e sense breathing and all other Motion to the Body So Faith without Workes is dead because Workes giue life vnto Faith But now this Comparison will not runne on all foure For Workes are not vnto Faith as the Soule is to the Body but as sense and motion is to the Body Seeing Workes are externall acts not internall habits and so are proportionable not to the Soule but to the liuing actions thence issuing Wherefore 't is as absurd to say that Workes giue life vnto Faith as 't is ridiculous to affirme that Sense Motion giue life to the Body which are not Causes but Effects signes of Life Therefore when Faith without Workes is dead 't is not spoken in that sense because Workes giue life to Faith as the Soule doth to the Body Lâ—â— then the Comparison bee thus Between the Body and the Soule Faith and Charity As the Body without the Soule is dead because the Soule is the forme of the body and giues life to it So Faith without Charity is dead because Charity is the Forme of Faith and giues life to it But neither will the Comparison hold vpon these termes For 1. our Adversaries here put in Charity the habit for Workes the act which is more then themselues ought to doe seeing they will tye vs at short Bitts to the very letter of the Text. For though we can be content to admit that interpretation would they admit of the Apostle's plaine meaning not straine for querkes yet seeing they argue so precisely from the Words of the Comparison they must not now haue libertie from vs to goe from them but be content to take the Words as they lie in the Text and make their best of them Yet seeing 't is most senselesse to make Workes that is externall Actions the Forme of Faith an internall habit let them take Charity insteed of them an internall habit likewise Wil it be any better now belike so TheÌ„ 't is thus As the Soule is the Forme of the Body so Charity is the forme of Faith and as the Soule giues life and action to the Body so Charity vnto Faith Will they stand to this No. Here againe they fly off in both Comparisons Charity is one habit Faith another distinct betweene themselues and therefore they deny as there 's good reason that Charity is either the Essentiall forme of Faith as the Soule of the liuing Body or the accidentall Forme as whitenes of Paper They say 't is onely an externall Forme But this now is not to keepe close to the Apostle's comparison but to runne from it at their pleasure when they fall vpon an absurdity in pressing of it so strictly The Soule is no externall but an internall essentiall Forme therefore Charitie must be so if all runne round Againe doth Charitie giue life or liuing actions vnto Faith as the Soule doth vnto the Body Neither dare they hold close to this Comparison For the proper worke or action of Faith is to assent vnto the Trueth of diuine reuelations because of Gods authoritie as themselues teach Whence now comes this assent From the Habit of Faith or of Charity They grant that it comes immediatlie from the Habit of Faith which produceth this action euen when it s seuered from Charity Then 't is plain that it is not Charitie that giues life to Faith which can performe the proper action that belongs to it without it's helpe How then doth Charity giue life vnto Faith For this they haue a sillie conceit Charity giues Life that is Merite vnto Faith The beleefe or assent vnto diuine Trueth is meritorious if it be with Charity If without then 't is not meritorious This is a fine toy wherein againe they runne quite from the Comparison of the Apostle For the Soule giues liuing Actions to the Body not only the Qualifications of the Actions and so Charitie is not like the Soule because it giues only the qualification of Merit vnto the Action of Faith not the action it selfe Beside A most vaine interpretation it is without any ground from Scripture to say a liuing Faith that is a meritorious Faith when euen in common sense the life of any habit consists onelie in a power to produce those actions that naturallie and immediatlie depend vpon that Habit. And what Reason is there in the World why the Habit of Charity should make the actions of Faith meritorious or why Charity should make Faith meritorious rather then Faith make Charity meritorious seing in this life there is no such praeeminency of Charity aboue Faith Wherefore we despise these speculatiue Sophismes which with much faire glozing our Aduersaries draw from the Text but yet when all comes to the Triall themselues will not stand to the strict application of the similitude because it breeds absurdities which euen themselues abhorre Now if they take liberty to qualifie and interpret they must giue vs leaue to doe so too or if they will not we shall take it To shut vp all Their other Collection is as weake as the former namely A dead body is a true body ergo a dead Faith is true Faith This Argument forceth the Similitude and so is of a Force In materiall things which haue a diuerse being from different Causes it may hold But 't is not so in Vertues and Graces Trueth and Life are both essentiall to such qualities True Charity is a liuing Charity i. e. actiue as the Apostle himselfe proues v. 15. True Va Valour And so of euery vertuous quality if it be true 't is liuing and stirring in Action if it be otherwise 't is counterfeit some other thing that hath onely a shadow of it All these Trickes are pin vpon the Apostle to pervert his plaine meaning viz That as it is necessary to the being of a liuing body that it be coupled with the â—oule so 't is necessary to the being of a liuing true Christian Faith that it bring forth Workes of Obedience SECT 7. CHAP. I. None can be iustified by their owne satisfaction
such a fact lawfull howeuer questioned to the contrary In other Languages my skill serues mee not nor is it needfull to trouble you with Instances Those that haue written of this subiect of every Nation witnesse every one for their owne Language And further this word Iustificare being of a latterâ—stampe vnknowne to such Latine Authors as are of ancient and purer Language fitted by Ecclesiasticall writers to expresse the meaning of those two words of the Originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is apparent the Copy must follow the Originall and the Latine word beare the same sense as the Hebrew and Greeke words doe And that this is that Legall sense which wee haue spoken of is a point so manifest throughout the whole Bible that nothing but impudency can deny it As wee shall presently perceiue For in the next place 2 As to the Scriptures which they alleadge for proofe of their Interpretation of the word We answere That of a Multitude of places of Scripture wherin the word Iustifie is vsed our Adversaries may truly pick out one two or three that seem to fauor their Assertion of Infusion of habituall Iustice yet haue they gained little thereby For where tenne or more may be alleadged against one in which the contrary signification is vsed reason tels vs that an Article and Doctrine of Religion ought to bee framed out of the signification of words and phrases which is vsuall ordinary and regular and not out of that which sometimes comes in by way of particular exception Might he not be iudged destitute of sense or modesty that would quarrell at the signification of the word Ecclesia that in the New Testament it is not taken for the Company Assembly of the faithful because in a place or two as Act. 19. it is taken for any ordinary ciuill meeting of people together Wherefore we may grant them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that of Dan. 12. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Apoc. 22. is to be made iust formaliter by infusion of inherent Holinesse in a Sinner For so Ministers may be said to iustifie many as it is in Daniel viz. by Ministery turne many to righteousnesse directing them to the meanes of Holinesse and as Gods Instruments working in them the graces of Conversion and Regeneration And so he that is iust in the Apoc. may be iustified still that is encrease in the inward Habite and outward Exercise of Holinesse more and more thus we may yeeld them in these two places without seeking too other Interpretations further off And yet will this be no prejudice to our Doctrine grounded vpon the other signification so generally vsed Wee answere that of all those other places alleadged by Bell and Becanus there is not any one that doe necessarily enforce such a meaning of the word as hee and his fellowes stand for These aboue the rest haue most apparance namely 1 Cor 6. Tit. 3. Rom 8. 30. where Iustification is say they confounded as one and the same with Sanctification Regeneration Wherevnto I answeare that they doe ill to confound those things that the Apostle hath distinguished very plainly Hee tels the Corinthians that the Vnrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdome of God and that themselues had bin such euen of the most notorious rancke but now they were washed sanctified and Iustified By three words the Apostle expresseth the change of their former condition One Metaphoricall yea are washed The meaning whereof hee declareth in two proper words following yee are Sanctified that 's one degree of washing or clensing from the corruption of Nature in part by the Spirit of our God of whome is the gift of inherent grace And ye are iustified that 's another sort of washing from the guilt of Sinne in the whole in the name of the Lord Iesus that is by the Righteousnesse aâ—d Merits of Iesus Christ. Nothing can be more perspicuous and elegant That place to Tit. Chap. 3 is also as plaine God sayeth the Apostle speaking of the Heires and sonns of GOD in Christ hath saued vs not by any workes of ours but by his owne mercy ver 5. This salvation is set forth to vs in the Meanes and in the End The meanes are two Regeneration and Iustification He hath saued vs by the washing of Regeneration renewing of the Holy Ghost This is the first Meanes viz. Regeneration expressed 1. by its properties or parts 1. Washing or doing away of the filthy Qualities of our corrupted Natures 2. Renewing the Investing of it with new Qualities of Graces and Holynesse 2 By the cause efficient the Holy Ghost whome hee hath shed on us abundantâ—y or richly following the Metaphore comparing the Holy Ghost in this operation to water powred out 2 The Meritorious Cause of it Through Iesus Christ our Saviour who hath procured the sending downe of the Holy ghost into the hearts of the elect ver 6. This is one stepp to Heauen our Regeneration but it is imperfect and cannot abide the severity of Gods Iudgements now we must be absolutely free from all fault and guiltinesse before we can haue hope of obtaining eternall Life Therfoâ—e followes the other meanes of salvation viz. our Iustification by the free grace of God which vtterly frees vs from all blame whatsoever both of obedience to the law and satisfaction for Sins against the law that thus being Regenerate and Iustified we might obtaine the end of our salvation eternall Life The third place is that Rom. 8. 30 Whom God hath Praedestinated these he hath called whome called iustified whome iustified glorified In this place Becanus triumphs For sayth he The Apostle here describing the order of Mans salvation first in Gods decree then in the Execution of it by three degrees of Vocation Iustification and Glorification it followes necessarily from thence that either Sanctification is left out or that it is confounded with one of those three degrees named T is a desperate shift to say that Sanctification is signified by Vocation or Glorification therefore it must be the same with Iustification And this cannot be avoyded by any Elusion We leaue shifts to the Iesuites returning him to this place this plaine direct answere That Sanctification is here comprised in the word Vocation For whereas the linkes of this golden chaine are inseparable and all those that are called must needes be iustified and glorified by vocation must here be meant that calling which is inward and effectuall not that alone which is outward by the externall Ministery of the Word For all that are thus called bee not iustified as is apparent and againe some as Infants are iustified that are not capable of such a Calling But now wherein stands the inward vocation of a sinner Is it not in the Infusion of inherent sanctifying Grace enlightning his Eyes opening his Eare changing his Heart turning him from darkenesse to light from the power of Satan to the obedience of