same iustification which is mentioned by S. Paul to the Romanes which they mainly contend to be a true iustification in the sight of God or if they will haue it here a iustification only before men they must acknowledge that the same mentioned to the Romanes is no other then before men and so by endeauoring by such shifts to weaken the force of this text against themselues they take away all force from that of Rom. 4. to conclude any thing against vs. Besides this iustification of Abraham here mentioned by S. Iames can be no other then that which is true and interuall before God for as it followes in the text he was called a friend of God and that truly for he was indeede as he was called a friend of God and hence it follows ineuitably that the iustification which S. Iames deduces from that of Abraham by works and not by faith only as appeares by the word then wee see then c. is a true intrinsecall iustification in the sight of God for no other saue that could be rightly inferred from the former And indeed though we had none of the foresayd euidences to conuince the true meaning of S. Iames yet what man of iudgment can imagine that this holy Apostle would labour so much to proue that Christians are iustifyed by their good works before men when that is a matter too cleare and known to need proofe and too light and friuolous to deserue it or what considerate man can thinke that this Blessed Apostle or the holy Ghost by whose inspiration he writ this would so earnestly exhort Christians to abound in good works to the end that they may be iustifyed before men seeing corrupt human nature is too too prone to doe good workes for such by endes as these and hath more need of a bridle then a spurre in this particular and rather to be deterred from it then put vppon it as our Sauiour did the Stribes and Pharisees who did their works to be seene and consequently to be praysed and iustifyed before men This text therefore hauing been demonstrated to be meant of iustification before Allmighty God by works and not by faith only seeing S. Paul inspired by the same holy Spirit in what is cited out of him in the insuing text cannot possibly contradict S. Iames here as he must needs be thought to haue done if he sayd as Protestants would haue it that we are iustifyed in the sight of God by faith only and not by good works working with faith and perfecting it informing and vinificating it as S. Iames describes them here we will now see in what sense S. Paul's words are to be vnderstood and reconcile them with this text of S. Iames. The Protestant Position Iustification by faith only This is proued by Scripture mistaken Therefore wee conclude that a man is iustifyed by faith without the works of the law Being iustifyed by faith we haue peace with God through our Lord Iesus Christ. For therein is the righteousnesse of God reuealed from faith to faith as it is written the iust shall liue by faith Knowing this that a man is not iustifyed by the works of the law but by the faith of Christ Iesus that we might be iustifyed by Iesus Christ and not by the works of the law for by the works of the law shall no liuing flesh be iustifeyd The first mistake The word only is not found in any of these texts In all these texts is not once the words faith only to be found which is put in this Protestant Position was to be proued by them Neither iâ— iâ— consequent a man is iustifyed by faith without the works of the law therefore a man is iustifyed by faith only no more then this follows a man is nourished by bread without the grasse of the field therefore a man is nourished by bread only for though the grasse of the feeld do not nourish vs yet many other things besides bread de nourish vs. in like manner though the woreks done by force of the grace of God and not by force of the law do iustify vs and so we are not iustifyed by saith only nor at all by the works of the law but by faith and good works done by the grace of Iesus Christ and not by the kâ—owledge of rhe law The Second mistake The workes of the law misunderstood That S. Paul here vnderstands only by works of the law such works as are done by force and knowledge of the law before the faith of Christ infused into a soul or that it is inlightned and assisted by his grace and by this law is vnderstood the law written in the books of Moyses both morall in the ten Commandements and ceremoniall as circumcision and other rites and ceremonyes of the Iewes That by works of the law I say are vnderstood by S. Paul only such works as are done by force of knowledge of the law befotc the inlightning of the faith and grace of Christ is euident out of this chapter Rom. 3. v. 14. Now we know that what things soeuer the law sayth it sayth to thcm that are vnder the law that euery mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God Here he speakes of the law speaking or teaching what is to be done according to it and then adds presently as a conclusion from that knowledge got by the law v. 10. therefore by tbe deeds of the law no flesh shall be iustifyed in his sight for by the law is the knowledge of sin The reason why the deeds of the law iustify not is because they come from the knowledge of the law by the law is the knowledge of sin wherunto he opposes the tighteousnesse of God which is by faith of Iesus Christ vnto all in the first texts following verses 21. but now the righteousnetre of God without the law is manifested being witnessed by the law and Prophets v. 22. euen the righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Iesus Christ unto all and vppon all them that beleeue for there is no difference This is the known doctrine of all Roman Catholikes against the Pelagians that no worke can iustify which comes only by doctrine and light of the written law but all iustifying works must come from the faith and grace of Christ so that we all confesse and conclude with S. Paul that a man is iustifyed by faith vvithout the vvorkes of the lavv that is wirhout such works as are meerly of and from the law as are opposed here by S. Paul to the grace and faith of Christ. Secondly by the law in this place is vnderstood both the motall law written by Moyses in the ten Commandements and the ceremoniall conteyned in the bookes of Leuiticus Deuteronomij c. for the morall law Protestants themselues doubt not that the Apostle speakes of it and that the ceremonial is here meant is euident in the two next following Verses
amici Dei ac domestici facti euntes de virtute in virtutem renouantur vt Apostolus inquit de die in diem exhibendo ea arma iustitiae in sanctificationem per obseruantiam mandatorum Dei Ecclesiae in ipsâ iustitiâ per Christi gratiam acceptâ cooperante fide bonis operibus crescunt atque magis iustificantur sicut scriptum est Qui iustus est iustificetur adhuc Being therefore thus iustified and made the friends and of the houshold of God going on from vertu to vertu they are renewed as the Apostle saith from day to day and vsing those armes of iustice to sanctification by the obseruance of the commandements of God and the Church theyr faith cooperating with theyr good workes they increace through the grace of Christ in the iustice which they haue receiued and are iustified more and more as is it written he who is iust let him be iustified still Conc. Trid. ibidem can 9. Si quis dixerit solâ fide impium iustificari ita vt intelligat nihil aliud requiri quod ad iusticationis gratiam consequendam cooperetur nullâ ex parte necesse esse eum suae voluntatis motu praeparari atque disponi anathema sit If any one shall say that a wicked man is iustified by faith only soe that he meanes that nothing els is required which may cooperate to the obtayning the grace of Iustification and that it is noe way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the motion of his will let him be accâ—rsed From these authorities of the Council it is manifest that in this matter of Iustification the Church of Rome theaches 1. that noe workes done by the mere naturall force of our freewill 2. nor by the sole doctrine or knowledge of the diuine law can iustifie a sinner in the sight of God Can. 1. 3. That noe vniust persone can without the preuenting inspiration of the holy Ghost doe any thing as it should be done to obteyne the grace of iustification can 3. 4. That neyther faith nor workes done by the inspiration of the holy Ghost before Iustification can merit Iustification for it is a free grace of God giuen not of workes but by the sole mercy of God and for the sole merits of Christ. cap. 8. 5. That though the iustification of a sinner cannot be merited yet a soul may be disposed prepared to instification by acts inspired by the holy Ghost c. 6. 6. That we are not thus disposed by faith only but also by other good motions of our will preuented and assisted by the grace of God can 9. 7. That being thus freely iustified become the childeren of God through the assistance of Gods grace in Christ we may doe good workes and by them accepted through Christ's merits become more and more iust in the sight of God cap. 10. where in cheefly consists the Roman doctrine of Iustification by good workes This doctrine supposed we will now take a vew of those texts which Protestants vsually presse out of Scripture mistaken against it hauing first proued the Roman doctrine The Catholicke Position Faith only iustifyeth not YOu see that a man is iustifyed by workes and not by faith only which must needs be vnderstood of a true and internall iustification before Allmighty God for it must be that iustification which comes by faith but that is true and internall iustification as appeares by all the texts cited hereafter in the paper for proofe of iustification by faith only that the iustification which S. Iames speakes of here is the very same with that which comes by faith is most cleare out of the words themselues Yee see that a man is iustifyed by workes and not by faith only For it would be quite contrary to common sense to vnderstand a iustification before men in the first part of this sentence yee see that a man is iustifyed by workes and a true internall iustification in the sight of God in the latter part and not by faith only For the word only clearly demonstrates that the same iustification is to be vnderstood in both parts of the sentence Now that the iustification common to both members of this place must necessarily be meant of a true iustification only in the sight of God is out of all question to such as ponder what is deliuered in it for it would be most false were it vnderstood of a iustification only before menâ— no lesse then this manner of speech yee see that this man is vnderstood by his words and not by his thoughts only would be wholly false were there only mention made of a man's being vnderstood amongst men for amongst them he is not vnderstood at all by his thoughts and so the latter part of this proposition would not be true and therefore to verify this manner of speech it must of necessity be meant of a man's being vnderstood by Allmighty God who only by his own power vnderstands both thoughts and words and so it is truly sayd yee see that a man is vnderstood to wit by Allmighty God by his words and not by his thoughts only And for the very same reason this proposition of S. Iames wee see that a man is iustifyed by workes and not by faith only cannot be vnderstood of a iustification before men for we are no more iustifyed by saith before men then we are vnderstood amongst them by our thoughts and therefore it must be interpreted of a iustification before Allmighty God who only vnderstands our faith as he does our thoughts by his own power and knowledge and can only see whether our faith be true sincere and iustifying or no faith being nothing else but a thought assent or iudgement of the soul. And as all Protestants in the ensuing texts vrged for iustification by faith only vnderstand an internall iustification in the sight of God so must they will they not be vnreasonably and willsully partiall vnderstand the same by iustification by faith in this place of S. Iames which is cleared v. 2. was not Abraham our father iustifyed by worket when he had offered Isaac his sone vppon the altar for this hauing beene done priuatly in the desert could not when it was done iustifie him before men and yet more clere v. 22. seest thou not how faith wrought with his workes and by workes was faith made perfect what is here spoken of but the operation of faith and workes in the soule iustifying in God's sight For faith cannot be truly made perfect but declared to be perfect by workes soe farre as they iustifie only before men And it is further demonstrated v. 23. And the Scripture was fulfilled which sayth Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed vnto him for righteousnesse and he was called the friend of God Can any Protestant deny this to be meant of an imputation of righteousnesse as they terme it or a iustification before Allmighty God seeing it is the very
speaking of Iewes and Circumcision v. 24. Is he God of the Iewes only and not also of rhe Gentils yea of the Gentils also v. 30. Seeing it is one God vvhich shall iustify circumcision by faith and vncircumcision through fayth and â— 1. VVhat aduantage then hath the Ievv or vvhat profit is there of circumcision and the seauen last verses of the second chapter make it yet clearer seeing that the Apostle's intent is there to proue that iustification did not only belong to the Iewes but to the Gentils also and therefore the Iewes were not to thinke that iustification came by the obseruance of their ceremoniall law which Moyses had giuen them and whereby they were chiefly distinguished from the Gentiles who had knowledge of the morall law and esteemed themselues obliged to obserue it Which is the present doctrine of RomanÌ„e Catholikes The Third mistake The vvord Iustifie missapplied Thirdly by Iustification here is vnderstood only the fitst IustificatioÌ„ from sinne to iustice wherby a beleeuer is made of a child of the deuil the child of God this is cleare v. 23. For all haue sinned and come short of the glory of God v. 23. being iustifyed freely by his grace through the redemption vvhich is in Iesu Christ. v. 25. VVhom God hath set forth to be a propitiation trough faith in his bloud to declare his righteousnesse for the remission of sinnes that are past through the forbearante of God And in this all agree that the first iustification of a sinner is a worke of the mercy and grace of God through the merirs of our dearest Sauiour and cannot be condignly merited by any works precedent But the Apostle makes here no mention at all of the second iustification or increase of that iustice and grace which is giuen vs in the first iustification and wherof S. Ihon speakes Reu. 22. v. 11. Qui iustus est iustificetur adhuc he that is righteous let him be righteous still saith your English text which signifyes only a perseuerance in that righteousnesse or iustice which was first receiued when it should be he that is righteous let him be made righteous still as the latin hath it iustificetur adhuc and all the other phrases adioyned shew not only a perseuerance butsalso an increase of that wickednesse or holynesse wherin they were before or let him vvorke righteousnesse or iustice still as the greeke hath it wich comes all to the same purpose Now the question betweene vs and Protestants is only of the second iustification or increace of iustice acquired in the first which we only affirme to be augmented by good works done in and through the grace of Iesus Christ. The fourth mistake The vvord faith misconstuâ—ed Fourthly by faith is not to be vnderstood a bare sole act of Christian faith and much lesse of particular confidence and application of Christ merits to our selues whereof the Apostle speakes not one word in this place where on Pâ—otestants rely soe much but a faith viuificated informed and animated with charity and other Christian vertus ioyned with it This is cleate chap. 4. v. 1.2.3 where the faith of Abraham is brought in by the Apostle in proofe of what he had sayd Now who can deny but this faith was viuificated with charity seeing S. Iames c. 2. v. 22. novv cited affirmcs that his faith vvrought vvith his works and by works his faith was made perfect And Galat. 5. v. 6. where the Apostle treates of the same iustification by faith maketh this matter out of question for in Iesus Christ neither circumcision auayleth any thing nor incircumcision but faith which worketh by loue or charity This truth is imbraced by all Romane Catholikes though it be not as they hold our formall iustification nor a condigne merit of our first iustification but only a congruous and yet sure disposition to it through the mercifull and faithfull promise of God and through the only merits of our Sauiour By all these particulars duly pondered appeares that this text of the Apostle Rom. 3. v. 28. therefore we conclude that a man is iustifyed by faith without the works of the law sayes nothing but what is taught by Romane Catholikes vniuersally But if Protestants would conclude any thing against vs they must produce a text which sayes good workes of such as are iustifyed already done by vertue of the grace of Christ and not by the bare knovvledge of the lavv do not iustify and this only is in question betwixt vs that is augment and inâ—crease that righteousnesse or iustice already acquired and make vs more iust The former answer is likewise to be applyed to the other texts Rom. 5. v. 1. Rom. 1. v. 17. Galat. 2. v. 17. for the Apostles meaning is the same in them all Yet because I intend to giue full satisfaction to each text obiected against vs I will adde a word or two to these seuerall texts The second text Rom. 5. v. 1. Being iustified by faith vve haue peace vvith God through out Lord Iesus Christ. This text is mistaken Here S. Paul speakes of the fitst iustification wherby a sinner is made a seruant and friend of God agreably to Romane Catholiks now deliuered as appeares v. 8. But God commendeth his loue to vs in that vvhile vve vvere yet sinners Christ dyed for vs and v. 10. for if vvhile vve vvere enemyes vve vvere reconciled to God by the death of Christ much more being reconciled vve shall be saued by his life and the whole sequell of the chapter shewes euidently that his maine discourse is of the first iustification and attonement of sinners and enemyes to God through the death of Christ yea euen the text it selfe v. 1. here obiected declares it selfe sufficiently to be meant of the first iustification Therefote being iustifyed by faith vve haue peace vvith God through our Lord Iesus Christ sayth the text for this hauing peace vvith God by iustification argues that before that iustification we had not peace but â—mnity with God and so were in state of sinne and damnation which is only true of the first iustification for before the second iustification or increace of iustice we haue that peace with God and so receiue not peace by reason of it And though there were no other answer saue this that of whatsoeuer iustification this text speakes Rom. 5. v. 1. yet iustification by faith only for proofe of which it is alleadged will neuer be proued from it for it sayth being iustifyed by feith but no newes here of faith only The third text Rom. 1. v. 17. For therin is the righteousnesse of God reuealed from faith to faith as it is vvritten the iust liueth by faith This text is mistaken These words prooue nothing at all for iustification by faith only no more then this proposition the iust man liues by breath proues that the iust man liues by breath only for as his liuing corporally by breath hinders not his liuing by meat and drinke so his