that kind whereof his Aduersaries accused him His heart was vpright his life was innocent neither his Aduersares could make proofe neither did his conscience accuse him or God condemne him of these faults that he was charged withall Thus farre Dauid durst stand to Gods Iudgement that hee was innocent in those particular euils whereof man had accused him but it followes not therefore hee durst enter into iudgement with God and plead that God himselfe could find no fault at all with him Hee might haue many secret faults and imperfections euen in this most innocent passage of his life which neither himselfe knew nor his enemies could come to the knowledge of and therefore though he dare pleade his righteousnesse before God so farre as man can accuse him of vnrighteousnesse yet he dare not goe further to cleare himselfe against all that God may obiect against him Heare what himselfe saith in this case Psal. 139. 23. 24. Search me O God and know my heart try me and know my thoughts Speakes the Prophet this out of confidence that God vpon search and tryall shall finde no euill in his heart and thoughts No but out of holy desire that whatsoeuer euill is found in him may bee amended Hee knowes well that many things may be found faulty in him and therefore he stands not to iustifie himselfe but only sues for grace to redresse them adding in the next words And see if there be any wicked way in mee and lead mee in the way euerlasting 2 They proue that the workes of Men regenerate are not Sinnefull by the Scriptures which call them good workes and say that they are pleasing vnto God 1. That they are good Let your light so shine before Men that they may see your good worke Matth 5. 16. Charge the rich that they doe good and bee rich in good workes 1 Tim. 6. 18. wee are his workemanshippe created in Christ vnto good workes Eph. 2. 10. why trouble yee the woman for shee hath wrought a good worke vpon mee Mat 26. 10. 2. That they are also pleasing vnto God is apparant by these places Ye are made an holy â—riesthood to offer vp spirituall sacrifices acceptable to God by Iesus Christ 1 Peter 2. 5. In the Epistle to the Philippians the Apostle calleth their almes seat vnto him An odor of a sweet smell a sacrifice acceptable well pleasing vnto God Philip 4. 18. Againe To doe good and to communicate forget not for with such sacrifices God is well pleased Heb. 13. 16. Hence thâ—y argue If the workes of Men regenerate bee good and acceptable vnto God then certainely the Protestants erre in their Doctrine teaching that the best workes of Men are sinnefull for as much as Sinne is neither good in it selfe nor any way pleasing vnto God Who is infinitely offended at all iniquity Hereunto we answere That this Argument is nothing but a forward and wilfull mistake of our doctrine Wee teach that the best workes of the best men are in part sinnefull They thereupon cry out that wee take away all goodnesse from the workes of the godly and that wee account them to be in se. i. e. Ex natura sua damnable and mortall sinnes This is a foolish calumny of Men that cannot distinguish betweene the disease and the diseased Body but straightway conclude that the whole body it selfe is nothing else but a meere rotten vlcer because it hath swellings and sores in some parts of it Wherefore to vnfold their eyes in his point they are to vnderstand that wee make a necessary true distinction between That which is sinne and that which is sinnefull teaching that the good workes of the Regenerate be not sinnes though they be sinfull Wee explaine it thus That is to be called Sinne in its owne Nature which is the transgression of the Law in doing any act forbidden or in leauing vndone any act commanded by the Law The omitting or committing of any such act is properly in se ex Naturâ suâ a sinne Because it is directly and totally in the very substance of it against the Law As to pray to a false God or neglect prayer to the true God are both of them sinnes in their very proper Natures because both are forbidden by the morall law That wee call sinnefull which is for the maine substance of the worke conformable to the Law but it failes and offends against the Law in some circumstances required in the doing of it when the thing is done which the Law commands but noâ— perfectly in euery point as the Law commands it such a worke we say is not a sinne though it be sinnefull there is sinne in it but it is not all sinne This distinction our Aduersaries cannot but admit of as in the workes of the Heathen and Christians vnregerate so in the good workes of the Regenerate themseâ—ues Wee and they confesse that the morall Vertues of the Heathen were good and commendable in the substance thereof nor doe we thinke there is any men so deuoide of reason as to affirme that the Iustice Temperance Chastity Liberality of a Heathen are meere vices sinnes We all grant they were vertues but yet our Aduersaries themselues cannot affirme that they were euery way vertuous free from all spots and staines of Vice seeing they had neither faith sanctity from whence they sprung nor the glory of God at which they aimed Now as the vertues of the naturall man are in part vitious so the good workes of the Regenerate are in part sinnefull To fast to pray to giue almes with the like workes of Piety or Mercy we affirme and teach that they are good workes good in their nature and vse being such actions as the Law commands We know none of our side so farre gone with passion as to maintaine that a godly man sinnes because hee fasts prayes and giues almes as if those very acts were nothing but damnable sinne We detest such franticke opinions and if any of our Writers haue let slip such words as may giue occasion to our Aduersaries so to thinke of vs we doe not nor are we bound to iustifie euery hot and cholericke speech breathed out in eagernesse of disputation Good workes they be truly and verily good but they are not perfectly good When a godly man prayes he doth well but he neuer doth so well but he may doe better Nor dare any man in the world auouch that either the roote whence good actions come is purged by perfect Holinesse or the manner of doing them is so exactly kept in a precise obseruation of euery circumstance or the end in doing them Gods glory and Mans good so syncerely and truely aimed at that the seuerity of Gods Iustice cannot finde any the least failing in any of those things This is all we teach touching the sinfulnesse of good workes and thus we stand too as a most certaine truth And we say That this sinnefulnesse accompanying our good workes is
for the transgression of the Law A briefe summe of Popish doctrine concerning humane satisfactions for sinne THus we haue the resolution of the dispute of S. Iames together with such Cauils as our Adversaries make vpon the seuerall passages thereof By the whole order whereof it appeares sufficiently that Saint Iames disputing against Faith meanes thereby that false and bastard Faith which hypocrites pleased themselues withall insteed of a true Faith and that disputing for workes he meanes nothing but a working Faith And it appeares also that the drift of the Apostle is not in this place to dispute directly of Man's Iustification but only to bring that in as an argument to proue his principall Conclusion That Faith without workes is dead because it will not iustifie In summe it 's euident that neither these Apostles doe disagree between themselues nor yeâ— either of them doe agree with our Adversaries in teaching Iustification by the the Workes of the Morall Law Of the impossibility of Man's Iustification by which meanes Hitherto Theâ—r exâ— Proposition is that None can be iustified by their owne safisfaction for the transgression of the Law For this is this is the only way 〈◊〉 for an Offender to obtaine Iustification and Absolution viâ— to alleage that he hath satisfied for his offence committed by doing or suffering so much as the party offended could in justice exact of him Which satisfaction being made he is no longer debter vnto him but deserues his absolution and his fauour as if he had not offended at all Now then the Question is Whether a Sinner may by any thing done or endured by himselfe satisfie the Iustice of God so obtaine absolution at the Barre of God's Iudgment We defend the Negatiue That it is impossible for a Sinner by any Action or Passion of his own to doe so much as shall be aequivalent vnto the wrong which he hath done vnto the glorious Iustice of God that there with he may rest satisfied and exact no further paenalty Which point is so euident vnto the Conscience of euery one that knowes himselfe to be either a Creature or a Man or a Sinner that it needes not any confirmation If we be considered as Creatures there 's nothing that a finite strength in a finite time can performe which can hold proportion with the offence of an infinite goodnes and Iustice and the eternal punishment thereby deserued Consider vs as Men so we are bound to fulfill the Law of God in all perfection nor is there any thing so true so honest so just so pure so worthy loue and good report but the Law one way or other obliges vs vnto the thought and practise of it So that besides our due debt of Obedience we haue nothing to spare ouer and aboue whereby to satisfie God for those Trespasses that we haue committed vpon his honour and Iustice. Lastly consider vs as Sinners so we are tyed in a double Obligation 1. of punishment to be suffered for Sinne committed 2. Another of Obedience to be perpetually performed Both these debts of punishment and Obedience are equally exacted of sinfull Men and ergo 'tis as absurd in Diuinity to say the Obedience of the Law or good workes will satisfie for the Transgression of the Law as 't is in ciuill dealing to account the payment of one Band the discharge also of another Wherefore euery one that is not blinde and proud in heart will here be soone perswaded to relinquish all claime of Heauen by his own satisfaction running vnto him onely who alone without the helpe of Man or Angell hath troden the Winepresse of the fiercenesse of God's wrath bearing our Sinnes in his Body on the Tree suffering the vtmost whatsoeuer was due to the punishment of them Our Adversaries in this busines are at a stand mistrusting their owne yet not daring wholly to trust to Christ's satisfactions They will giue him leaue to haue his part but by his leaue they will haue one share too in satisfying for Sinnes For they are a generation of Men that are resolued to be as litle beholding to God as may be for grace or for glory And if there be any article of Religion wherein Scripture and Reason would giue the honour of all vnto God they looke at it with an Euill Eye and cast about which way to thrust in themselues for copartners 'T is strange to see to what passe Pride and Couetousnesse haue brought the doctrine of Satisfaction as it is now taught and practised in the Romish Church With you patience I shall take a short survey of it that you may see whether of vâ—twaine rest our Consciences vpon the surer and more stedfast anchor we that trust onely to Christ's satisfactions or they that joine their owne together with his The summe of their doctrine as it is deliuered vnto vs by the Councell of Trent Sess. 6. cap. 14 16. Sess 14 cap. 8. 9. with the Romish Catechisme part 2. cap. 5. quaest 52. seq and explained at large by Bellarmine in his two bookes De Purgatorio in his 4th Booke De Poenitentia and his Bookes De Indulgentijs is this Sinnes are of two sorts 1. Sinne committed before Baptisme as Originall Sinne in all that are baptized Infants and actuall sinnes in those that are baptized at yeares of discretion 2. Sinne committed after Baptisme when after the Grace of the holy Ghost receiued in Baptisme men fall into Sin polluting the Temple of God and grieuing his Spirit Touching the former sort of Sinnes they are agreed that Men are freed from them both the fault and punishment by the Merits and satisfaction of Christ only without any satisfaction on our part But now for Sinnes after Baptisme in obtaining of Remission of them Christ and we part stakes Which copartnership is declared vnto vs in this manner In 〈◊〉 Sinnes we must know there are three things considerable 1. The fault in the offence of God's Maiesty and violation of our friendship with him Here they grant also That Man can not satisfie for the fault doing any thing that may appease God's displeasure and procure his loue Christ onely hath done this for vs for whose onely satisfaction God of his mercy freely returnes into fauour and friendship with vs. But this must be vnderstood in a catholique sense viz for fault of Mortall Sinnes as for Veniall Sinnes God is but slightly angry with them and so we may satisfie him for the fault thereof both in this life and in Purgatory 2. The staine or corruption of Sinne called the Reliques of Sinne abiding in the Soule For the purging out of which there is great force in such satisfactions as are made by Prayers Fastings Almesdeedâ—s and other laborious workes although the Heretiques say otherwise That the abolishing of inhaerent corruption is by the gift of grace freely bestowed on vs by degrees in the vse of all godly meanes 3. The punishment of Sinne which after the fault is pardoned
haue done whether God by his absolute omnipotency could not haue freed Men from Hell by some other Meanes without taking satisfaction for Sinne from Christ whether God ought not to haue the same priuiledge which we giue vnto any mortale King freely to pardon a Rebell and receaue him to fauour without consideration of any goodnesse in him or satisfaction made by him or anoâ— for him Or whether Sinne doe make such a deepe wound in Gods Iustice and Honour that he cannot with the safegard of either passe by it without amendes Such question as these are vaine and curious prosecuted by idle and vnthinkfull Men who not acknowledging the Riches of Gods 〈…〉 and grace in that course of their Redemption which god hath followed would accuse God of Indiscretion for making much adoe about nothing teach him to haue goâ—e a more compendious way to worke then by sending his owne sonne to 〈◊〉 for vs. 〈…〉 stand what God hath not tell him what he might or should haue done According to which course of his now reuealed will we know that God hath declared his euerlasting hatred against Sinne as that thing which most directly and immediately opposeth the Holynesse of his Nature and the Iustice of his Commandments We know that for this hatred which God beareth to Sin no sinfull creature can be able to stand in 〈…〉 And therefore before reconciliation it was needefull Satisfaction should be made where offence had bin giuen Which seeing man could not effect by himselfe God thought it good to prouide a Mediator who should in make peace betweene both So that what euer may be imagined of possibility of other meanes to bring man to Life yet now wee know that sicioportuit Thus Christ ought to suffer Luc. 24. 26. and that it Behoued him to be like vs that being a Faithfull high Priest he might make Reconciliation for our Sines Heb. 2. 17. Leauing then this new way to Heauen neuer frequented but by Imagination let vs follow the old wayes of Iustification that the Scriptures haue discouered vnto vs which are two and no more Either by our owne Righteousnesse and workes or by the Righteousnesse workes of another viz Christ. The former is that way whereby Man might haue obtayned Iustification and life had hee not bin a Sinner But now Man that is a Sinner cannot be Iustified and saued but onely in the later way viz. by the Righteousnesse of Christ the Mediator This Duine trueth is of most infallible certainty and soueraigne consolation vnto the conscience of a Sinner as shall appeare in the processe of our Discourse wherin we shall first remoue our owne Righteousnesse that so in the second place we may establish the Righteousnesse of Christ as the onely Matter of our Iustification in Gods sight By our owne Righteousnesse we vnderstand as the Apostle doth Rom. 10 The Righteousnesse of the Law or of workes which is twofold 1. The fulfilling of the Law whether by the Habituall Holynesse of the Heart or by the Actuall Iustice of good workes proceeding thence For the Law requires both That the Pâ—rson be Holy endued with all inward qualities of Purity and Iustice and that the workes be Holy being performed for Matter and all the Circumstances according to the Commandment 2 The satisfying for the Breach of the Law For he that makes full satisfaction to the Law which is broken is afterward no debter to the Law but to be accounted Iust and no Violater thereof We must now enquire touching these two whether a Man can be Iustified by his owne O-Obedience to the Morall Law Secondly Whether he can be iustified by his owne Satisfaction for Transgression of the Morrall Law Concerning which two Quaeres we lay downe these two Conclusions which are to be made good 1 No Man that is a Sinner is Iustified by his owne Obedience to the Morrall Law 2 No Man is Iustified by his owne satisfaction for his Transgression For the former It is the Conclusion of the Apostle Rom. 3. 20. Therefore by the workes of the Law shall no flesh be Iustified in his sight which we proue by these Arguments The first shall be that of the Apostle in the forenamed place which stands thus Whosoeuer is a Transgressor of the Morall Law he cannot be Iustifiâ—d by his Obedience thereto But euery Man is a Transgressor of the Morall Law ergo No Man can be Iustified by his obedience thereto The Maior is an vndeniable Principall in Reason It being a thing Impossible that a party accused as an offender should be absolued and pronounced innocent by pleading Obedience to that Law which he hath plainely disobeyed Wherefore the Apostle takes this Proposition for granted in these words of his For by the law commeth the Knowledge of Sinne v. 20. That which conuinceth vs to be sinners by that t is impossible we should be declared to be righteous that plea wilneuer quit vs which proues vs guilty Yea t were not onely folly but madnesse to alledge that for ones iust excuse which it selfe is his very fault whereof hee is accused The Maior then is certaine The minor is no lesse viz. That euery man is a transgressor of the Morall Law If any Sonne of Adam will deny this his owne conscience will giue his tongue the Lie and the Scriptures will double it vpon him Which hauing concluded all vnder Sinne averre That If we an Apostle not excepted say We haue no sinne we deceaue our selâ—es and the truth is not in vs. Yea If we say we haue not sinned we make God a her and his word is not in vs The conclusion then is vnfallable That by the Obedience of the Morall Law no Man shall be iustified that is quitted pronounced innocent before Gods iudgment seate This Aposticall argument vtterly ouerthrowes the pride of Man in seeking for Iustification by the Law and it is of so cleare euidence that the Aduersaries of this Doctrine cannot tell how to avoide it But for asmuch as many exceptions are taken and shifts sought out for the further manifestation of the force hereof against gainsayers of the truth it will be requisite to examine there euasions Which we shall doe in the next argument Which is this 2 Whosoeuer hauing once broken the Law can neuer after perfectly fullfill it he cannot be Iustified by his obedience thereto But Man hauing once broken Gods Law can 〈◊〉 after that perfectly fullfill it Ergo Man cannot be Iustified by Obedience of the Law The Maior of this Argument is framed vpon another ground then the former opposed vnto that erronious tenent of our Aduersaries That howsoeuer a man be a sinner against the Law yet neurthelesse afterward be may be iustified by his obedience of the Law Because God for the time following giues him grace perfectly to fulfill it Which opinion is directly contrary to the reason of the Apostle which is That once a sinner and alwayes
the marke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 14. Here was diligence and we cannot say that Saint Paul did not doe his best Did Paul then fulfill the Law It seemeth so for here we see he was willing and in another place Bellarmine tels vs he was able for so we haue it Paul 4. 13. I can doe all things through Christ that strengtheneth me that is fulfill the Morall Law by the grace of Christ. Now if hee were willing and able then certainly he kept it Nay t is certaine he did not keepe it Witnesse the Testimony of himselfe I doe not the good things which I would but the euill which I would not that doe I Rom. 7. 19. Where is the fault then In the Apostles will No T is plaiâ—e he would haue done it Wast then in his ability Yea this was it to will was present with him but he found no meanes to performe that which is good verse 8. The Iesuite then abuseth vs with a false exposition of of that place to the Philippians interpreting it of the Apostles ability to performe the morall Law which himselfe meant concerning that strength where with Christ enabled him vnto contentation and patience in all conditions whatsoeuer Paul was able to beare all afflictions patiently to vse prosperity soberly but to fullfill the Law in all things perfectly he was not able And if he were not who is We conclude that the actuall Obedience of the morall Law in fulfilling all the commandements exactly is impossible to a regenerate Man in this Life Let vs now take a short survey of our Aduersaries Arguments whereby they would proue That actuall obedience to the whole Law is not onely possible but allso very easy to the regenerate and Iustified They are those â— That burden which is light may be carried without shrinking vnder it that yoake which is easy is worne without paine those commandments which are not burdensome may be obserued without difficulty But such is the morall Law My yoake is easy and my burden light Mat. 11. 30. This is the loue of God that ye keepe his cammandments and his commandments are not grieuous 1 Iohn 5. 3. Ergo The Morall Law may be easily obserued To this we answere That the place of Matthew is to be vnderstood not of the Morall Law but of the yoake and burden of the crosse and afflictions which euery one must beare that will follow Christ and obey the Gospell To those that are wearied and laden with the Crosse Christs speakes by way of Consolation telling them whether to resort for helpe Come to me and I will giue you rest that is comfort and deliuerance 2 Then he perswades them to patience vnder their affliction Take vp my yoake vpon you and beare it chearefully which is persuasion he strength theus with three arguments 1 From his owne example Learne of me to doe and suffer as I doe enduring so many persecutions and afflictions with all meeknesse and patience For I am meek and lowly in heart quietly bearing all wrongs and indignities from man without murmuring against God repining against man seeking revenge at their hands that haue vniustly persecuted mee 2 From the successe of this patient enduring according to CHRISTS example And ye shall find rest vnto your soules comfort in affliction seasonable deliuâ—rance from affliction 3 From the Nature of such crosses For my yoake is easie c. Though they be yoakes and burdens which for the present seeme grieuous yet they be easie they be light because Christs yoake and Christs burden which he layes on all his true Disciples that follow him and which hee will giue them strength to support and beare out with cheerefulnesse This seemes the most naturall interpretation of this place it is most agreeable to the twelfth Chapter to the Hebrewes Where the like Arguments are vsed to comfort the godly in such afflictions as follow the profession of the Gospell But yet if we vnderstand it of the yoake and burden of the Law We answere to it and that place in Iohn That the Commandements of God are not grievous to the Regenerate not because they can perfectly and easily fulfill them but because that which made them intollerable and vnsupportable vnto them is now taken away What 's that The rigor of the Law in requiring of euery man exact obedience vnder paine of the curse of eternall death Here was the vneasinesse of the yoake which punched man in his sinfull state this was the waiâ—ht of the burthen vnder which euery man out of Christ must needes be crushed and sinke downe to Hell Now Christ hauing fulfilled the Law and satisfied for all our trangressions thereof hath made this yoake easie for the neckes and this burthen light vpon the shoulders of the Regenerate because though they be tyed to obey yet not vpon those seuere tearmes of being eternally accursed if they at any time disobey Now they are assured their hearty obedience shall be accepted so farre as they are able to performe it and where they faile they shall be mercifully pardoned Which is a singular encouragement of a Christian heart to shew all willing and cheerefull endeauour in obeying Gods Commandements whereby he may giue good proofe of his vnfained loue vnto God himselfe Againe we answere that his vneasinesse and burdensomenesse of the morall Law is to be taken in regard of the Enmity and opposition which a carnall man beares vnto the obedience thereof Vnto a naturall man it is the greatest toyle and wearisomnesse in the world for him to be made to draw in this yoake For him to bridle his desires to checke his disordered affections to restraine himselfe of his pleasures to be tyed to the exercises of Religion to haue a lawlesse minde brought in subiection to a strict Law Oh what a wearinesse is it how he snuffes at it Hee chafes and sweats vnder such a burden more then vnder the waight of ten talents of Lead But now vnto a heart sanctified by grace all such obedience becomes sweet pleasant and delightfull The heart now loues the holinesse of the Law it delighteth in the Law takes contentment in the obedience of it and is full of singular affection and desire after it Whence though it faile in many things through manifold infirmities and temptations yet it ceaseth not in a willing constant and cheerefull endeauour to performe all Grace fighteth with may difficulties and in the combate takes many a foyle but yet at last the victory falls on her side For saith Saint Iohn He that is borne of God ouercommeth the world So that The lust of the eyes the lust of the flesh and the pride of life which he vnderstands by the world 1 Iohn 3. 16. preuaile not against him to turne him away from the holy Commandement giuen vnto him But he still obeyes cheerefully and syncerely though not euery way perfectly This of the first Argument The second is this 2
compleate 6 They proue by these Scriptures that the Law may be fulfilled Gal 5. The apostle reckons vp the fruits of the spirit Loue ioy Peace c. then he sayth ver 23. that against such there is no Law That is sayeth Bellarmine the Law cannot accuse such men of Sinne. So 1 Iohn 3. 9. Whosoeuer is borne of God doth not commit Sinne for his seede remayneth in him and he cannot Sinne because he is borne of God Ergo the regenerate cannot so much as breake the Law We answere That both these places are peruerted by false Interpretations Against such there is no Law sayth the Apostle Against what such persons or such graces If it be meant of Persons viz. That such as haue the Spirit and bring forth the fruits of the Spirit there mentioned against those there is no Law we must take it in the Apostles owne meaning which hee expresseth verse 18. If yee he led by the spirit ye are not vnder Law How is that Are not the Regenerate vnder the Law that is vnder the Obedience of the Law Yes wee graunt on both sides that Grace frees vs not from subiection and obedience vnto Gods Law How then are they not vnder the Law T is plaine They are not vnder the Curse and Condemnation of the Law as those be that walke in the flesh and doe the workes thereof who therefore shall not inherit the Kingdome of God v 19. and that 's to be accursed But such as walke in the Spirit being regenerate and Iustified are not vnder the Curse and therefore though the Law may and doth accuse them of Sinne yet the Law is not so against them as to bring condemnation vpon them as it doth vpon other from which in Christ they are freed If the clause be vnder stood of the Graces of the Spirit there reckoned vp the sense is this Against such workes there is no Law forbidding them as there is against works of the flesh these agreeable those contrary to the law But this makes nothing to our Adversaries purpose For the place in Iohn He that is borne of God doth not commit Sinne yea cannot If our Aduersaries exposition according to the very Letter may stand good it will â—ollow That in the regenerate there is not onely a possibility to keepe the Law but also an impossibility at any time to breake it But they easily see how absurd this position is and that it being graunted their doctrine of falling away from Grace lies flat in the dust seeing Iohn sayeth expresly That a man regenerate not onely doth not but cannot Sinne. Therefore certainely he cannot fall from Grace Wherefore they helpe it out with a distinction Hee cannot sinne that is mortally He may sinne that is venially and veniall sinnes may stand with grace and with perfect Obedience of the Law This distinction is one of the rotten pillars of the Romish Church tw'ill come in fit place to be examined hereafter for the present we say Hee that Sinnes venially as they mince it breakes the Law and againe a Man Regenerate may sinne mortally which is true not onely according to there doctrine who teach that a Man may fall from the Grace of Regeneration which to doe is a mortall Sinne but much more according to the Scriptures and Experience which witnesse that Peter Dauid Solomon and Many yea all the Saints haue at sometime or other there greivous falls out of which notwithstanding by the Grace of the Holy Ghost abiding in them they recouer themselues so that finally they fall not a way The last Argument is from the examples of such men as haue fulfilled the Law 7 The Scriptures record that diuers men haue beene perfect in fulfilling the law in all things 〈◊〉 Abraham Noah Dauid Iosiah Asa Zacharie and Elizabeth the Apostles and other holy Men. Therefore the Law is at least possible to bee kept by some Not to stand in particular examination of all the places of Scripture which are alleadged for proofe of these examples we answer briefly That it is euery maÌ„s duty to aime at perfection in his obedience according to Christs Commandement Mat. 5. 48. Be ye therfore perfect euen as your Father in Heauen is perfect 2 That in this life there are many degrees of grace which God bestowes diuersly on diuers men according to his owne pleasure and their greater or lesse diligence in the practise of Holinesse So that comparatiuely some men may be said to be perfect because farre more perfect then others as the greatest starres bee said to be of perfect light because they shine brighter then those of lesser Magnitude though yet not so bright as the Sunne But 3. we affirme that no man in this endeauour after perfection goes so farre as for inward Holinesse and outward obedience to answere the perfection of the Law in all points Euen in these holy Saints which they bring for instance the Scriptures haue recorded vnto vs their failings that in them at once we may see a patterne of Holinesse to be imitated and an example of humane Infirmity to be admonished by wee haue Abraham somtimes misdoubting of Gods promise protection and helping himselfe by a shift scarce warrantable Noah ouer-seene in drinke Dauid breaking the sixth and seauenth Commandements one after another Iosiah running wilfully vpon a dangerous enterprise against Gods Commandement Asa relying on the King of Syria for helpe against the King of Israel and not vpon the Lord in a rage imprisoning the Prophets for reprouing him and in his disease seeking not to the Lord but to the Phisitians Zachary not giuing credence to the Angels message The Apostles all at a clap forsaking or denying Christ. We cannot then in these Saints finde perfection in the full obedience to the Law amongst whose few actions registred by the Holy Ghosts penne we may reade their sinnes together with their good workes And had the Scriptures beene silent in that point yet who could thence haue concluded that these men or others had no faults because no mention is made of them It was Gods purpose to relate the most eminent not euery particular action of their liues euen Christs story fals short of such exactnesse Wee conclude then notwithstanding these Arguments Our second Proposition standeth firme and good viz. That no man in this life can fulfill the Law in euery duty both inward and outward but that the iustest man on earth will faile in many things So if he should seeke for Iustification by this his actuall obedience to the Law he throwes himselfe vnder the curse of the Law For cursed is euery one that continues not in all things which are written in the booke of the Law to doe them saith the Apostle out of Moses Which curse must needs light on those that are of the workes of the Law that is seeke for Iustification and life by
the obedience of the Law which yet they cannot in all things perfectly obey CHAP. III. No man in this life can performe any particular good worke so exactly that in euery point it shall answere the rigour of the Law proued by conscience Scriptures reason and Popish obiections answered I Proceed vnto the last Proposition which concerneth Mans actuall Obedience to any one particular precept of the Law Wherein will appeare the third Imperfection of mans Obedience in fulfilling of the Morall Law We haue seene That no man hath perfect inherent sanctity free from Natures corruption Againe That no man can performe perfect actuall obedience to all and euery duty of the Law without failing in any one point And this much our Aduersaries will not much sticke to yeeld vnto vs and confesse That there is no man but sinneth at some time or other and that t is scarce possible to avoide veniall sinnes as they stile them But then they deny vtterly That a man sinnes in euery particular good worke though he cannot doe all perfectly yet in some he may exactly fulfill the Righteousnesse of the Law not missing in any one circumstance And therfore at least by that obedience he may be iustified This opinion of theirs hath neither truth in it selfe nor yet brings any benefit at all to their maine purpose in prouing Iustification by workes For to what end serueth it them to stand quarrelling for the perfectioÌ„ of our obedience in some one or two good works when yet we faile in many things besides One thing well done will not iustifie him that doth many things ill For that of Saint Iames must be a Truth Hee that keepeth the whole Law and yet faileth in one point is guilty of all Iames 2. 10. Much more guilty is he that keepeth it in a few and breakes it in many But yet further we reiect this opinion also as an Errour and we teach on the contrary That No man in this life can performe any one particular good worke so exactly that in euery point it shall answere the rigour of the Law and the seuere tryall of Gods Iudgement About this Assertion our Aduersaries raise much stirre and many soule slaunders against vs proclaiming vs to all the world open enemies to all good workes that wee bee Factors for the Kingdome of darknes promoting as much as in vs lyeth all licentiousnesse in evill courses and taking of the courage and endeauour of Men after pious duties For who will set himselfe say they to doe any good worke if the Protestants doctrine be true that in doing of it he shall commit a mortall Sinne who wil pray fast and giues almes if when he doth these things he cannot but sinne As good then it were to doe euill as to doe good a man can but sin and so he shall let him doe his best These slanderous incongruities fastened on vs spring not out of our Doctrine rightly vnderstood but out of froward and peruerse hearts that will not see the truth Such aspersions will easily bee wiped of when after the confirmation of the Trueth wee shall make answere to such obiections as seeme to infringe it We say then That no man can performe any good worke required in the Law with such exact observation of every circumstance that were it examined by the rigour of the Law and Gods Iustice no fault at all can bee found in it This we proue by Conscience by Scriptures by Reason First we here apeale vnto the Conscience of Man the Iudgment whereof is to be regarded and whereunto we dare stand in this matter Thou that boastest that in such and such good workes that thou hastnot committed any Sinne at all Darest thou indeed stand to it and vpon these Tearmes appeare in Gods Iudgment Darest thou abide the strictnesse of this examination standing ready to Iustifie thy selfe against euery thing that hee can obiect Wilt thou venter thy selfe vpon this Tryall euen in the best works thou dost That God cannot with his most piercing eye of Iustice spy a fault in theÌ„ if he number theÌ„ he shal find nothing short if he weigh them not one graine too light Againe let conscience speake when thou hast prayed fasted giuen almes done any other excellent worke of Piety and Charity in the deuoutest and most vnblameable manner thou thinkest possible Thinkest thou verily that in this case thou doest not at all stand in need of Gods fauour to passe by thine infirmities and that thou needest not euen in this behalfe pray Lord forgiue me my trespasses What man durst say or thinke in any good worke Lord in this particular I doe not desire thou shouldest be mercifull vnto me Without doubt there is no man liuing vpon earth that shall in serious consideration of the seuerity of Gods iudgement and the great infirmity of his owne Nature compare his own obedience with the seuerity of Gods Iustice but his heart will presently shrinke within him and his conscience shunne this tryall as much as euer Adam did Gods presence The thought of such a strict proceeding in Iudgement would make the proudest heart to stoope and tremble the boldest face to gather blacknesse filling the soule with an horrible feare in the expectation of that day should the most innocent life the most holy actions of men be there scanned according to the rigour of Iustice not graciously pittied pardoned and accepted according to that mercifull loue of God which couereth and passeth by multitudes of sinnes T were arrogant pride in any man to vtter that speach in a sober temper Whereunto Iob breakes out in a passion chased by the sense of his miserable tortures and the froward disputes of his friends Oh saith he that a man might pleade with God as a man pleadeth with his neighbour And againe Lay downe now put me in a surety with thee who is he that will strike hands with me And againe Oh that I knew where I might find him that I might come euen to his face I would order my cause before him and fill my mouth with arguments I would know the words which he would answere mee and vnderstand what he would say vnto me Speakes the man reason or is he beside himselfe what challenge God to dispute with him and hope to make his party good in the quarrell This was Iobs infirmity It s our Aduersaries arrogancy who dare set their foot against Gods and bid him pry as narrowly as hee list into their good workes they will maintaine the righteousnesse thereof against all that he can obiect to proue the least sinâ—ulnesse Iob saw his folly God grant that these may theirs In a calmer temper when conscience was not ouerclouded with griefe and anger he reades vs a quite contrary lesson In the 9 Chapter of his booke How should man be iust with God if he contend with him he cannot answer him one of a thousand v. 2. 3. And againe hauing reasoned questioned of Gods
This must be restrained to the righteousnesse which consistes in Obedience to the Ceremoniall Law All our Righteousnesse that is all our Ceremoniall workes in Sacrifices Obseruations of Sabboaths New-moones Fasts and such like are as filthy clouts being done in that manner as wee doe them viz without Faith and Obedience To these we say That there would neuer be an end were a Man bound punctually to refute euery Cauill which an Aduersary may frame out of his fancy-full imagination and froward heart We owe the Romanists no such credit as to assent to any point of Religion vpon their bare affirmation We can as confidently deny such Exceptions as these without yeelding them a refutation as they doe boldly make them without bringing any proofe And certainely most vaine and vngodly is that course which our Aduersaries or any that tread in there steps doe hold in their Disputations about serious points of Christian Doctrine when being vrged with conuincing Scriptures they thinke they haue done the part of Schollers and satisfied the Consciences of others desirous of Truth if they can amuse and stonny you a little with two or three Interpretations and prety exceptions and so leaue you to chuse which you list They will not tell you which they will stand to but euen when there answers crosse one another yet all shall downe that if one helpe not another may and altogether may vexe you when they cannot satisfie you This quarrelsome humour of men who seeke not the truth in loue but write to maintaine to dispute is not the least vexation of the spirit and wearinesse to the flesh of man as all those will witnesse whose much reading hath led them along into the perplexed mazes of Schoole-learning whether Diuine or humane The third place of Scripture is Psal 130. 3. If thou Lord shouldest marke iniquities O Lord who shall stand This place is parallell to the former wherein the holy Prophet desires God to be attentiue to the voice of his supplications craues this audience meerely of Gods fauour not vpon any righteousnes or worth of his own As for that he confesseth That if God should be strict to obserue wherein hee and all men doe amisse neither himselfe nor any other could be able to stand in his presence Whence he flies from his Iustice vnto his mercy But there is forgiuenesse with thee that thou mayest be feared verse 4. Presumption then it is and arrogant pride for any Romanist to say Lord if thou doe obserue Iniquities yet I shall be able to stand In such and such good workes be extreame to marke what is done amisse I feare not the tryall nor will sue to thy mercy From Scriptures we come to Reason Which is thus Wheresoeuer there is concupiscence and inordinate motions of the heart wheresoeuer there 's a defect of Charity towards God and Man Wheresoeuer veniall sinnes as our Aduersaries cals them are mingled with good works there the best workes of men are not free from some corruptions and sinfulnesse But in a man Regenerate there is concupiscence and euill motions of the heart present with him when hee would doe good there is a want of that measure of loue to God and Charity to Man which he might and ought to haue there also are besides many veniall faults that accompany his best workes Ergo the works of a Man Regenerate are not euery way good but in part sinfull The Minor is cleere and confessed by our Aduersaries especially for the two former circumstances of concupisâ—â—â—ce and imperfection of Charity and for veniall sinnes they also acknowledge it a very hard matter to 〈…〉 in any good worke Wherefore they are driuen in a desperate manner to deny the Maior and to auouch That neither concupiscence nor imperfection of Charity to God or our Neighbour nor yet veniall sinnes mingled with good workes doe at all impaire the goodnesse and perfect righteousnesse oâ— our obedience to the Law but that they are as good with those infirmities as without them Bad causes must be helpt out by bold and desperate attempts and so it â—ares with our Aduersaries in this point They will vtterly deny that there is any thing euill in a man Regenerate rather then be forced to confesse there is any thing euill in the workes that he performes The impudent vnreasonablenesse of this their Assertion we shall shortly speake of In the meane we goe on vnto the consideration of such Arguments which are brought by our Aduersaries to proue That the good workes of men Regenerate are truely and perfectly good without all faultinesse in them They proue it then 1 From the examples of Iob and Dauid Of Iob is said Iob 1. 22. In all this Iob sinned not nor charged God foolishly and chap. 2. verse 10. In all this did not Iob sinne with his lippes Againe for Dauid he is conscious to himselfe of his owne innocency and that no fault can be found in his doings wherefore he prayes Psal 7. 8. Iudge me O Lord according to my righteousnesse and according to mine integrity that is in me And after all this Psal. 18. 23. 24. He professeth openly his innocency and reward for it I was saith he also vpright before him and I kept my selfe from mine iniquity Therefore hath the Lord recompensed mee according to my righteousnesse according to the cleannesse of my hands in his sight And Psal. 17. vers 3. Hee declares how GOD had throughly tryed him and yet found him faultlesse Thou hast proued mine heart thou hast visited me in the night thou hast tryed me and yet shalt find nothing I am purposed my mouth shall not transgresse How then can any man say that Iob and Dauid sinned mortally in their sayings and doings when God himselfe witnesseth for them that they dâ—e not sinne Hereto we answere That we doe not lay sinne vnto the charge of those holy men nor doe we say they did ill where the Scriptures witnesse they did well Iob in that first Act of his tryall quitted himselfe well and ouercame the Temptation He sinned not as afterwards he did breaking forth into impatiency and that is all the Scripture meant by that speech In all this Iob sinned not But whether Iobs patience were in this first conflict euery way so vnreproueable that not the least fault could be spied in it in Gods seuere Iudgement is more then we dare affirme or our Aduersaries will euer be able to proue For Dauid his innocent demeanor of himselfe in the time of Sauls raigne was such that no Imputation of vnfaithfulnesse or ambition could iustly bee layed to his charge Wherefore when Sauls followers accuse him of treason against their Master Dauid appeales vnto God desiring him to deale with him according to his Innocency in that behalfe His owne conscience and God with his conscience after tryall made acquit him from plotting and practising against Saul as his Aduersaries said hee did Thence it followes that Dauid did not offend in
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
say that there is But concerning Grace and Righteousnes 't is certaine there is that remissio graduum without any admixtion of Sinne and iniquity As the Holines of Saints is lesse then that of Angels that of Angels lesse then the Holines of Christs glorified Humanity this lesse then his Diety And yet in the least of these Righteousnesses there is no Vnrighteousnes at all to be found no not in the seuere judgement of God Except we say there is vnrighteousnes in Heauen where no vncleane thing can enter Well then What Imperpection of mans Righteousnes is it which is Sinne We say That Imperfection when man in any Grace or good Worke wantes that degree of goodnes which he ought to haue As in nature If the Eye want that cleernes of sight which should be in it 't is a naturall Euill In Morality if a man want that Temperance or degree of Temperance he ought to haue it s a vitious and morall euill so in Grace the want of that righteousnes or degree of righteonsnes which God requires to be in man is a Sinne and spirituall Euill All such priuations of what should be present are Euill in what kind soeuer If they be in nature they be malamiseranda deserue pity and cure if in Vertue and Grace they be mala culpanda worth of blame and punishment Such defects as these in Grace when man fals short not onely of that which is in others but that which should be in himselfe doe alwaies arise from the mixture of Corruption and Sinne. Hee that loues nâ—t God or his neighbour so much as he ought to doe 't is because his heart be wicked at the least in part and that he loues others things more then he should doe These things are certaine and vndeniable according to those words of St. Augustin that are authenticall Profecto illud quod minus est quam debet ex vitio est And againe Pecâ—atum est vel cum non est charitas quae esse debet vel minor est quam debet 'T is a Sinne not to loue God at all or to loue him lesse then we should Wherefore heere we aske the Iesuite whether Charity and other Graces in a man regenerate be so perfect in this Life as they ought to be If he say they be not so perfect as they ought to be how can he affirme that this defect is no fault nor Sinne Can a man possibly doe worse or be worse then he should and yet be iâ— no fault therefore If he say they be as perfect as they should be his owne Conscience and the Conscience of all the men in the World will gain-say him for a liar No man can say that he loues God and his Neighbour asmuch as he ought to doe and that he is not bound in euery grace and good worke to ariue at greater perfection then hee hath for the present He that thinkes himselfe come nearest vnto the marke will yet be driuen to confesse that he fals many bowes short of those patternes which we ought to imitate Adam in his Innocency Christs Humanity and the Saints in Heauen Wee here bid them Depinge ubi sistam make a point where we shall stoppe that when we are come so farre we need seeke no further perfection If they cannot do this then they must confesse as the truth is that euery man is bound by Gods command to be more holy to be more perfect in all Graeces and good workes and so farre as he wants any degree or dramme of goodnesse that should be in him and his works so farre he is sinfull and guilty of a fault 3 I goe on to the last Assertion of our Aduersaries which is toâ—ching veniall sinnes viz. That these doe not hinder the righteousnesse of mens good workes A man may be a perfect iust man though he commit many veniall sinnes The reason whereof they make to be because veniall sinnes are not contrary to charity the loue of God and our neighbour and so may stand well enough with the fulfilling of the Law Against this errour tending to the obduration of mans hart in impenitency loue of sin we maintain this conclusioÌ„ Those sinnes which the Church of Rome cals veniall doe truly make a man regenerate and his workes vnrighteousnesse in the sight of God This we proue by this one Argument Whosoeuer transgresseth the Law he is vnrighteous in so doing But he that commits veniall sinnes transgresseth the Law Ergo He that commits veniall sinnes is an vnrighteous man The Maior is vndeniable For the Minor our Aduersarie is at a stand They are loath to grant it yet cannot tell how to deny it with any honesty Bellarmine after one or two shuffling distinctioÌ„s of simpliciter secundum quid perfectè and imperfectè at last plainly denies that veniall sinnes be contrary to the Law For answering vnto those places in Iames. In many things we offend all and that in Iohn If we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues Hee saith they cannot hansomly shift themselues of those places who hold that veniall sinnes be propriè contra Legem Such as bee of that opinion Let them looke to it saith he what they will answere to that of Saint Iames. He that keepes the Law in one point c. He therefore will be more wise and wary Solâ—da igitur respensio est saith he Peccata venialia sine quibus non viuitur non esse peccata simpliciter sed imperfectè secundum quid neque esse contra Legem sed praerer Legem And thus saith he Omnia cohaerent like a Pebble in a Withe Nam qui ostendit in vno praeuaricans scilicet vnum praeceptum reus est omnium simpliciter iniustus constituitur tamen in multis offendimus omnes quia tametsi nihil facimus contra Legem tamen multa facimus praeter Legem Et qui â—atus est ex Deo non peccatat transgrediendo Legem tamen si dicamus qâ—ia peccatum non habemus viz. nihil praeter Legem faciendo noâ— ipsos seducimus veritas non est in Nobis This is an vnbound Besome as will appeare by vndoing that distinction which seemes to hold it together Veniall sinnes are not against the Law but besides the Law Well we must now know what is against the Law what besides That is against the Law when any thing is done which the Law forbids or left vndone which it commands That is besides the Law when the thing done is neither coÌ„manded nor forbidden in the Law He then that commits a veniall sinne doth some such act as the Law neither forbids nor commands Here then we aske Be veniall sinnes sinnes Yea they be Is God offended with them Yea and he may iustly punish them on vs with the losse of Heauen For so Bellarmine himselfe confesseth Peccata venialia nisi misericorditer remittantur impediunt ab ingressu illius Regni in quod nihil
coinquinatum intrare potest Now sure this is admirable that such acts as these should defile a man deserue hell offend God in a word be sinnes and yet for all this neither commanded nor forbidden in any Law of God Was there euer such a toy heard of as this as Sinnes beside the Law T is a most ridiculous contradiction Peccatum praeter Legem He that doth any thing beside the Law not mentioned nor include â— therein by way of prohibition or command t is most apparent he sinnes not nor offends not at all For whom doth he offend or who can challenge him of Sinne Doth God the Law-giuer No for t was not his intention to command or forbid such an act and ergo be it done or not done it crosseth not his will nor hath he any reason to finde fault or be displeased at it Satan or Man cannot accuse him For let them then shew the Law that prooues him an offender If they cannot alleadge a Law against which he hath transgressed they wrongfully accuse him of a fault Were it not absurd accusation against a prisoner at the Barre to say that he hath indeed done nothing against the Lawes of the Land but many things besides the Law not forbidden nor commanded in the Law those hee hath done and deserues to be punished for it as an offender But now if those veniall sinnes bee mentioned in Gods Law then are such actions either commanded or forbidden If commanded then the not doing of such a thing is plainely contrary to the Law As for example To steale a penny or some other small matter to please an idle word to tell an officious lie these be veniall sinnes say our Aduersaries But how hnow they they be sinnes who told them so The Scriptures they will say Where In the 8 and 9 Commandement Aske them now Did God intend in those Commandements to forbid those actions of stealing and lying Yea or No If he intended it not then t is no sinne at all to doe them seeing it croâ—seth not Gods will nor offends him If he did intend to forbid vs those things then to doe them is a sinne manifestly contrary to the holy will of God the Lawgiuer Wherfore let vs here remeÌ„ber that excellent rule of Bernard Non iussa quïdem licitè vtrumlibet vel admittuntur vel omittuntur iussa vero sine culpa non negleguntur sine crimine non â—ontemnuntur For things not commanded we may either lawfully doe them or leaue them but for things commanded to neglect them is a sinne to contemne them is a haynous crime Wherefore this distinction of sins against and sinnes beside the Law falleth to dust and our Minor Proposition stands firme That he who committeth veniall Sinne transgresseth the Law of God and therefore is vnrighteous for his so doing Becanus here forsakes the Cardinall in this distinction and helpes him by an other deuisâ— He grants that Veniall Sinnes be against the Law and proues it because euery Veniall Sinne is moraliter malum and Ergo contra rectam rationemet Legem aeternam But here 's now the distinction It is one thing to be contra Legem another contra finem Legis All Veniall sinnes be against the Law but no veniall sinne is properly against the end of the Law that is against Charity the Loue of God or our Neighbour Is not this a superfine Inuention As if a Subiect that hath in many things broken the Law should say True my faults be against the Law of the Land but yet they are not against the end of those Lawes viz. obedience to my Prince and Loue to the good of him and my Country Though I break the Lawes yet I would not haue you thinke but I loue and honour my Prince and Country well enough Iust so the Iesuits A man may commit many sinnes against Gods Law and yet obserue the end of the Law in louing God with all his heart and his Neighbour as himselfe Then which nothing can be more senselesse that a man should offend God in breaking of his Law and yet not withstanding loue God with his whole heart That a man should wrong his Neighbour doing that to him which he would not haue done to himselfe and yet for all that loue his Neighbour as himselfe If ye loue mee keepe my Commandemâ—nts saith Christ. Iohn 14. 15. Nay say the Romanists we loue him and yet breake his Commandements Loue doth none euâ—l to his Neighbour saith the Apostle Romans 13. 10 Nay say the Iesuits Loue may doe euill to his Neâ—ghbour and yet keepe the name of loue A man may be angry with another without cause reuile him and call him Racha hee may defraude him in small matters for these they make veniall sinnes and yet in the meane time all this without breath of Charity Himselfe would not willingly be so vsed but hee will vse another in this sort and yet looke to bee thanked for his loue too Such grosse absurdities doe our Aduersaries runne in to by coyning such senselesse distinctions of Sinnes not against but besides the Law of sinnes not against the end of the Law though against the Law it selfe Our Consciences cannot be satisfied with such silly shiftes and therefore we leaue them vnto those that can content themselues and choake vp their Consciences with a little sophistry Men who make a pastime of sinne and take liberty to qualifie and dispence with Gods Law as they thinke agreeable to their Conscience hoping by tricks of wit and dodging Distinctions to a void the accusations of Conscience and to elude the seuerity of Gods Iudgement SECT 4. CHAP I Iustification by workes makes void the couenant of grace of the difference between the law the Gospel of the vse of the Law of the erroneous conceit of our Aduersaries in this point THus much of these three Exceptions of our â—econd Argâ—ment prouing the impossibiliâ—y of our Iustification by the workes of the Law because we cannot perfectly fulfill the â—aw We goe now forward vnto two Arguments more taken the one from the difference of the two Couenants God hath made with man First of works the other of grace and the other from the Nature of true Christian Libâ—rty obtained for vs by Christs death Argument That which makes voide the Couenant of Grace is a false and haereticall doctrine But Iustification of workes of the Law makes void the Couenant of Grace Ergo T is false and haeriticall so to teach For confirmation of the minor in this Argument wee must briefly shew 1 What the Couenant of Grace what the Couenant of workes is 2 What opposition their is betweene these two By the Couenant of Grace we vnderstand in one word the Gospell i. e. the gratious appointment of God to bring man to Saluation by Iesus Christ. In the administration of this gratious purpose of God we must obserue foure periods of time where in God hath diuersly ordered this meanes
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
apparant that perfect obedience was the condition required for the establishing of Adam in perpetuall blisse Other meanes there was not nor needed any be proposed vnto him But when Man had failed in that Condition and so broken the Covenant of Workes God to repaire Mans ruined Estate now desperate of euer attaning vnto happines by the first means he appoints a second offering vnto Adam a Sauiour that by Faith in him and not by his owne vnspotted Obedience hee might recouer Iustification and Life which he had lost So that what Adam should haue obtained by workes without Christ now hee shall receiue by Faith in Christ without Workes Since the time of Mans fall we must consider that the Law and Gospell though they goe together yet as they still differ in their vse and office betweene themselues so also the Law differs from it selfe in that vse which it had before and which it hath since the Fall To vs now it hath not the same vse which it had in Mans innocency It was giuen to Adam for this end to bring himselfe to Life and for that purpose it was sufficient both in it selfe as an absolute Rule of Perfection and in regard of Adam who had strength to haue obserued it But vnto Man fallen although the Band of Obedience doe remaine yet the End thereof viz. Iustification and Life by it is now abolished by the promise because the Law now is insufficient for that purpose not of it selfe but by reason of our sinfull flesh that cannot keepe it This is most manifest by the renewing of the first Couenant of Workes with the Iewes when God deliuered vnto them the Morall Law from Sinai at which time God did not intend that the Iewes should obtaine Saluation by Obedience to that Law God promised Life if they could obey and the Iewes as their duty was promised they would obey but God knew well enough they were neuer able to keepe their promise and ergo 't was not God's intention in this Legall couenant with the Iewes that any of them should euer attaine Iustification and Life by that meanes As that first the Promise need not to haue bin made vnto Adam if the Law could haue suffised for the attaining of Life so after the Promise was once made the Law was not renewed with the Iewes to that end that Righteousnes and Life should be had by the obseruation of it This is the plaine doctrine of the Apostle Gal. 3. in that his excellent dispute against Iustification by the Law The doubt that troubled the Galatians was this God had made an Evangelicall couenant with Abraham that in Christ he and his faithfull seed should be blessed that is Iustified Afterward 430 yeares he made a Legall couenant with Abraham's posterity that they should liue that is be justified and saued if they did fulfill all things written in the Law The Quaestion now was which of these two couenants should stand in force or whether both could stand together The Apostle answere that the former couenant should stand in force and that the later did not abrogate the former not yet could stand in force together with the former This he expresseth v. 17. 18. And this I say that the couenant that was confirmed afore of God in respect of Christ the Law which was 430 yeares after cannot disanull that it should make the Promise of none effect For if the inheritance viz of Righteousnes and life be by the Law it is not by the Promise but God gaue it to Abraham by Promise Heere now they might object Wherefore then serueth the Law If Men cannot bee iustified by keeping the Law to what end was it giuen so long after the Promise was made To this the Apostle answeres It was added vnto the Promise because of the transgressions Here 's the true vse of the Morall Law since the fall of Man not to justifie him and giue life but to proue him to be vniust and worrhy of death It was added because of transgressions that is 1. To convince Man of Sinne that he might be put in remembrance what was his duty of old and what was his present infirmity in doing of it and what was God's wrath against him for not doing it That seeing how impossible it was for him to attaine vnto life by this old way of the Law First appointed in Paradise he might be humbled and driuen to looke after that new way which God had since that time layed forth more heedfully attending the Promise and seeking vnto Christ who is the End of the Law vnto euery one that beleeues in him Which vse God pointed out vnto the Iewes figuring Christ vnto them in the Mercyseate couering the Arke wherein the Tables of the Couenant were kept and in the Sacrifices appointed for all sorts of Transgressions against this Couenant To admonish the Iewes a further thing was aimed at in giuing them the Law namely the bringing of them to Christ the promised seed in whom Remission of Sinnes and Life Eternall was to bee had 1. To restraine Man from Sinne. That the Law might be a perpetuall rule of Holinesse and Obedience whereby Man should walke and glorifie God to the vtmost of his power That so those Iewes might not thinke that God by making a gracious Promise had vtterly nullified the Law and that now Men might liue as they list but that they might know these bounds prescribed them of God within which compasse they were to keep themselues that so the ouer-flowing of Iniquity might be restrained These most excellent perpetuall and necessary vses of the morall Law God intended in renewing of the Legall couenant with the Iewes ergo the Apostle concludes that God did not crosse himself when first he gaue the Inheritance to Abraham by promise and afterwards made a Legall couenant with the Iewes his posterity Is the Law then against the Promises saith the Apostle God forbid For if there had beene a Law giuen which could haue giuen Life surely Righteousnesse should haue bin by the Law But the Scripture hath concluded all vnder Sinne that the promise by the Faith of Iesus Christ might be giuen to all that beleeue ver 21. 22. Whence it is most cleare that the Law and the Gospell in some things are subordinate and vphold one another in other absolute and destroy one another As the Law by the discouery of Sinne and the punishment of it humbles man and prepares him to receaue the Gospell 2. As the Law is a sacred direction for Holines and Obedience to those that haue embraced the Gospell and all others 3. As the Law requires satisfaction for the Breach of it and the Gospell promiseth such satisfaction thus the Law and Gospell agree well together and establish one another But as the Law giues life to them that perfectly obey it and the Gospell giues Life to them that stedfastly beleiue it thus the Law and Gospell are one against the other and ouerthrow one another And
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
true Faith we are now by the same help to goe forward to the third generall head namely concerning the Consequents of Faith which were two our Iustification in regard of God our Obedience in regard of our selues The former will shew vs how to iudge of the dignity and excellent worth of Faith being so farre honoured in Gods gracious acceptance as to be made the blessed Instrument of our spirituall peace and comfort flowing from our Iustification The later will direct vs how to make triall of the truth of our faith in the discouery of that vnseparable Vnion which there is betweene beleeuing and obeying Let vs begin with the former our Iustification the doctrine whereof I shall endeauour to deliuer vnto you as briefely and plainely as so large and difficult a subiect will giue leaue Wherein because the opening of the word will giue vs some light for the vnderstanding of the matter wee are in the first place to see what is meant by these words Iustification and Iustice or Righteousnesse Iustice therefore or Righteousnesse that I meane which is created for of vncreated Righteousnesse wee haue not to speake is nothing but a perfect conformity and agreement with the Law of God For Gods will being originally essentially and infinitely righteous must needs be the patterne â—ule of all derivatiue finite righteousnesse Now this righteousnesse though but one in its substance neuer thelesse admits a double consideration being called either 1 Legall and of Workes which stands in that conformity vnto Gods law which is inherent within our selues when in our owne persons and workes we possesse and practise that righteousnesse which is required of the Law This Legall Iustice is also double 1 Of Obedience when all such things are done as the Law commandeth or left vndone which it forbids Hee that doth so is a iust man 2 Of Punishment or Satisfaction when the breach of the Law is satisfied by enduring the vtmost of such penalties as the rigour of the Law required For not onely hee who doth what the Law commandeth but euen he also that suffereth all such punishments as the Law-giuer in Iustice can inflict for the breach of the Law is to be accounted a lust man and reckoned after such satisfaction made as no transgressor of the Law The reason of this is plaine from the name of penall Lawes For first where the penalty is suffered there the will of the Law-giuer is satisfied for as much as his will was either that the Law should be obserued or the punishment vndergone If therefore he to whom the Law is giuen doe either he satisfies the will of the Law-giuer Had his will beene absolute so that nothing else could haue contented him but onely obedience then it had beene a vaine thing to haue prescribed a determinate penalty But when as a penalty is limited in case of disobedience 't is manifest that though the intent of the Law-giuer was in the first place for Obedience yet in the next place it should suffice if there were satisfaction by bearing of the penalty Secondly the good and benefit of the Law-giuer is hereby also satisfied For it is to be supposed in all penall lawes that the penalty limited is euery way proportionable and equivalent vnto that good which might accrew by the obseruation of the Law Else were the wisedome of the Law-maker iustly to be taxed as giuing an apparant encouragement to offenders when they should see the penalty not to be so much hurtfull to them as their disobedience were gainfull He therefore that suffers the penalty is afterward to be reckoned as if he had kept the Law because by his suffering he hath aduanced the Law-giuers honour or benefit as much as he could by his obeying 2 Euangelicall and of Faith which is such a conformity to Gods Law as is not inherent in our owne persons but being in another is imputed vnto vs and reckoned ours The righteousnesse of the Law and of the Gospell are not two seuerall kindes of righteousnesse but the same in regard of the matter and substance thereof onely they differ in the Subiect and Manner of application The righteousnesse of workes is that holinesse and obedience which is inherent in our owne persons and performed by our selues the righteousnesse of Faith is the same holinesse and obedience inherent in the person of Christ and performed by him but imbraced by our faith and accepted by God as done in our stead and for our benefit These are the diuers acceptions of this word Iustice or Righteousnesse so farre as it concernes the point in hand In the next we are to enquire of this word Iustification which being nothing but the making of a person iust or righteous may be taken in a double sense For a person is made iust either by Infusion or Apology Wee will take it in these tearmes for want of better Iustification by Infusion is then when the habituall quality of Righteousnesse and Holinesse is wrought in any person by any meanes whatsoeuer whether it bee created infused into him by the worke of another or obtained by his owne art and industry Thus Adam was made iust Eccle 7. 29. God hauing giuen vnto him in his creation the inherent qualities of Iustice and holinesse Thus also the regenerate are made Iust in as much as by the holy Ghost they are sanctified through the reall infusion of grace into their soules in the which they increase also more and more by the vse and exercise of all good meanes 2 Iustification by Apology is when a person accused as an offender is iudicially or otherwise acquitted and declared to be innocent of the fault and so free from the punishment When the innocency of a party accused is thus pleaded and declared he is thereby said to bee iustified or made iust according as on the contrary by Accusation and Condemnation a party is said to be made vniust As 't is plaine by that of Isaiah 5. 23. They iustifie the wicked for a reward and take away the righteousnesse of the righteous from him that is they condemne the righteous which is a making of them vnrighteous in the sight estimation of men So in 1 Ioh. 5. 10. He that beleeueth not God hath made him a lyer because vnbeleeuers do in their hearts call Gods truth into question and accuse him to be false of his word So againe Psal. 109. 7. When he is iudged let him be condemned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let him goe out a wicked person For so his condemnation makes him that is declares him to be But here further it must be obserued that this Iustification of a person by pleading to and absolution in Iudgement is of two sorts according as the Persons to be iustified are likewise of two seuerall conditions 1 Some are truely and inherently iust being no Transgressors of the Law either at all or not in that whereof they are accused In this case if any crime or
suspition of crime be layed to their charge they are iustified either by a plaiâ—e denyall of the fact alledging that the fault whereof they are accused was neuer by them committed or by denying the euill of the fact alledging that in so doing they haue done well because they haue done what the Law commanded and that 's their warrant Thus Samuel iustifies his gouernment against all surmise of fraudulent and wrongfull dealing that the people might imagine by him In 1 Sam. 12. 3. c. Thus Dauid cleares himselfe before God from that crime of conspiracy against Saul his Master and seeking of the Kingdome which Cush and other Courtiers accused him of professing his innocency and desiring God to iudge him according to his righteousnesse and integrity in that behalfe as it is Psal. 7. 3. 4. 8. There need not other instances in so plaine a matter Those that are iustified by this meanes are iustified by that Righteousnesse which is of the Law and of Workes By which plea though man may be iustified before man yet in the sight of God no flesh liuing shall be iustified As hereafter we shall see 2. Some are not truely righteous in themselues but are in their owne persons transgressors of the Law These when they are accused haue no other meanes whereby they may be iustified but by confessing the crime and pleading satisfaction that for their transgression against the Law and offence thereby against the Law-giuer they haue fully satisfied by doing or suffering some such thing as by way of iust penalty hath beene required of them Now hee that can plead such a full and perfect satisfaction ought therefore to be accounted innocent and free from all desert of further punishment for t is supposed he hath endured the vtmost of euill the Law could inflict and so he is to be esteemed of as if he had not at all violated the Law For plenary satisfaction for a fault and the non-Commission of such a fault are of equall Iustice and deserue alike Iustification In which point it must be noâ—ed that if the party offended doe pardon without any satisfaction taken there the offender is not iustified at all And againe if the offence be such as there can be no satisfaction made then it is vtterly impossible that the offender should euer be iustified Now this satisfaction which an offender may plead for his Iustification is threefold 1 That which is made by himselfe in his owne person He that can plead this kinde of satisfaction is iustified Legally by his owne righteousnesse and merits 2 That which is made by another for him When another by consent and approbation of the party offended interposeth himselfe as surety for the party delinquent in his stead and name to make that satisfaction which is required of the party himselfe Whether this be done by doing or suffering the same things which the delinquent should haue done or suffered or some other things but of equivalent worth and dignity He that pleades this kinde of satisfaction is iustified Euangelically by grace through the righteousnesse of another imputed to him and accepted for as his 3 That which is made partly by himselfe and partly by another Which kinde of satisfaction may haue place betweene Man and Man but betweene God and Man it hath none at all Neither by this nor by that first kinde of satisfaction which is done in our owne Persons can any man be iustified in the sight of God but onely by the second sort that satisfaction which is made by another for vs. As wee shall see afterwards CHAP II. In what sense the word Iustification ought to be taken in the present controversie and of the difference betweene vs and our Adversaries therein HAuing thus distinguished of these words it followeth that in the first place we enquire in which of the fore-named senses wee are to take this word Iustification The difference betweene vs and our adversaries of the Romish Church is in this point very great and irreconcileable They affirme that Iustification is to bee taken in the first acception for making of a Man Iust by infusion of Reall Holinesse into him So that with them to Iustifie beares the same sense as to purifie or sanctifie that is of a person vncleane vnholy vniust to make him formally or inherently Pure Holy and Iust by working in him the inherent Qualities of Purity Sanctity and Righteousnesse We on the coÌ„trary teach according to the Scriptures That Iustification is to be taken in the second acception for the pleading of a persons innocency called into Question wherby he is iudicially absolved and freed from fault and punishment So that with vs to justifie a person is in iudiciall proceeding to acquit him of the crime whereof hee is accused and to declare him free from desert of punishment Whether of vs twain be in the right is very materiall to be determined of considering that all ensuing disputation touching the Iustification of a Sinner is to bee framed vpon one of these grounds rightly taken and an error here is like a threed misplaced at first that runnes awry afterward through the whole piece Our Adversaries plead for their Assertion the Etymâ—logy of the word iustificare is iustum facere in that sense say they as Pâ—rificare Mortificare Viâ—ificare and many the like signifie to make pure to make dead or aliue by the reall induction of such and such Qualities Againe they alleadge Scriptures as namely Dan 12. 3. They that turne many to righteousnes Heb. that iustifie many shall shine as the Starres for euer Apoc. 22. 11. Hee that is righteous iustificetur Let him be righteous still Tit. 3. 7. He hath saued vs by the washing of Regeneration renewing of the holy Ghost That being iustified by his grace wee should bee made Heires according to the hope of eternall life Againe 1 Cor. 6. 11. And such were some of you but yee are washed but yee are sanctified but yee are iustified in the name of the Lord Iesus and by the Spirit of our God Out of these with some other places but such as haue scarce any shew of good proofe they would faine conclude that by Iustification nothing else is meant but the Infusion of the Habite of Iustice vnto him that was before sinfull and vniust Hereto wee answere 1. First for the Etymology that the signification of words is to bee ruled not by Etymologies but by the common vse Quem penes arbitrium est et vis norma loquendi as the Poet truly defines Now it s a thing notorious that in the custome of all Languages this word Iustificare imports nothing but the declaration of the Innocency of a person and lawfulnesse of any fact against such accusations as impleade either of vniustice and Wrong I will iustifie such a Man or such a Matter say wee in English and what English Man vnderstands thereby any thing but this I will make it appeare such a Man is honest
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
vncapable of Iustification by the Law for how should the Law declare him innocent that hath though but once transgressed against it Hee that hath stollen in his youth and euer after liued truly and iustly can neuer quit himselfe in Iudgement from the guilt and punishment of thee very by pleading he hath kept the Law in his latter Times Obedience that followes after iustifies not from the guilt that went before As we shall see more â—ereafter in the point of Mans satisfaction But let vs grant that the Law though once broken yet afterwards fullfilled would Iustifie a Man we here defend the Minor That Man hauing broken Gâ—ds Law can neuer after wards perfectly fullfill it and so by that meanes also he is excluded from Iustification by it This Proposition the Romanists will not yeeld to with out strong proofe Let vs explaine it and confirme it The Proposition may beset downe in these termes No Man whosoeuer can perfectly fullfill the Morall Law in this Life Man heare we consider in a two-fold estate of Nature of Grace Touching man in the estate of nature it is a greed on both sides that the keeping of the Law is vtterly and absolutely impossible vnto him But concerning Man regenerate and iustified they of Rome affirme he may keepe the Law wee of the Reformation granting that absolutely it is not impossible for we will not say but God might if he saw good bestowne such perfection of grace vpon a Regenerate Man that afterwards he should Liue without all 〈◊〉 and be translated to Heauen without death yet according to the order which God now holdeth in bringing Man to saluation we deny that there euer was or euer will be any Mortall Man that hath or shall perfectly fulfill the Righteousnesse of the Morall Law This shall appeare vnto you by parting the Righteousnesse of the Law into its branches whereby you may see what it is to fullfill the Law and how impossible it is so to doe The Righteousnesse required by the Morall Law is of two sorts 1 Habituall in the inherent holinesse of Mans whole person when such gratious Qualities are fixed and planted in euery faculty of soule and Body as doe dispose and incline the Motions of both onely vnto that which is conformable to the Righteousnesse of the Law That such Righteousnesse is required by the Law is a plaine Case and confessed That which commands the good or forbids the euill action doth command the vertuous and forbid the vitious Habit too He that lookes for purity in the streame cannot but dislike poyson in the Fountaine and God that commands vs to doe good bids vs also to be holy nor can wee doe the one vnlesse we doe the other And therefore the Apostle ioynes both together The end of the Commandement is loue but where out of a pure heart 1 Tim. 1. 5. 2 Actuall In the exercise of all good workes enioyned by the Law and forbearing the contrary euill workes Whether these good or euill workes be inward in that spirituall obedience which the Law required viz. in the right ordering of all the motions of our soules that euery one of our Thoughts Imaginations Purposes of our minde and all the secret workings and stirrings of our affections be altogether employed vpon Piety and Charity not so much as touching vpon any thing that is contrary to the loue of God or our neighbour Or whether these good and euill works be outward in the bodily obedience vnto the Law in doing all and euery externall dutie of Religion towards God of Iustice and Mercy towards man and in leauing vndone the contrary Further this actuall righteousnesse of the Law is to bee considered two wayes 1 As it respects all the Commandements and so that righteousnesse is onely perfect which fulfils all and euery particular precept of the Law 2 As it respects any one Commandement or any one dutie therein contained And so we may call that righteousnesse perfect which exactly performes any one point of the Law though it faile in others So you see what is to be done of him that will perfectly fulfill the Law let vs now see whether any man can doe so or no. We say no man can doe it and we make it good in the confirmation of these three Propositions 1 No man in this life hath perfection of grace and holinesse inherent 2 No man in this life can fully obserue all those good workes both inward and outward which the Law requires 3 No man in this life can performe any one particular good worke so exactly that in euery point it shall answer the rigor of the Law and Gods seuere iudgement For the first we proue it by this Argument Where sinfull corruption remaines in part there in herent holinesse is not perfect But in euery Man during this life there remaineth sinfull corruption Ergo In no man is there during this life perfect inherent holinesse The maior is without exception For he that is part bad and sinfull t is not possible he should be totally good and holy The minor is most euident by Scriptures and each Mans experience and reason it selfe Gal. 5. 17. The Apostle describes the Combat that is betweene the flesh and the spirit that is betweene corruption and grace in a man regenerate The flesh lusteth against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh and these two are contrary one to the other so that ye cannâ—t doe the same things that yee would Who can say that holinesse is perfect in that maÌ„ in whoÌ„ corruption of Nature not onely troubleth but hindreth grace in its holy operation Shall we say this contention lasts but for a while after a man is newly regenerate but in successe of time the Spirit gets an absolute victory corruption being not only ouer-mastered but also annihilated If we say so experience will accuse vs conscience will iudge vs to be Lyars Where is that man and who is he named that can say he findes no rebellion or distemper in his affections or desires no disorder in any motion of his soule but that all within him is sweetly tuned vnto obedience without iarre and discord arising from corruption Certainely that humble confession of a most holy Apostle may cause blushing in any such proud Iustitiary Had Paul the body of sinne in him and hast thou noâ—e He fights and wrestles against the Law in his members rebelling against the Law of his mind yet he is so checkt and mated by it that He can neither doe the good hee would nor auoid the euill he would not when he would doe well euill is still present with him And so tedious is this toyle vnto him that he complaines of it at the very heart and cries out bitterly for helpe in this conflict Whereupon though he haue helpe from God through Iesus Christ yet hath hee not full deliuerance from this inherent corruption but is faine to conclude in this pittifull manner So then I
ergo if God had giuen such a Law to the Iewes as could haue brought Saluation to them through the perfect fulfilling of it 't is apparant that God had made voide his former Couenant vnto Abraham because Righteousnes should haue bin by the Law and not by Christ. But now God gaue no such Law as could be kept by the Iewes as the Apostle proues because all were sinners against it and therefore it followes that notwithstanding the giuing of the Law the Promise standes good for euer and Righteousnes is to be odtained onely by the Faith of Iesus Christ. From hence we conclude firmely That the difference betweene the Law and the Gospell assigned by our Diuines is most certaine and agreable to the Scriptures viz. That The Law giues Life vnto the Iust vpon Conâ—ition of perfect Obedience in all things The Gospell giues Life vnto Sinners vpon Condition they repent and beleiue in Christ Iesus Whence it is plaine That in the point of Iustification these two are incompatible and that therefore our minor Proposition standes verified That Iustification by the workes of the Law makes voide the Couenant of Grace Which Proposition is the same with the Apostles assertion else-where Gal. 2. 21. If Righteousne be by the Law Christ died in vaine and Gal. 5. 4. Ye are abolished from Christ whosoeuer are iustified by the Law yee are fallen from Grace By somuch more iuiurious are these of the Romish Church vnto the Gospell of Christ when by denying this difference they would confound the Law and Gospell and bring vs backe from Christ to Moses to seeke for our Iustification in the fulfilling of the Morall Law They would persuade vs that the Gospell is nothing but a more perfect Law or the Law perfected by addition of the Spirit enabling men to fulfill it That the promises of the Gospell be vpon this Condition of fulfilling the Law with such like stuffe Their Doctrine touching this point is declared vnto vs by Bellarmine Lib 4. de Iustificat cap. 3. 4. Where he comes many distinctions betweene the Law and Gospell but will by no meanes admit of that which our Reformed Diuines make to be the chiefe The cheife distinction which he conceaues to be betweene them he frameth thus The Gospell saieth he is taken in a double sense 1. For the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles by them preached and written 2. For the Grace of the Holy Ghost giuen iu the New Testament which he makes to be the Law written in our Hearts the quickening Spirit the Law of Faith Charity shed abroad in our Hearts in opposition to the Law written in stone to the dead and killing Letter the Law of Workes the Spirit of bondage and feare Vpon this he proceeds to the difference betweene the Law and the Gospell Thus. The Law teacheth vs what is to be done the Gospell if it be taken for the Grace of the holy Ghost so it differs from the Law because it gaines strength to doe it but if it be taken for the Doctrine deliuered by Christ and his Apostles so it agrees with the Law teaching vs as the Law doth what things are to be done This Argument the Iesuite illustrates and proues in three particulars 1. The Gospell containes Doctrinam operum or Leges For Morall praecepts they be the same in the Gospell that be in the Law euen those praecepts that seeme most Euangelicall viz of louing our Enemies witnes of this all the writings of the New Testament wherein euery where we find praecepts exhortations to the same virtues Prohibitions and dehortations from the same vices which the Law forbids or commands So that for Morals the Doctrine of the Gospell is but the Doctrine of the Law newly that is most cleerely and fully expounded Nor is the Gospell in a more perfect substance but in Circumstance a more perspicuous Doctrine Which though a Trueth yet is very ridiculouslie proued by the Cardinall out of Mat. 5. Nisi abundauerit c. Vnlesse your Righteousnes exceed What He saieth not the righteousnes of the Law and Prophets but of the Scribes and Pharisees yee shall not enter c. A profound Glosse Christ would not add to the Burden of the Law but take away from the false glosse of the Scribes and Pharisees Surely good cause had our Sauiour to taxe both the Doctrine of the Pharisees in interpreting and their manners in their hypocriticall practice of the Law in outward matters without inward Obedience But litle Reason was there that Christ should require of man more perfection then Gods Law required and 't is a fancie to dreame of any such meaning in our Sauiours speach 2 The Gospell containes Comminations and threatnings as the Law doth Witnes the many woes from Christ's owne mouth against the Scribes and Pharisees together with those frequent denunciations of Iudgement and Damnation to such as are vngodly that doe not repent and obey the Gospell 3 Thirdly the Gospell containes promises of Life and happines but these Euangelicall promises be not absolute but vpon the same Condition that the Legall are viz Cum conditione implendae Legis Cum conditione Iustitiae actualis operosae quae in perfecta Mandatorum obseruatione consistit Cap. 2. This the Iesuite would proue vnto vs. 1. From that Math. 5. Vnlesse your Righteousnes aboud c. that is in Bellarmines Construction so far as vnto the perfect keeping of the Law you shall not enter into the Kingdome of Heauen 2. From Mat. 19. 17. Mat. 10. 19. Where Christ speakes to the yong man Asking him what he should doe to be saued If thou wilt enter into Life keepe the Commandements And to the Lawyer 10. 28. who asked the like Question he answeres This doe and thou shalt liue That is Fulfill the Law and thou shalt be saued In which wordes they say That Christ did preach the Gospell and shewed vnto these men the very Evangelical way to Saluation 3. From the many places of Scripture Wherein Mortificatiâ—n of Sinne and the studious practice of Holines and Obedience is required of vs. As. Rom. 8. If yee mortifie the deed 's of the flesh by the Spirit yee shall liue So. Ezekiel 18. 21. If the wicked will returne from all his Sinnes that he hath committed and keepe all my statutes and doe that which is lawfull and Right he shall surely liue and not die With a Number such like places 4. From the very Tenor of the Gospell He that belieueth shall be saued but he that belieueth not shall be damned Where we see the Promise of Life is not absolute but conditionall If we doe such and such workes From hence the Romanist concludes That seeing the precepts threatnings and promises of the Gospell be for matter the same that those of the Law are the true difference betweene the Law and Gospell shall be this That the Law nakedly proposeth what is to be done without giuing grace to performe it but the
Gospell not only proposeth what is to be done but withall giueth Grace and strength to doe it and therefore the Law giuen by Moses the Law-giuer cannot iustifie because it was giuen without the grace of fulfilling it but the Gospell giuen by Christ the Redeemer doth justifie because it is accompanied with the grace of the holy Ghost making vs able to keepe the Law For which cause also the Law of Moses is a yoake vnsupportable the Law of feare and bondage because it giues not grace to keepe it but onely conuinceth our Sinne and threatens vs punishment but the Law of Christ the Gospell is a light yoake a Law of loue and liberty because it giues grace to keepe it and of loue to God and man and so by fulfilling frees a man from feared punishment This is the summe of the Romish Doctrine touching the difference betwixt the morall Law and the Gospell in the point of Iustification as it is deliuered vs by Bellarmine the rotten pillar of the antichristian Synagogue Wherein we haue scarce a syllable of distinct Trueth but all peruerted by aequiuocations and grosse Ambiguities as shall appeare by a short surucy of the former discourse Whereas then he distinguisheth the Gospell into the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and into the Grace of the Holy Ghost let vs follow him in these two parts First for Doctrine We grant that the Gospell is often so taken but in this matter about Iustification this acception on is too large and not distinct enough For although by a Synecdâ—che of the chiefest most excellent part the whole Doctrine and Ministry of Christ and his Apostles with their successors be called the doctrine of the Gospell and the Ministery of the Gospell yet all things which they preached or wrote is not the Gospell properly so called But as Moses chiefly deliuered the Law vnto the Iewes though yet with all he wrote of Christ and so in part reuealed vnto them the Gospell so Christ and his Ministers though chiefely they preach the Gospell yet in its place they vrge the law withall as that which hath its singular vse in furthering our Christian faith and practise Wherefore when we speak of the Gospell as opposite to the Law t is a Iesuiticall equiuocation to take it in this large sense For the whole doctrine of Christ and his Apostles preached by them and written for vs in the Booke of the New Testament we follow the Apostle in his dispute of Iustification Gal. 3. 4. 5. And according as he doth take the Gospell strictly for the promise of Iustification and life made vnto man in Christ Iesus This is in proper tearmes the Gospell viz. that speciall Doctrine touching mans Redemption and reconciliation with God by the meanes of Iesus Christ the Reuelation whereof was indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the gladdest tidings that were euer brought to the eare of mortall man Which Gospell in strict teaÌ„rmes the Angels preached Lue. 2. 10. 11. Behold I bring you glad tidings of great ioy which shall be to all people That vnto you is borne this day in the Citie of Dauid a Sauiour which is Christ the Lord. And afterward Christ and his Apostles fully explained the mysteries thereof vnto the world According to this necessary distinction we answer That if we take the Gospell in that large Acception t is true which Bellarmine hath That the Gospell containes in it the Doctrine of workes viz. the Morall Law euen the very same precepts prohibitions threatnings promises which are deliuered in the Law All which as Christ and his Hpostles preached so may all Ministers without blame yea they must if they will auoid blame presse the same vpon their hearers seasonably and discreetly that the Law may make way for the better receiuing and entertainment of Grace in the Gospell But hence it followes not that the Gospell properly so taken is to be confounded as one and the same thing with the Law because the Law is conjoyned with it in the preachings and writings of the Ministers of the New Testament They still are deuided in their Nature and Offices nor hath the Gospell any affinity with the Law in praecepts threatnings or promises Wherefore when Bellarmine teacheth vs. That Euangelicall promises be made with condition of perfect fulfilling the Law T is a desperate errour and that in the very foundation You heard his proofes before recited see now a little how passing weake they be 1 Mat. 5. Except your righteousnesse c. To this wee answere The plaine meaning of the place is this Our righteousnesse must abound more then that of the Pharises that is It must not be outside onely as theirs was but inward Righteousnesse of the heart in inward sanctity of the thoughts and affections as well as of the outward Action or else such our hypocrisie will keepe vs from entring into Heauen But doth it hence follow that because we must be more perfect then these Pharisees we must be as perfect in all things as the Law requires we must exceed them ergo equall the holinesse of the Law in all points Because wee must be syncere without hypocrisie ergo we must be perfect in all things without blame Such consequents as these the Iesuit hath coÌ„cluded out of his own head not out of the text Touching that speech of Christ to the yong man Mat. 19. and the Lawyer Matt. 10. That if they did fulfill the Law they should liue We answere that Christ in so speaking vnto them did not preach the Gospell but shewed vnto them the Legall way to Saluation For these erring that grand error of the Iew in seeking for righteousnesse not by faith but by the works of the Law seuering the Law from Christ the end thereof as the Apostle shewes Rom. 9. 31. 32. 10. 3. and so supposing to be saued by doing some good thing Christ answeres them in their humour as euery one should be answered that swels with high conceits of his own righteousnesse workes That there was a Law to be kept and if they could fully obserue the righteousnes of it they should be saued sending them of purpose to the Law that they might be humbled thereby and see their great folly in seekeing for life by that which they were so vnable to keepe Against which answere the Iesuit hath nothing to rely but stands much in confuting of another answere made by some of our Diuines That Christ spake these things Ironically This Bellar. seeks to confute nor do I labor to confirm it though it might be justified for any thing he brings to the contrary 3 Vnto those those places of Scripture that euery where almost promise life blessednesse the fauour of God vpon condition of holinesse in life and conversation that we mortifie the lusts of the flesh walke in the Spirit ouercome the world c. We answere that Obedience is one thing perfect obedience is another We say that the promises of
them without breach of Conscience in disobeying and violâ—ting also Gods Commandement But otherwise for any immediate power over the conscience to restraine the inward liberty thereof no man without praesumption may arrogate its nor any without slauish basenes yeeld to another as the Apostle commands ye are bought with a price be not yee seruants of men This is in breife the Doctrine of Christian or spirituall lâ—berty which we call Christian 1. from the cause of it Christ by whose purchase we enioye it 2. From the subject of it Christians in opposition to the Iewes who had not this liberty in all parts of it as we haue Namely in freedome from the Ceremoniall Law and restraint in things indifferent In all other parts they in their measure were freed by Christ as well as we Againe we call it spirituall in opposition to ciuill and bodily Liberty because it stands in the freedome of Soâ—le and Conscience not in the freedome of the outward man the bondage and subjection whereof is no impeachment to this spirituall freedome As Anabaptisticall Libertines would perswade the world contrary to the Apostles decision 1. Cor. 7. 22. He that is called in the Lord being a seruant is the Lords Free-man CHAP. II. Iustification by workes subjects vs to the rigour and curse of the Law WE are now in the next place to see which braunch of our liberty is cut off by the doctrine of Iustification by workes Not to meddle with others whereat it giues a backblow but to take that which it directly strikes at we say it destroies our Liberty from the moral Law which stands heerein that we are not obliged vnto the perfect fulfilling of that Law vpon paine of aeternall Daemnation if we doe it not This gratious liberty Christ hath enfranchised vs withall whosoeuer beleiue in him and they that now teach we are justified by workes of the Law doe rob our Consciences of this heauenly Freedome bringing vs again vnder that miserable boÌ„dage vnto the Law wherein all men are holden which are in state of infidelity vnregeneration from whom the Law in extremest rigour exacts perfect ObedieÌ„ce if they will be sauâ—d For the cleering heereof this in the first place is manifest That he which will be justified by the workes of the Law is necessarily tied to fulfill the whole Law seeing ti 's impossible the Law should justifie them that transgresse it In the next place then we must proue that for a mans Conscience to be thus tyed to the fulfilling of the Law for the obtayning of Iustification is an vnsupportable yoake of spirituall Bondage contrary to that liberty wherewith Christ hath made euery beleeuer free This shall appeare in confirming of this Proportion A Man regenerate endued with true faith in Christ Iesus is not bound in Conscience vnto the fulfilling of the whole Law for his Iustification This Proposition seemes very strange vnto our adversaries and to be nothing else but a ground-plot wherein to build all licenciousnes and Libertinisme as if we did discharge men of all Alleageance to God subjection to his Lawes But their Calumnies are not sufficient confutations of orthodox Doctrine for the stopping of their mouthes we throw them this distinction whereon they may gnaw while they breake their teeth before they bite it in pieces Mans conscience stands bound vnto the Law of God in a two fold obligation Either 1. Of Obedience that according to the measure of Grace receiued he endevour to the vtmost of his power to liue conformably to the Law of God in all things 2. Of fulfilling the Law that in euery jot and tittle he obserue all things whatsoeuer it commands vpon paine of everlasting condemnation for the least transgression We teach that no true Beleeuer is freed from the Obligation vnto Obedience but so farre as by grace giuen him he is enabled he ought to striue to the vtmost to performe all duties towards God man commanded in the Law if he will justifie his faith to be sound without Hypocrisy And ergò our Doctrine is no doctrine of Licentiousnes But on the other side we teach That euery true beleeuer is freed from that obligation vnto the fulfilling of the Law for the attaining of life justification by it Which materiall difference for the cleering of our doctrine not obserued or rather suppressed by Bellarmine causeth the Iesuite to labour much in a needlesse dispute to proue against vs That a Christian man is tyed to the obseruation of the morall Law He tells vs that Christ is a Law-giuer aswell as a Redeemer of his Church praescribing orders for all in common for each one in particular That he is a Iudge that sentenceth according to Law That he is a King that ruleth ouer subjects vnto a Law That Christ by his comming did not destroy but fulfill the Law expounded it enioyned it to be observed by vs. That his Apostles vrge it in euery Epistle That a Christian man sinniug offends against the Law ergò is bound to keepe the Law In all which the Iesuite encounters his owne phantasy not our doctrine which is not wounded by such misguided weapons For we grant without striuing that every Christian is tyed to obserue the Morall Law and we averre that it is a most vnchristian Iesuiticall slaunder to affirme as he doth that we teach Christianum nulli Legi obnoxium subjectum esse in Conscientia coram Deo Nay we teach that he is bound to obey to the vtmost of his power and from this obligation no authority of Man or Angell Pope or Deuill can discharge him So much we grant the Arguments alleaged by the Cardinall doe enforce and nothing else They proue Obedience necessary to a beleeuing Christian but they can neuer proue perfect fulfilling of the Law to be necessarily required of him From this heauy burthen Christ hath eased the shoulders of all such as are in him by a liuely Faith of whom God doth no longer exact perfect Obedience to his Law in those strict and rigorous termes that they shall be accursed if they fulfill it not This we proue by these Scriptures 1. Gal 1. 2. 3. Stand fast saith the Apostle in the Liberty wherein Christ hath made vs free and be not entangled againe with the yoake of bondage But what is this Yoake of Bondage Is it onely the obseruation of the Ceremoniall Law No. That was indeed part of the yoake which the Apostles sought to lay on the Consciences of the Galatians But 't was the least and the lightest part the weightiest burthen was the fulfilling of the Morall Law wherevnto by the doctrine of the false Apostles the Galatians stood obliged This is plaine by the Text in the words following Behold I Paul say vnto you that if you be circuÌ„cised Christ shall profit you nothing For I testifie againe to euery man which is circumcised that he is bound to keepe the whole Law The Apostles
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
it by Terrors and Threatnings and therefore The law rules not ouer the iust as seruants who obey for feare but sonnes who obey for Loue. We expound it otherwise The Law hath not coactiue power ouer the just because the just that is true beleeuers in Christ Iesus are freed from the necessity of perfectly fulfilling it for the obtaining of saluation But the Law hath a coactiue power ouer the vnjust vnbeleeuers because they are obliged vnto the perfect fulfilling thereof or else to be certainly accursed And ergo we say the Law command's ouer the just as ouer Sonnes requiring of them a faithfull and willing endeavour but it commands ouer the vnjust as ouer Seruants of whom it exacts the vttermost farthing and vpon the legall default threatens eternall malediction The difference then betwixt them vs is this They make the coaction of the Law to consist in the manner or quality of mans obedience to it The Law compels when men obey vnwillingly We make the coaction of the Law to consist in the quality of the command condition wherevpon Obedience is required The Law then compels when it exacts full obedience vpon poenalty praecisely threatned to the disobedient Wherein the trueth is manifestly on our side For 't is plaine that compulsion in a Law must be taken in opposition to direction not persuation for Lawes persuade not but command For if we speake properly a Law cannot be sai'd to compell those to whom 't is giuen as if by any real and physicall operation it did enforce them to obedience It proposeth what is to be done it setteth before a man the punishment for disobedience but it workes not on the will of man to force it one way or other Wherefore if we know what direction in a Law is we shall soone know what Compultion is Direction as all agree is the bare praescription of what is to be done or left vndone Compulsion that is the exaction of obedience vpon paenalty to be inflicted What other coactiue force there is in a Law no man can imagine Well then to apply this The just are sub directione Legis but not sub coactione This must of necessity be vnderstood thus the just are not vnder the coactiue power of God's Law â—â—cause it doth not exact of them full obedience vpon paenalty of aeternall death to be otherwise inflicted on them As it doth exact of the vnjust For otherwise there will be no difference betweene the just and the vnjust in regard of this coactiue power of the Law if both the one and the other be obliged to yeeld alike perfect obedience vpon the like paenalty In this case the Law will be as coactine to one as the other exacting aequall obedience vpon aequall termes both of the just and vnjust viz obey fully in all things or you shall be cursed The Sonne and Seruant shall be all one and the Law shall still command over the children with as much terrour as ouer the Bondslaue There is no difference in the world in our adversaries doctrine both sorts are bound to obey perfectly or else certainly they shall not be saued So that the Law of itselfe shall be as rigorous towards one as the other But we know the Scriptures offer vnto vs more mercy and that Christ hath discharged vs from this rigour of the Law vnder which euery one that is out of him in the state of vnbeleefe is holden in bondage As to the difference they make the iust obey willingly the vnjust vnwillingly ergo the Law compels these and not those this is nothing to the purpose For it alters not the nature of the Law that it is obeyed with diuers affections The Law is the same for its command authority howsoeuer it be obeyed willingly or vnwillingly that matters not The Law ceaseth not to be coactiue because ti 's willingly obeyed euen as a slaue ceaseth not to be vnder the coaction compelling power of his Master though he loue his master and out of a willing mind be content to abide in thraldome And as Adam though he obeyed the Law willingly yet was vnder the coactiue power of it because he was tyed to obey it or else he should certainly die the death for his transgression of it Wherefore I conclude that the just are not freed from the Laws direction nor from the Lawes compulsion as it compels or enioynes them absolute obedience in all things and for default thereof threatens the vnauoydeable malediction of Gods aeternall wrath 3 Lastly for proofe of this point we haue those places formerly alleaged Rom. 6. 14. We are not vnder the Law but vnder Grace Gal. 5. 18. If we be led by the spirit we are not vnder the Law 2 Cor. 3. 17. Now the Lord is the Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is Liberty Gal. 3. 13. Christ hath redeemed vs from the Curse of the Law being made acurse for vs. All which with other the like doe establish this orthodoxe Doctrine That beleeuers haue ohtained freedome by Christ from the rigour of the Morall Law and are not any longer bound in conscience to the perfect fulfilling thereof vpon this assured perill that if they keepe it not they shall not be saued We might stand longer vpon each Testimony but let that which we haue said suffice for the vindicating of our conscience from that Torture and Bondage wherewith these â—â—opish Doctors would ensnare vs. The knowledge of which our Liberty is not to giue vs occasion of security or licentiousnesse as these Men calumniate but to restore peace spirituall rest vnto our soules knowing that we are now deliuered from the necessity of obeying or of perishing which before we were in Christ lay more heauy vpon our soules then a mountaine of Lead That so being freed from this thraldome we might serue him who hath freed vs thankfully and chearefully obeying him in all duty by whom wee haue obtained this glorious priuiledge that whereas perfect obedience was sometimes strictly exacted of vs now our sincere though imperfect indeauours shal be mercifully accepted at our hands SECT 6. CHAP. I. The reconciliation of that seeming opposition betweene S. Paul and S. Iames in this point of Iustification THus much of this Argument and of the first Branch of mans Righteousnes whereby if it were possible he should be justified viz. His Obedience to the Law of God By which meanes we haue shewed no flesh shall be justified in Gods sight We are to proceed vnto the text branch heereof viz. Mans satisfaction for his transgression of the Law Wherein we haue also to proue that a Sinner cannot be acquitted before god's judgment seat by pleading any satisfaction that himselfe can make for his offences But in our passing vnto that point we are to giue you warning of that stumbling stone which St. Iames as it may seeme hath layed in our way lest any should dash his Faith vpon it and
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.
that such a good worke be done so and so what then we dispute now touching particulars in euery Mans reall practice The enquiry is not for the generall What euill is there in such and such a good worke done thus and thus according as the Circumstances are framed in an Imagined Case As to aske what Sinne is their in an Almes-deede done out of Faith and Charity to Gods glory This is a fond question thus framed vpon generall termes we say their is no Sinne in it But the enquiry is in particular what Euill their is in such a worke done by this or that Man according to all Circumstances that were at that time incident to the worke as What sinne was there in Zacheus or Cornelius almes-deeds This question we admit and answere to it That some Sinne there was for which those holy Men as wel as others would not haue beene willing that God should enter into iudgement with them strictly to iudge them Yea but will the Iesuits reply name what Sinne this was or else you wrong them Now this is meere impudency For who is judge of their actions Are we or is it God and their owne Consciences we can be no judges who at furthest can judge but accordrng to outward appearance We know not their Hearts nor are we priuy vnto euery particular Circumstance that did accompany those actions of theirs Circumstances in euery particular action differ infinitely one Man may offend in this point another in that nor haue we a generall Rule whereby to judge alike of all And therefore it is a childish quaere to aske on Man whether another Man offendes who may doe euill a 1000 times not only secret from others but vnwitting to himselfe If then the Iesuite will haue an answere to his question he must resort to particular mens Consciences and to God for only the spirit of Man and the spirit of God know the things of Man Let him aske a Cornelius when he giues almes whether he doe thinke this worke so well done that no fault can bee found with it Doubtlesse he will answere that he cannot excuse himselfe from all faultinesse though he knew nothing by himselfe yet he dares not stand to Gods judgment His confession and prayer would in this case be the same with Nehemiahs Nehem. 13. 22. Remember me O my God concerning this also and spare mee according to the greatnesse of thy mercy at once begging fauorable acceptance of his obedience and gratious pardon of his infirmities If this suffice not in the next place the Iesuite is to repaire to God almighty and question him where the Sinnes in such and such a good workes who no doubt can shape him an answere that will sore confound his pride and folly and make it quickly appeare vnto him that sinnefull Man when he pleades with God is not able to answere him one obiection of a 100 that God shall make against him This of the third Argument That Man hath sufficient meanes to doe well and not Sinne. The last followes drawne from such absurdities as they say doe follow vpon our Doctrine Thus. 4 If say they our Doctrine be true that the best workes of Men be Sinfull then these absurdities be likewise true doctrine That to be iustified by faith is to be iustified by Sin That no man ought to beleeue because the worke Beleeuing is Sinne. That all good works are forbidden because all Sinne is forbidden That God should command vs to commit Sinne because he commands vs to doe good workes That God bidding vs be zelous of goâ—d workes should in effect bid vs be zealous of mortall Sinne. That to pray for the pardon of Sinne were a damnable Sinne. These and such other absurd Positions would be true if the protestants doctrine concerning the sinfulnesse of good workes may stand for good Hereunto we answere That these absurdities issue not out of our Doctrine but out of our Aduersaries malitious Imaginations Who like the ragine Sea casting vp mire and Dirt from its owne Bottome would faine throw all this filth in the face of the Reformed Churches to make them odious and hatefull to the world The best is Truth cannot bee disgraced though it may be belyed These foule Absurdities touch vs not but follow vpon that Doctrine which is none of ours Namely That the good works of the Regenerate are in their very Nature altogether sins and nothing else but sordes inquinamenta merae iniquitates Such an absurd assertion would indeed yeeld such an absurd consequence But we defended it not they abuse vs grosly wheÌ„ in their writings they report of vs the contrary that we doe mainetaine This onely we teach That mens good workes are in part sinfull Much good they haue in them but with all some euill mingled therewith Amongst the gold some drosse also will be sound that will not be able to abide the fire of Gods seuere Tryall Imperfections will appeare in our best workes so long as humane infirmity and mortality hangs vpon vs. This we teach and from this Doctrine all that haue reason may see that no such vnreasonable conclusions can be collected And let thus much suffice for the clearing of this third Proposition touching the imperfection of our obedience to the Morrall Law of God euen in the good workes which we performe From whence euery godly heart should leâ—rne both Christian Humilitie and also Industry First Humility not to boast in the flesh and glory in its owne Righteousnesse thinking that God must highly account off and reward largely that which is very little worth Secondly Industry in a faithfull indeauour after perfection That what cannot be done well as it ought wee may yet euery day be done better then before it was CHAP. IIII. Three generall exceptions against the truthes deliuered in this third Section THus we haue stood long in the confirmation of our second Argument touching the impossibility of Mans fulfilling of the Law in this Life and so consequently of iustification by the Law Against all that haue bin sayed for the profit of this point our Aduersaries haue three Common and generall Exceptions Which are these 1 That Concupiscence or Naturall Corruption in the first and second act of it is no sinne 2 That imperfection in our Charity and Obedience is no sinne 3 That smaller faults or as they tell them Veniaâ—â— sinnes doe not hinder the Iustice and goodnesse of any good worke To these three Positions they haue continually recourse For whereas they cannot deny but that their is in the Regenerate both a pronesse of Nature vnto Euill and also many inordinate Sinnefuâ—l motions arising thence they first deny that either these Naturall Corruptions or disordered Motions of the Heart be any sinnes Againe they confesse that no man hath such perfect loue of God and Man but that he may increase in charity nor be his good workes so perfectly good but that they ought still to striue to doe them