credere Terrae Georg. 1. And if we list not to be contentious 't is plaine enough that in those places where the Apostle treats of Iustification by faith viz the grace of God in Christ opposing workes and faith that is the Law and the Gospell the Righteousnesse of the Law to the righteousnesse of the Gospell which is no other but the Righteousnesse of Christ. Thus faith is taken Gal. 3. 23. Where he expresly treats of Iustification But before Faith came we were kept vnder the Law shut vp vnto the Faith which should afterward be reuealed That is Before Christ came and the cleare exhibition of the Gospell and the Righteousnesse thereof the Church was kept vnder the Ceremoniall Law as vnder a Schoole-master directing her vnto Christ that so Wee might be iustified by Faith that is not by the Lesson of the Law but by Christ typified and figured vnto vs therein 2 Vnto the other Argument prooving the merit of faith we reply That in those places is no ground at all for such a conceit Thy Faith hath saued thee saith Christ to some whō he cured both in Body Soule But what was it by the efficacy and for the word of their faith that this was done No As 't was vertue went out of Christ that cured their bodily diseases and his compassion that mooued him to it so 't was his grace and merits and free loue that healed their soules and brought them pardon of their sinnes in the sight of GOD Yet he saith Their faith saued them because by beleeuing in the Sonne of God they receiued this fauour though for their beleeuing they did not deserue it God bestowes mercy where he findes faith not because faith merits such fauour at his hands but because he is pleased to disperse his fauours in such an order as himselfe hath appointed and vpon such conditions as hee thinkes good To that of the Canaanitish woman Her great faith could not claime by desert that fauour which Christ shewed vnto her daughter onely Christ was pleased to honour her faith by his testimony of it and to helpe the daughter at the Mothers entreaty Christ did it vpon that request of hers so instant and full of faith But yet who can say she merited ought at CHRISTS hands by that her faithfull and instant petition Her selfe yet liuing would deny it and shee doth deny it there counting her selfe a dogge vnworthy of the childrens bread when yet shee beleeued strongly and was a child of Abraham according to the faith To that of Abraham who gaue glory to God and of Henoch and others who pleased God by their faith Wee answere That it is one thing for a man to glorifie and please God by his Obedience 'T is another by so doing to deserue ought at his hands If God in much grace and fauour accept of the honour and contentment wee are able to doe him by our Faith and Obedience It followes not that therefore we must in iustice merit at his hands Other Arguments for them there are but so weakely knit they fall in sunder of themselues Against them we haue to obiect the Scriptures that so often say We are iustified gratiâ and gratis and the Councell of Trent which they respect more then the Scriptures which hath defined thus Nihil eorum quae Iustificationem praecedunt siue fides siue opera ipsam Iustificationis gratiam promeretur Sess. 6. Cap. 8. How then can they say Faith merits Iustification Heere our Aduersaries haue two shifts to runne vnto whereby they would avoide the absurdity of this Assertion 1 That this merit is not from vs but of God Because Faith is the gift of Gods grace and therefore though we be iustified by merit yet we are iustified by grace because merit is of grace 'T is of grace that our faith merits This you may be sure is some of that smoake of the bottomelesse pit wherein hell vented out the Iesuites and they their darke Imaginations all to confound whatsoeuer is cleare and lightsome in Scripture Scripture opposeth these paires Grace and Nature Grace and Merit As the Pelagians of old confounded Nature Grace teaching that we were saued by Grace yet affirming that we are also saued by Nature and the naturall strength of free-will Which they salued thus To be saued by Nature is to be saued by Grace for Nature is of Gods grace and giuing So these confound Grace and Merit making a thing Meritorious because it s of Grace Faith merits because its Gods gracious gift Nothing more contradictory If it be his gift how doth it merit or of whom Of man it may of God it cannot vnlesse we will senslesly affirme that the gift deserues something of the giuer That he that giues an hundred pound freely is thereby bound to giue an hundred more Had they sayed that faith is good because of Gods giuing that were true and we may grant them that God is honoured and pleased with his owne gifts but that euery good thing merits and that we can deserue of God by his owne gifts is affirmed without all Reason or Scriptures and will neuer be proued by either But there is yet another shift 2 Faith merits Iustification Non de condigno of the worthinesse of it but de Congruo of the fitnesse that is God in Iustice is not bound to bestow Iustification where there is faith but yet in fitnesse he ought to doe it So that if he doe not iustifie him that beleeues he is likely to omit a thing very fit and agreeable This distinction is a meere Imposture and collusion Bellarmine in dealing with it seemes to haue a dog by the eares he is loath to loose him yet knowes not well how to hold him If he be vrged where Scriptures make any the least Intimation of such a distinction hee referres you to Divines that is Popish Schoole-men who out of their owne imagination haue forged it and in time made it Authenticall But he stickes in the mire when he is to shew what merit of Condignity and merit of Congruity is Merits of Condignity are workes to which wages is due of Iustice. What then are merits of Congruity Such workes whereto wages is not due by any Iustice. As for example He that labours the whole day in the Vineyard merits a penny of Condignity because in Iustice his labour is worth his hire But he that for an houres worke receiues a penny he deserues it of Congruity because though his labour be not worth it yet he was promised a penny by him that set him on worke Then which fond imagination nothing can be more ridiculous and contrary to common sense For the merit of any worke is the proportionablenesse of 't is worth with the Reward Now in reason wherein ariseth this proportion of any work with that reward Stands it in the dignity of the worke it selfe or in the compact made betweene him that worketh and him that rewardeth It is
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere dico imputari in iustitiam idque sensu proprio non metonymice The same is the opinion of his fellowes the Remonstrants of Vorstius of Peter Bertius of Episcopius and the rest With whom Bellarmine agrees pat Liber â— de Iust. cap. 17. When vpon that Rom 4. His faith is imputed for righteousnesse he saith thus Vbiipsa fides censetur esse Iustitia ac per hoc non apprehendit fides iustitiam Christi sed ipsa fides in Christum est iustitia In summe their opinion runnes thus God in the Legall Couenant required the exact obedience of his Commandement but now in the Couenant of grace he requires faith which in his gracious estimation stands in stead of that obedience to the Morall Law which wee ought to performe Which comes to passe by the Merit of Christ for whose sake God accounts our imperfect saith to be perfect obedience This Assertion we reiect as erronious and in place thereof we defend this Proposition God doth not iustifie a man by Faith properly impuring vnto him faith in Christ for his perfect obedience to the Law and therefore accounting him iust and innocent in his sight Which we proue by these Reasons 1 We are not Iustified by any worke of our owne But beleeving is an Act of our owne Therefore by the Act of beleeving we are not Iustified The Maior is most manifest by the Scriptures which teach that we are saued by grace Ephes. 2. 5. and therefore not by the workes of Righteousnesse which we had wrought Tit. 3. 6. For if it be of Works then were grace no more grace Ro. 11. 6. The Minor is likewise evident That Faith is a worke of ours For though Iohn 6. 29. it bee said This is the worke of God that ye beleeue in him whom hee hath sent yet will not our adversaries conclude thence that Faith is Gods worke within vs and not our worke by his helpe For so should they runne into that absurdity which they would fasten vpon vs. viz. That when a Man beleeues t is not man beleeues but God beleeues in him To beleeue though it be done by Gods aide yet 't is we that doe it and the Act is properly ours And being so we conclude that by it we are not iustified in Gods sight Here two Exceptions may be made 1 First that we are not iustified by any worke of our owne viz which we our selues doe by our owne strength without the help of grace But yet we may be iustified by some worke which we doe viz by the aide of Grace and such a worke is Faith Wee answere This Distinction of workes done without Grace and workes done by Grace was devised by one that had neither Wit nor Grace being a Tâ—icke to elude the force of such Scriptures as exclude indefinitely all workes from our Iustification without distinguishing either of Time when they are done before or after or of the ayde helpe whereby they are done whether by Nature or by Grace Wherefore it is without all ground in Scripture thus to interpret these Propositions A man is not iustified by workes that is by workes done by worth of Nature before and without Grace A Man is iustified by Grace that is by workes done by aide of Grace These Interpretations are meere forged inventions of froward Minds affirmed but not proved as we shall more hereafter declare 2 That we are not Iustified by any workes of our own that is by any works of the Law but by a worke of the Gospell such as faith is we may be iustified Male res agitur vbi opus est tot Remedijs saith Erasmus in another case T is a certaine signe of an vntrue opinion when it must be bolstered vp with so many distinctions Nor yet hath this distinction any ground in Scripture or in Reason for both tell vs that the workes commamded in the Law and workes commanded in the Gospell are one and the same for the substance of theÌ„ What worke can be named that is enioyned vs in the New Testament which is not also coÌ„manded vs in that summary precept of the Morall Law Thou shalt loue the Lâ—rd thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soule and with all they strength and with all thy mind and thy neighbour as thy selfe Luc. 5. 27. Deut. 6. 5 What sinne is there against the Gospell that is not a transgression of the Law If the Gospel coÌ„mand Charity is it any other then that which the Law commands If the Gospell coÌ„mand Faith doth not the Law enioine the same you will say No. It doth not command Faith in Christ. I answere yea it doth For that which commands vs in generall to Beleeue what euer God shall propose vnto vs commands vs also to beleeue in Christ assoone as God shall make knowne that t is his will we should beleeue in him The Gospell discouers vnto vs the Obiect the Law commands vs the obedience of beleeuing it Wherefore Faith for the Substance of the Grace and works done by vs is a worke of the Law and so to be Iustified by the Action of beleeuing is to be Iustified by workes and by our owne Righteousnesse contrary to the Scriptures and that Phil 5. 9. That I may be found not c. This of the first Reason 2 God accounts that only for perfect Righteousnâ—sse of the Law which is so in deed and truth But Faith is not the perfect fulfilling of the Law Therefore God doth not account it â—or such The Minor is granted by our adversaries That Faith is not the exact Iustice of the Law such as can stand before the severity of Gods Iudgments The Maior must be proued That God accounts not that for perfâ—ct Iustice which is not perfect indeed This appeares by that Rom. 2. 2. The iudgement of God is according to trueth Where therefore any thing is not truly good and perfect there God esteemes it not so Here also twil be excepted That God some time Iudgeth Iudicio iustitiae according to exact Iustice and then he â—udgeth nothing perfectly iust but that whiâ—h hath true perfection of Iustice in it Sometimes he iudgeth iudicio misericordâ—ae according to mercy and so he may esteeme a Man perfectly righteous for that which is not perfect righteousnesse in it selfe namely for his Faith Surely this is a trimme distinction thus applyed that sets Gods Mercy and Truth together by the Eares As who would say When God iudgeth out of Mercy hee then doth not iudge according to truth The Scriptures doe not acquaint vs with any such mercifull iudgement of God This they doe acquaint vs with That God iudgeth according to mercy not when he doth pronounce and cleare a Sinner to be perfectly righteous for that righteousnesse which is truely imperfect but when he iudgeth a Sinner to be righteous for that righteousnesse which is perfect but is not his owne In this Iudgement there is both Truth
to be obserued because it serues excellently for the clearing of the Apostles meaning when he saieth we are justified by workes And the Scripture was fulfilled saieth S. Iames. When At the time that Isaack was offered But was it not fulfilled before that time Yes Many yeares when the promise of the blessed seed was made vnto him as appeares Gen. 15. 6. Whence this testimony is taken How was it then fulfilled at the oblation of Isaack Thus. The Trueth of that which was verified before was then againe confirmed by a new and euident experiment Well Thus much is plaine enough But heere now the difficulty is how this Scripture is applyed vnto the Apostles former dispute In the 21. v. He saieth that Abraham was justified by Workes when he offered Isaack How proues he that he was so justified why by this testimony Because the Scripture was fulfilâ—ed at that time which saieth Abraham beleeued God c. Marke then the Apostle's Argument When Abraham offered Isaack the Scripture was fulfilled which saieth Abraham was iustified by faith For that 's the meaâ—ing of that Scripture Ergo Abraham when he offered Isaacâ— was justified by workes This at first sight sâ—emeth farre set and not onely besides but quite contrary to the Apostles purpose to proue he was then justified by workes because the Scripture saieth he was then iustified by Faith But vpon due consideration inâ—erence appeares to be euident and the agreement easie The Apostle and the Scripture alleaged haue one and the same meaning the Scripture saieth He was iustified by Faith meaning as all confesse a working Faith fruitefull in Obedience S. Iames affirmes the very same saying that he was justified by workes that is Metonymically by a working Faith And therefore the Apostle rightly alleageth the Scripture for confirmation of his assertion the Scripture witnessing That by Faith he was iustified the Apostle expounding what manner of Faith it meanes Namely a Faith with workes or a working Faith So that the application of this Testimony vnto that time of offering vp of Isaack is most excellent because then it appeared manifestly what manner of Faith it was wherefore God had accounted him just in former times Without this Metonymie it appeares not that there is any force in the application of this Scripture and the Argument from thence The Scripture witnesseth that Abraham was then justified by Faith Ergo 'tis true that he was then justified by Workes What consequence is there in this Argument except we expound S. Iames by that metonymie Workes that is a working Faith And so the Argument holdes firme Take it otherwise as our aduersaries would haue it or to speake trueth according to the former interpretation of our diuines it breeds an absurd construction either way Abraham in offering Isaack was justified by workes that is secundâ Iustificatione of good he was made better How is that proued By Scripture Because the Scripture saieth That at that time he was justified by faith That is primâ Iustificatione of bad he became good Is not this most apparent Non-sence Againe according to the Interpretations of our diuines Abraham at the offering vp of Isaack was iustified by workes that is say they declared iust before men How is that proued by Scripture Because the Scripture saieth That at that time he was justified by Faith that is accounted just in God's sight In which kind of arguing I must confesse I apprehend not how there is any tolerable consequence Wherefore we expound S. Iames metonymically putting the effect for the cause workes for a working Faith as the necessary connexion of the text enforced vs. Nor is there any harshnes at all nor violent straining in this figure when two things of necessary and neere dependance one vpon the other as workes and a working Faith are put one for another Neither haue our aduersaries more cause to complaine of vs for this figuratiue interpretation of workes then we haue of them for their figuratiue interpretation of faith For when we are saied to be justified by faith they vnderstand it dispositiuè meritoriè not formaliterè Faith in itselfe is not our sanctification nor yet the cause of it But it merits the bestowing of it and disposeth vs to receaue it Let reason iudge now which is the harsher exposition Theirs faith iustifies that is Faith is a disposition in vs deseruing that God should sanctifie vs by infusion of the habit of Charity Or ours Workes justifie that is the Faith whereby we are acquited in God's sight is a working Faith Thus much of this Testimonie of Scripture prouing that Abraham was justified by a true and working faith In the next place the Apostle shewes it by a visible effect or Consequent that followed vpon his Iustification expressed in the next words And he was called the freind of God A high prerogatiue for God the Creator to reckon of a poore mortall Man as his familiar freind but so entire and true was the faith of Abraham so vpright was his heart that God not onely gratiously accounted it to him for Righteousnes but also in token of that gratious acceptance entered into a league with Abraham taking him for his especiall freind and confederate A League ofâ—ensiue and defensiue God would be a Freind to Abraham Thou shalt be a blessing and a freind of Abrahams Freinds I will blesse them that blesse thee and an Enemy of Abrahams enemies I will curse them that uâ—se thee Which League of freindship with Abraham before the offering vp of Isaack was therevpon by solemne protestation and oath renued as we haue it Gen. 22. v. 16. c. Thus we haue this first example of Abraham From thence the Apostle proceeds to a generall conclusion in the next verse 24 Yee see then how that by workes a man is iustified and not by Faith only That is Therefore it is euident That a man is iustified by a working faith not by a faith without workes Which Metonymicall interpretation is againe confirmed by the inference of this conclusion vpon the former verse The Scripture saieth That Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed vnto him for Righteousnes Ergo saieth â— Iames Yee see how a man is iustified by workes and not by Faith onely A man might heere say Nay rather Wee see the contrary That a man is iustified by faith onely and not by workes For in that place of Scripture there is no mention at all made of Workes Wherefore of necessity we must vnderstand them both in the same sense And so the conclusion followes directly That euery man is iustified by an actiue not an idle Faith because the Scripture witnesseth that Abraham was instified by the like Faith Our Aduersaries collection then from this place That Faith and Workes be compartners in Iustification we are 〈◊〉 partly by faith partly by workes is vaine inconsequent For when the Apostle saies A Man is iustified by workes and not by faith only his meaning is not that
grace hath enabled vs to performe the condition of beleeuing then doe we beginne to enioy the benefit of the Couenant then is the sentence of absolution pronounced in our consciences which shall be after confirmed in our death and published in the last iudgement Secondly our faith and no other grace directly respects the promises of the Gospell accepting what God offers sealing vnto the truth thereof by assenting thereto and imbracing the benefit and fruit of it vnto it selfe by relying wholly vpon it This interpretation of that proposition the Reformed Churches do admit none other reiecting as erronious and contrary to the Scriptures such glosses as ascribe any thing to the dignity of faith or make any combination betweene Faith and Workes in the point of our Iustification Amongst which there are three erronious assertions touching mans Iustification by Faith which we are briefly to examine and refute 1 That faith iustifieth vs Per modum Causae efficientis meritoriae as a proper efficient and meritorious cause Which by it's owne worth and dignity deserues to obtaine Iustification Remission of sinnes and the grace of well-doing This is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which Bellarmine labours to proue in his 17. Chap. lib. pr. de Iustificatione where disputing against Iustification by faith alone hee tels vs. If we could be perswaded that faith doth Iustifie impetrando promerendo suo modo inchoando Iustificationem then we would neuer deny that loue feare hope and other vertues did iustifie vs as well as faith Whereupon he sets himselfe to prooue that there is in faith it selfe some efficacy and merit to obtaine and deserue Iustification His Arguments are chiely two From those places of Scripture wherein a man is said to be iustified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or absolutely without Article or Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per fidem ex fide or fide Wherein these Prepositions signifie saith he the true cause of our Iustification Which he proues 1 By the contrary when a man is said to be iustified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This notes the true efficient deseruing cause of his Iustification Secondly By the like in other places where we are said to be redeemed saued sanctified Per Christum per sanguinem per mortem per vulnera and in the whole 11. to the Heb. The Saints are said to doe such and such things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by faith All signifying the proper cause From those places of Scripture which sayth he plainly shew Faith doth impetrare remissionem suo quidem modo mereri Such are those Thy Faithâ— hath saued thee or made thee whole A speech that Christ vsed often as to the woman that washed his feet To her that had an issue of Blood To the blind man recovered of his sight And that to the Cananitish woman O woman great is thy Faith now see what the merit of this Faith was For this saying go thy way the Diuel is gone out of thy Daughter Thus Abraham being strenghened in Faith glorified God who therefore iustified him for the Merit of his Faith And againe in the eleuenth to the Heb. by many examples we are taught that by Faith that is by the merit and price of Faith Enoch and other men pleased God For answeare here vnto 1 Vnto the Argument from the Proposition we reply That if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be needs strictly taken in the same kind of Causality then the Iesuits should doe well to stand to that and make the similitude betweene Faith and workes runne thus A Man is iustified by workes that is for the proper and only Merits of his obedience so a Man is iustified by Faith that is for the only merit of his Beleeving in Christ aud by that meanes both shall be true and effectuall causes of Iustification But if Bellarmine dare not thus presse the similitude for feare of being found guilty of despising the blood of the New Couenant attributing that to the Merit of Faith which belongs only to the Merit of Christ he must then giue vs that leaue to distinguish which he takes to himselfe and if he fall to his Qualifications and quodammodo's he must pardon if we also seeke out such an Interpretation of those places as may not crosse other Scriptures Which for asmuch as they testifie that We are Iustified by his grace through the Redemption that is in Christ that All sinne is purged by the blood of Christ that By the sacrifice of himselfe he hath put away Sinne and With offering hath consecrated for ouer them that are sanctified we dare not without horrible sacrilege ascribe the grace of our Iustification vnto the worke and worth of any thing whatsoeuer in our selues but wholy and only to the Righteousnesse of Christ. And therefore when the Scriptures say we are iustified by Faith we take not the word By in this formall and legall sense we are iustified by the efficacy of our Faith or for the worth of our Faith according as 't is vnderstood in Iustification by workes but we take it Relatiuely Instrumentally We are Iustified by Faith that is by the Righteousnesse of Christ the benefit whereof vnto our Iustification we are made partakers of by Faith as the only grace which accepts of the promise and giues vs assurance of the performance He that looked to the Brasen serpent and was cured might truly be sayd to be healed by his looking on though this Action was no proper cause working the cure by any efficacy or dignity of it selfe but was only a necessary condition required of them that would be healed vpon the obedient observance whereof God would shew them favor so he that looketh on Christ beleeuing in him may truly be sayed to be saued and Iustified by Faith not as for the worth and by the â—fficacy of that act of his but as it is the Condition of the promise of grace that must necessarily go before the performance of it to vs vpon our Obedience where vnto God is pleased of his free grace to iustifie Nor is this Trope any way harsh or vnusuall to put Oppositum pro opposito Relatum pro Correlato Habitum pro Obiecto In Sacramentall locutions 't is a generall Custome to put the signe for the thing signified and the like is vsed in other passages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the word of God grew c. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mystery of faith and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the words of Faith and Rom. 8. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Spe seruati sumus id est Christo in quem speramus Hope that is seene is not hope that is res visa non sperata est That of Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Like to that Christ our Ioy Anni spem
Iustification are reckoned vp 1 Faith 2 The Feare of God 3 Hope in his mercy 4 Loue of God as the Fountaine of Iustice ad benefactoris saith Bellarmine 5 Repentance a sorrow and detestation of sinne 6 A desire of receiuing the Sacrament of Baptisme 7 A purpose to leade a new life and keepe Gods Commandements All these saith Bellarmine doe iustifie a Man Praeparatoriè antecedentèr dispositiuè Faith that 's the roote and beginning of our Iustification the rest follow in order all must goe before as needfull preparations and Iustification followes as the effect of all in common c. Ergo Not of Faith alone The Iesuite goes ouer euery particular to shew by Scriptures what force each of those graces haue to Iustifie But t is not worth-while to repeate his proofes Vnto the Argument wee answere two things 1 That it is framed vpon the errour which puts out of frame the whole dispute of our Aduersaries about this Article of Iustification namely that Regeneration and Sanctification is all one thing with Iustification and that to Iustifie a sinner is nothing but to doe away inherent corruption by infusion of inherent righteousnesse This we haue heretofore by the Scriptures cleared to be false and therefore this Argument proouing our Sanctification to be wrought by other graces as well as by faith toucheth not the point of Iustification in the Remission of sinnes which faith alone obtaineth through the promise 2 Touching these graces which they make preparatory vnto Iustification that is to Sanctification Wee answere that t is a Philosophicall dreame of such as measure out the workes of Gods Spirit in mans conuersion according to Aristotles Physickes and those disputes touching praeuious or fore-going dispositions that qualifie the matter for receiuing of the Forme We acknowledge that in mans Regeneration all graces of the Spirit are not perfected at once But as the ioynts and sinewes in the bodily so the graces of Sanctification in the spirituall New-birth are at first weake and feeble Which in continuance of time gather more strength according to our growth in Christ. But yet these are true for the substance though imperfect in their degrees and measure There is now true Spirituall life in such a one which was before dead in sinne although there be not the free and able exercise of all the vitall powers Health there is but not entire from all degrees oâ— sicknesse and euery kinde of disease Wherefore we affâ—â—me that these vertues which are by our Aduersarics reckoned onely as dispositions vnto Regeneration are if they be true and not counterfeit Mettall the maine parts and fruits of Regeneration Hence we beleeue that these are foule errors viz. To teach that a man without grace by the power of his free-wil may dispose himselfe to his Regeneration by beleeving in Christ fearing and louing of God hoping of his Mercy repenting of his sinnes resoluing vpon amendment and all this with true and sincere affection or to teach if a man cannot do these things of his owne meere strength and free-will yet by the Spetiall aide of God inciting and helping him 〈◊〉 may doe them whilst he is vtterly vnsâ—nctified in statu peccati That true Faith and Feare and Hope and Loue and Repentance and purpose of Reformation are Vertues and Graces in a Man that is yet gracelesse and without Vertue because destitute of Sanctification That these Graces consisting in the inward motion of the soule and change of the Affections are wrought in Man not by any sanctifying Grace of the Holy Ghost inwardly touching the heart but by some other kind of Vertue and aid they know not what externall exciting and helping forward the strength of Nature All these are monstrous and mis-shapen imaginations bred in proud hearts that would faine share the glory of their Conversion betweene Gods grace and their owne free-will and maintained by curious heads whom Philosophicall speculations haue transported beyond the simplicity of diuine Truth The Scripture speaks otherwise of these Graces as of those that belong to such as are not in the way to be made good but are made so already Ye are al the Children of God by Faith in Iesus Christ saith the Apostle Paul Gal. 3. 28. Whosoeuer shall confesse that Iesus is the sonne of God God dwelleth in him and he in God saith Iohn 1. 1. Ioh. 4. 15. and Chap. 5. 1. Whosoeuer beleeueth that Iesus is that Christ is borne of God Doe we by true Faith become the Children of God borne of him in whom hee dwelleth and we in him when as yet in the meane time we are yet vnsanctified vnholy vncleane not in the state of Grace Bellarmine will proue that a man may haue Faith yet not the Child of God ouâ— of Iohn 1. 12. As many as receiued him to them he gaue power to become the Sonnes of God euen to them thâ—t beleeue on his name See sâ—â—th he they that beleeue are not yet but haue power if they list to become the Sonnes of God viz. by going on further from Faith to Hope and Loue and the rest of the Tridentiâ—e dispositions For t is Loue properly and not Faith that makes vs the Sons of God as he would proue contrary to that expresse place of the Galat. out of the 1 Ep. of Iohn where the Apostle hath much excellent matter but nothing to that purpose To the place of Iohn wee answere that the Iesuite playeth with the ambiguity of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not here a liberty to doe what we list as if we could at our pleasure become Gods adopted sonnes but t is a right and priuiledge which Christ the naturall Sonne bestowes on true beleeuers to be made Gods adopted sonnes and so coheires with him of the heauenly inheritance When is this priuiledge of Adoption bestowed Then when they beleeue and assoone as they beleeue before they be Regenerate No Saint Iohn denies it He giues power to be the Sonnes of God euen to those that beleeue in him Who be they Hee answeres vers 15. Which were borne not of bloud nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God Faith then is not a Preparatiue to Iustification but a part of it And is not Feare of GOD too No saith Bellarmine That is the beginning of wisedome that is of a perfect Iustification A bad interpretation but a worse Argument T is the beginning therefore not part Nay If the feare of God be the Alpha of Christian graces certainely it selfe makes one Letter of that Alphabet T is such a beginning of wisdome as its selfe is wisdome too Else God himselfe deceaues vs who as it is Iob 28. 28. Sayd vnto man Behold the feare of the Lord that is wisdome and to depart from euill is vnderstanding And therefore to take it in the Iesuits glosse Feare of God is Iustification as well as the beginning of it For
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
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
acquainted vs with his meaning as to follow another of our owne making And there fore according to the Scriptures we acknowledge and maintaine that as in other places where mention is made of the Iustification of a sinner before God so in the 2 and 4 Chapters of the Ep. to the Rom. and third Chapter of the Gal. where the Doctrine there of is directly handled by Iustification nothing else is meant but the gracious Act of Almighty God whereby hee absolues a beleiuing sinner accused at the Tribunall of his Iustice pronouncing him iust and acquitting him of all punishment for Christs sake CHAP III The Confutation of our Aduersaries cauils against our acception of the word Iustification OVR Adversaries haue little to reply against these so plaine places Somthing they answere namely 1 That it cannot be denied but that Iustification doth many times beare that sense we stand for But with all they would haue vs obseru this rule that Quotiescunque in Scripturis Deus dicitur iustificare impium semper intelligendum est ex impio facere iustum God cannot declare a man to be iust but of vniust he must make him iust And they giue the Reason Because the Iudgment of God is according to Trueth Rom. 2. 2. We embrace this Rule and the Reason of it acknowledging that where euer there is Iustification there must be Iustice some way or other in the party Iustified But the Question stands still in what manner God makes a sinner iust whom hee in Iudgemenr pronounceth so to be They say by bestowing on him the grace of Sanctification perfect Righteousnesse inherent in his own Person We affirme that it is by imputing vnto him the perfect Righteousnesse of Christ accepting Christs obedience for his In which diuersity let vs come as neere them as Trueth will giue leaue Thus â—arre we goe along with them 1 That there is inherent Righteousnesse bestowed vpon a Sinner whereby of vnholy impure vniust he is made holy cleane and iust We all confessed this worke of the Holy Ghost renewing Man in the spirit of his mind restoring in him the Image of God in Knowledge Righteousnesse and Holinesse That the Holy Ghost dwelles in the Elect as in Temples dedicated to his service which he adornes by communicating vnto them his Heauenly graces That hee makes them Liuing Members of Christs Body and fruitfull Braunches of that true Vine That this grace infused is a fountaine of Living water springing vp to eternall Life These things we beleeue and teach Wherfore whereas the Popish Doctors fall foule on our reformed writers charging Calvin others for denying all Inherent Righteousnesse in Beleeuers maintaining only an Imputed Righteousnesse without them We tell them 't is a grosse Calumny forged by perverse Minds that list not to vnderstand Mens playnest writings Nor Calvin nor any that euer maintained the trueth with him euer denied the Righteousnes oâ— Sanctification But this he denies we also with the Scriptures that the Righteousnesse which iustifies vs in Gods Iudgment is not in our selues but all in Christ. That inherent Righteousnesse or sanctification allway keepe company with Iustification in the same Person Severed they are never in their common Subiect viz a True Beleeuer as appeares Rom. 8. 30. But that therefore they must be confounded for one and the same Grace and worke of God may be affirmed with as good Reason as that in the Sunne Light and Heate are all one because alwaies ioyned to geather That by this grace of Inherent Righteousnesse a Man is in some sort iustified before God That is so farre as a Man by the grace of God is become truly holy and good so farre God esteemes him holy good God taketh notice of his owne graces in his Children he approues of them and giues Testimony of them in case it be needfull as appeares by the Righteousnesse of Iob Dauid Zachary and other holy Men who were good and did good in Gods sight Yea in the Life to come when all corruptions being vtterly done away the Saints shall be invested with perfection of Inherent Holinesse by the Righteousnesse of their owne and not by any other shall they then appeare iust in Gods fight Thus farre we agree with them But herein now wee differ that although by the grace of Sanctification infused God doe make him righteous and holy in some measure that was before altogether vnholy and wicked neuerthelesse we affirme that by and for this Holynesse the best of Saints living never were nor shall be Iustified in Gods sight that is pronounced iust and innocent before the Tribunall of his Iustice. For we here take vp the forenamed Rule layed downe by our adversaries Whomsoeuer God pronounceth to be perfectly iust he must needs be made perfectly iust For Gods Iudgment is according to trueth Now that no man in this life is made perfectly iust by any such inherent Holinesse in him as is able to outstand the severe and exact triall of Gods Iudgment is a Trueth witnessed by the Scripture and confessed alwaies by the most holy Saints of God Our Aduersaries indeed stiffly pleade the contrary teaching that sinne and Corruption in the Iustified is vtterly abolished The error and pride of which Imagination we shall shortly haue occasion more at Large to Discouer vnto you Meane while let that much stand for good that Man being not made perfectly iust in himselfe cannot thereby be declared perfectly iust before God and therefore some other Righteousnesse not that of Sanctification is to be sought for whereby a sinner may be Iustified in Gods sight To that argument of ours from the Opposition of iustification to Accusation and Condemnation confirmed by so many places of Scripture They answere That this hinders nothing at all Both may agree to God who of his mercy iustifies some that is makes them inherently Iust of his Iustice condemns other that is punisheth them To which slight Answeres wee make this short reply That where words are opposite as they acknowledg these to be there according to the Lawes of opposition they must carry opposite Meaning But vnto Accusation Comdemnation and punishment nothing is opposite but defence Absolution and Pardon Where therefore Iustificare is coupled with these words it must needes beare this and no other meaning of a bad man to make a good is not opposite to Accusation Condemnation or punishment of him Accused he may be Condemned and punished iustly and after made good I should but trouble you to alleadge more of their Cavills Let thus much suffice for the clearing of this point That Iustification and Sanctification are to be Distinguished and not confounded The Righteousnesse of the one is in vs in its Nature true and good but for its degree and measure Imperfect and alwaies yoaked with the remaynder of naturall Corruption And therefore if a sinner should plead this before the Iudgment seate of God offering himself to be
iudged according to this Righteousnesse and Innocency oh how soone his mouth would be stopped And this confession wrung out from out his Conscience All my Righteousnesse is as filthy Raggs And againe Vilis sum I am vile what shall I answere thee But that other Righteousnesse of Iustification is without vs in Christs possession but ours by Gods gratious gift and acceptation and this euery way perfect and vnreproued in the seuerest Iudgment of God And therefore when a sinner is drawne before the Barre of Gods Iudgment accused by the law Satan his Conscience conuicted by the euidence of the Fact and to be now sentenced and deliuered to punishment by the vnpartiall Iustice of God In this case he hath to alleadge for himself the al-sufficient righteousnesse of a Mighty redeemer who onely had Done and suffered for him that which hee could neuer doe nor suffer for himselfe This Plea alone and no other in the world can stop vp the Mouth of hell confute the accusations of Satan chase away the Terrors that haunt a guilty conscience and appease the infinite Indignation of an angry Iudge This alone will procure fauour and absolution in the presence of that Iudge of the whole world This alone brings downe from Heauen into our Consciences that blessed peace which passeth all vnderstanding but of him that hath it Whereby we rest our selues secure from feare of Condemnation being provided of a defence that will not faile vs when after death wee shall come into Iudgment SECT 2. CHAP. I. The Orthodoxe opinion concerning the manner of Iustification by Faith and the confutation of Popish errours in this point HAuing thus cleared the meaning of this word Iustification and shewed that the Scriptures when they speake of the Iustification of a sinner before God doe thereby vnderstand the absolution of him in Iudgement from sinne and punishment Wee are now vpon this ground to proceede vnto the further explication of this point to enquire by what Meanes and in what Manner this Iustification of a sinner is accomplished That we may goe on more distinctly I will reduce all our ensuing discourse of this point into three heads First touching the condition required in them that shall be iustified Secondly the matter of our Iustification viz. What righteousnesse is it wherefore a sinner is Iustified Thirdly touching the forme of Iustification in what the quality of this iudiciall Act of God iustifying a sinner consisteth Concerning the first at this time The condition required in such as shall be partakers of this grace of Iustification is true faith wherunto God hath ordinarily annexed this great priuiledge That by faith and faith onely a sinner shall bee iustified This the Scriptures witnesse in tearmes as direct and expresse as any can be Rom 3. 28. We conclude a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the Law and Rom. 4. 9. For we say that faith was imputed vnto Abraham for righteousnesse and Rom. 5. 1. Then being iustified by faith we haue peace towards God through Iesus Christ our Lord. With other the like places Whence it is agreed vpon on all sides that a sinner is iustified by faith but touching the manner how he is said to be iustified by faith there is much controuersie and brawle betweene the Orthodoxe of the reformed Churches and their Aduersaries of Rome and Holland the Arminians and the Papists The sentence of the reformed Churches touching this point consisteth of two Branches First that a sinner is iustified by faith not properly as it is a quality or action which by it's owne dignity and merit deserues at Gods hands Remission of sinnes or is by Gods fauourable acceptance taken for the whole and perfect righteousnesse of the Law which is otherwise required of a sinner but onely in relation vnto the obiect of it the righteousnesse of Christ which it imbraceth and resteth vpon Secondly that a sinner is iustified by faith in opposition vnto the Righteousnesse of workes in the fulfilling of the Law Whereby now no man can be iustified In this relatiue and inclusiue sense doe the Reformed Churches take this proposition A man is iustified by faith They explaine themselues thus There are two Couenants that God hath made with man By one of which and by no other meanes in the world saluation is to be obtained The one is the Couenant of workes The tenor whereof is Doe this and thou shalt liue This Couenant is now vtterly void in regard of vs who through the weaknes of our sinfull flesh cannot possibly fulfill the condition of Obedience required therby and therfore we cannot expect Iustification Life by this means The other is the Couenant of grace the Tenor whereof is Beleeue in the Lord Iesus and thou shalt be saued The condition of this couenant is Faith the performance whereof differs from the performance of the condition of that other Couenant Doe this and Liue is a compact of pure Iustice wherein wages is giuen by debt so that he which doth the worke obeying the Law may in strict Iustice for the worke sake claime the wages eternall life vpon iust desert Beleeue this and liue is a compact of freest and purest Mercy wherein the reward of eternall life is giuen vs in fauour for that which beares not the least proportion of worth with it so that he which personnes the condition cannot yet demand the wages as due vnto him in seuerity of Iustice but onely by the grace of a freer promise the fulfilling of which hee may humbly sue for By which grand difference betweene these two Couenants clearely expressed in Scriptures it appeares manifestly that these two Propositions A man is iustified by workes A man is iustified by Faith carry meanings vtterly opposite one to the other The one is proper and formall the other Metonymicall and Relatiue In this Proposition A Man is iustified by workes we vnderstand all in proper and precise termes That a righteous man who hath kept the law exactly in all points is by and for the dignity and worth of that his obedience iustified in Gods sight from all blame and punishment whatsoeuer because perfect obedience to the morall Law in it selfe for it owne sake deserues the approbation of Gods seuere Iustice and the reward of Heauen But in that other Proposition A man is iustified by Faith We must vnderstand all things relatiuely thus A sinner is iustified in the sight of God from all sinne and punishment by faith that is by the obedience of Iesus Christ beleeued on and embraced by a true faith Which Act of Iustification of a sinner although it be properly the onely worke of God for the onely merit of Christ yet is it rightly ascribed vnto faith and it alone for as much as faith is that mayne condition of that new Couenant which as we must perform if we will be iustified so by the performance thereof we are said to obtaine iustification and life For when God by
the eye onely sees say our Men yet the Eare is in the Head too Yea reply they But the eie could see well notwithstanding the Eare were deafe T is the Heate onely of the fire or Sunne that warmes though there be light ioyned with it True say they But if there were no Light yet if heate remained it would warme for all that as the Heate of an Ouen or of Hell burnes though it shine not Thou holdest in thy hands many seedes T is the old comparison of Luther on the 15 of Gen. I enquire not what t is together but what is the vertue of each one single Yea reply our Aduersaries that 's a very needelesse question indeed For if among them many seedes there be some one that hath such soueraigne vertue that it alone can cure all diseases then t is no Matter whether thou haue many or few or none at all of any other sort in thy hand Thou hast that which by it owne vertue without other ingredients will worke the Cure Nor haue we ought to make answere in this case If as the Eye sees heate warmes seeds and other simples doe cure by their owne proper Vertue so Faith alone by its owne efficacy did sanctifie vs. But there is the Errour Faith works not in our sanctification or Iustification by any such inward power vertue of its own from whence these effects should properly follow For Sanctification Faith as we haue seene is part of that inherent Righteousnesse which the Holy Ghost hath wrought in the Regenerate and t is opposed to the Corruption of our Nature which stands in Infidelity Faith sanctifies not as a cause but as a part of insused grace and such a part as goes not alone but accompanied with all other Graces of Loue Feare Zeale Hope Repentance c. Inasmuch as Mans regeneration is not the infusion of one but of the Habit of all graces Againe 't is not the Vertue of Faith that iustifies vs The grace of Iustification is from God he workes it but t is our Faith applies it and makes it ours The Act of Iustification is Gods meere worke but our Faith onely brings vs the Benefit and Assurance of it Iustification is an externall priuiledge which God bestowes on beleeuers hauing therein respect onely to their Faith which grace onely hath peculiar respect to the Righteousnesse of Christ and the promise in him Whereby t is manifest that this argument is vaine Faith alone is respected in our Iustification therefore Faith is or may be alone without other graces of Iustification Bellar would vndertake to proue that true saith may be seuered from Charity and other Vertues but wee haue heretofore spoken of that Point and shewed that true Faith yet without a Forme true Faith dead and without a soule be Contradictions as vaine as A true Man without reason A true Fire without heate We confesse indeed that the faith of Iesuites the same with that of Simon Magus may very well bee without Charity and all other sanctifying graces a bare assent to the truth of Divine Reuelations because of Gods Authority As t is in Diuels so t is in Papists and other Heretickes But we deny that this is that which deserues the name of true Faith which whosoeuer hath hee also hath eternall life As it is Iohn 6. 47. 3 Argument That which Scripture doth not affirme that is false doctrine But the Scripture doth not affirme that wee are Iustified by Faith alone Ergo so to teach is to teach false Doctrine This Argument toucheth the quicke and if the Minor can be prooued we must needs yeeld them the Cause For that the Iesuites conceiue that this is a plaine case for where is there any one place in all the Bible that saith Faith alone Iustifies They euen laugh at the simplicity of the Heretickes as they Christen vs that glory they haue found out at last the word Onely in Luc. 8. 50. in that speech of Christ to the Ruler of the Synagogue Feare not beleeue onely and shee shall be made whole And much sport they make themselues with Luther That to helpe out this matter at a dead lift by plaine fraud hee foysted into the Text in the 3. to the Romans the word Onely When being taught with the fact and required a Reason He made answere according to his Modesty Sic volo sic iubeo stet pro ratione voluntas T is true that Luther in his Translation of the Bible into the Germane tougue read the 28. verse of that Chapter thus We conclude that men are iustified without the workes of the Law onely through Faith Which word onely is not in the Originall Where in so doing if he fulfild not the Office of a faithfull Translator yet he did the part of a faithfull Paraphrast keeping the sense exactly in that Alteration of words And if he be not free from blame yet of all men the Iesuites are most vnfit to reproue him whose dealing in the corrupting of all sort of Writers Diuine and humane are long since notorious and infamous throughout Christendome What Luthers Modesty was in answering those that found fault with his Translation we haue not to say Onely thus much That the impudent Forgeries of this Generation witnesse abundantly that it is no rare thing for a Lie to drop out of a Iesuites or Fryers penne But be it as it may be T is not Luthers Translation Nor that place in the 8. of Luke that our Doctrine touching Iustification by Faith alone is founded vpon We haue better proofes then these as shall appeare vnto you in the confirmation of the Minor of this Syllogisme Whatsoeuer the Scriptures affirme that 's true doctrine But the Scriptures affirme a man is iustified by Faith alone Therefore thus to teach is to teach according to the word of whole-some doctrine Our Aduersaries demaund proofe of the Minor We alleadge all those places wherein the Scriptures witnesse that we are Iustified by faith without the workes of the Law Such places are these Rom. 3. 28. Therefore we conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the Law Rom. 4. 2. 3. If Abraham were iustified by workes hee hath whereof to glory but not before God For what saith the Scripture Abraham beleeued God and it was counted to him for righteousnesse And vers 14. 15. 16. For if they which are of the Law be heires faith is made void and the promise made of none effect Because the Law worketh wrath for where no Law is there is no transgression Gal. 2. 16. Knowing that a man is not iustified by the workes of the Law but by the Faith of Iesus Christ Euen we haue beleeued in Christ that we might be iustified by the Faith of Christ and not by the workes of the Law For by the workes of the Law shall no flesh be iustified Gal. 3. 21. 22. Is the Law then against the promises of God God
forbid For if there had beene a Law giuen which could haue giuen Life verily righteousnesse should haue beene by the Law But the Scripture hath concluded all vnder sinne that the promise by the faith of Iesus Christ might be giuen by them that beleeue Ephe. 2. 8. 9. For by grace ye are saued through Faith and that not of your selues It is the gift of God Not of workes least any man should boast Phil 3. 8. 9. Yea doubtlesse and I count all things but losse for the excellency of the Knowledge of Christ Iesus my Lord. For whom I haue suffered the losse of all things and doe count them but dung that I may winne Christ. And be found of him not hauing mine owne righteousnesse which is of the Law but that which is through the faith of Christ the Righteousnesse which is of God by Faith Out of which places not to name more expresly touching this point of our Iustification we argue thus A Man is iustified either by the workes of the Law or by faith in Christ. But hee is not Iustified by the workes of the Law Ergo He is iustified onely by faith in Christ. In this disiunctiue Syllogisme they cannot find â—ault with vs for adding the word onely in the Conclusion which was not in the Praemises For Reason will teach them that where two Tearmes are immediately opposite if one bee taken away the other remaines alone So that in euery disjunctiue Syllogisme whose Maior Proposition standeth vpon two Tearmes immediately opposite if one be remoued in the Minor the Conclusion is plainely equivalent to an exclusiue Proposition As if we argue thus Eyther the wicked are saued or the godly But the wicked are not saued Thence it followes in exclusiue Tearmes Therefore the godly onely are saued Our Aduersaries cannot deny but that the Proposition A Man is iustified by workes or by Faith consists of Tearmes immediately opposite For else they accuse the Apostle Paul of want of Logicke who Rom. 3. should conclude falsely A man is iusitified by faith without workes if he be iustified either by both together or else by neither Seeing then he opposeth Faith aÌ„d workes as incompatible and exclude workes from Iustification wee conclude infallibly by the Scriptures That a man is iustified by faith alone This Argument not auoidable by any sound aÌ„swere puts our aduersaries miserably to their shifts Yet rather then yeeld vnto the truth they fall vnto their distinctions whereby if t were possible they would shift off the force of this Argument Whereas therefore the Scriptures oppose Workes and Faith the Law of Workes and the Law of Faith Our owne righteousnesse which is of the Law and the Righteousnesse of God by Faith manifestly telling vs that we are Iustified Not by Workes by the Law of Workes nor by our owne Righteousnesse which is of the Law but that we are iustified by Faith by the Righteousnesse of God by Faith Our Aduersaries haue a distinction to salue this Matter withall They say then Workes are of two sorts 1 Some goe before Grace and Faith and are performed by the onely strength of free-will out of that Knowledge of the Law whereunto Men may attaine by the light of Nature or the bare Reuelation of the Scriptures These workes or this obedience vnto the law which a meere naturall man can performe is say they that Righteousnesse which the Scripture cals our owne By this kinde of Righteousnesse and Workes they grant none is Iustified 2 Some follow Grace and Faith which are done by Mans free-will excited and aided by the speciall helpe of Grace Such Obedience and Righteousnesse is say they called the Righteousnesse of God because it is wrought in vs of his gift and grace And by this Righteousnesse a man is iustified By this Invention they turne of with a wet finger all those Scriptures that we haue alleadged Wee are Iustified not by the workes of the Law that is by the Obedience of the Morall Law which a man may performe without Gods Grace But we are Iustified by Faith of Christ that is by that obedience of the Morall Law which a man may performe by faith and the helpe of Gods grace Boasting is excluded saith the Apostle by what Law By the Law of workes that is by the Law performed by the strength of Nature Nay For he that performes the Law by his owne strength hath cause to boast of it By what Law then By the Law of Faith that is by faith which obtaines Gods grace to fulfill the Morall Law Now he that obeyes the Law by Gods helpe hath no cause to boast Israel which followed the Law of righteousnesse could not attaine vnto the law of righteousnesse Wherefore Because they sought it not by Faith that is they sought not to performe the Law by Gods Grace But as by the workes of the Law that is by their own strength Thus Paul desires to be found in Christ not hauing his owne righteousnesse which is of the Law that is that righteousnesse he performed without Gods grace before his Conversion But the righteousnesse of God which is by faith i.e. That righteousnesse which he performed in obeying the Law by Gods grace after his Conversion For confirmation of this distinction and the Interpretations thereon grounded Bellarmine brings three reasons to shew that when workes and faith are opposed all workes of the Law are not excluded 1 It s manifest Faith is a worke and that there is a Law of Faith as well as workes If therefore Rom. 3. all workes and all Law be excluded from Iustification then to be iustified by Faith were to bee iustified without faith 2 It s plaine the Apostle Rom. 3. intends to proue that neither Iewes by the naked obseruation of the law of Moses nor the Gentiles for their good workes before they were conuerted to the faith of Christ could obtaine righteousnesse from God 3 The Apostle shewes Rom. 4. 4. what workes he excludes from Iustification viz. such whereto wages is due by debt not by grace Now workes performed without Gods helpe deserue reward ex Debito but workes performed by his helpe deserve wages ex gratia I doubt but notwithstanding these seeming Reasons the fore-named distinction and expositions of Scripture according thereto appeare vnto you at the first sight strange vncouth farr besides the intent of the Holy Ghost in all those fore-reckoned passages of Scripture Let vs examine it a little more narrowly and yee shall quickly perceiue that in this Schoole distinction there is nothing but fraud shifting By workes done by the strength of Nature wee are not iustified By workes done with the helpe of grace wee are iustified This is the distinction resolue it now into these tearmes which are more proper it runs thus A man is not sanctified by those workes of the Moraâ—l Law which he doth without grace but a man is sanctified by those workes of the Morall Law he doth by
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
But a Man may doe more then the Law requires Ergo He may doe as much The minor Bellarmine proues by the example of the young Man Mat 〈◊〉 9. who telling Christ that he had obserued all the commandements and that from his youth our Sauiour bids him doe one thing more and then he should be perfect If thou wilt be perfect go sell that thou hast and giue to the poore and follow me ver 20. Now if the young Man had done this he had done more then the Law required In as much as whatsoeuer the Law required he had obserued formerly For do you not beleeue him that he spake true All these things haue I obserued from my youth verse 9. Whereto we answere That we doe not beleeue the Testimony of that vaine young Man touching his owne Righteousnesse Who boosted of keeping the 2. Table in the outward duties thereof when as yet he wanted inward Charitie towards his Neighbuor and Loue towards God He auouâ—hed that he had kept all perfectly fulfilling that commandment Thou shalt loue thy neighbour as thy selfe and there vpon is so bould as to aske Christ. what lacke I yet Christ to conuince him of his pride and wants put him to the Triall If thou hast such perfect Charity towards Man then certainely if God command thee to bestow that a part but all thy goods vpon the poore vpon promise of better things to thy selfe thy duty vnto God and singular Charity to Men will make thee doe so Goe then sell all that thou hast and giue to the poore Vpon this speciall Commandment this couetous mind shews it selfe Nay 't is plaine he loued not his Neighbour so well as his riches He is neither so dutifull to God nor charitable to the poore as for either of their sakes to part with his possessions But might he say what will not ordinary almes or a little more then ordinary serue the turne Must I giue away all Indâ—ede the Law requires that I be mercifull to the poore but where 's any Law that bids me sell my whole estate and distribute to them that want Christ layes an vnnecessary burden vpon me if I cannot be perfect without vndoâ—ing my selfe I will content my selfe as I am and not seke after such perfection Heere a Papist will say he speake reason seeing Christs speech was but acounsaile of more perfection then the Law required Now a Man is not to be blamed if he chuse only to be as perfect as the Law commands him and so this young man was if you 'le beleeue him or them But the Scripture makes it plaine that he did euill in disobeying Christ and that if he had obeyed him in that particular he had done no more then the Law required at his hands For obedience to euery speciall Commandment is included in the generall The Law indefinitely commands vs to giue almes now if God by a speciall commandment limite how much we shall giue whether halfe or all our Estates to obey such a perticular precept is not to do more then the generall Law requires vs. Such a particular Commandment was this of Christ vnto the young Man wherein he sets him a spell according to that conceit of perfection which he had of himselfe putting him to the practise of the highest duty which the Law of Liberality can possible require of a Man viz. to part with all This he ought to haue done vpon Christs particular commandment in not doing of it he brake the Law and proclaimed his heart to be full of couetousnesse deuoide of faith in God and true Charity towards his Neighbour From this place then our aduersaries cannot proue that this young Man might haue doen more then the Law required or that wee are bound at any time to doe as Christ bid him Christs command was for his particular Triall not for our Imitation They that take it otherwise be a generation of men that professe Beggery and possesse Kingdomes who were willing enough to part with that little they had of there owne that so they may liue the more Largely and plentifully vpon other Mens Wee goe forward to the next argument 4 If the Law were impossible to be kept it were no Law for there is no Law of things impossible Yea God were more cruel and foolish then any Tyrant too command vs to doe that which is impossible for vs to doe To this wee answere That the consequences were true if God had giuen a Law which Men neuer had strength to performe But now the Law written in tables on Mount Sina was but a reuiuing and repetion of the same Law which was written in Adams heart the Characters whereof were now defaced in his sinnefull Posterity Adam had strength sufficient to fulfill it which as he receaued for himselfe and vs so he lost it for both Neuerthelesse though Strength to obey be lost yet the obligation to Obedience remaines We are no more discharged of our duties because we haue no strength to doe it then a debter is quitted of his Bands because he wants money to make payment Nor is this cruelty or folly in God that when he published this Law vnto the Isralites he did not qualifie the exactnesse thereof fitting the precepts to there abilities commanding theÌ„ to do iust as much as they could or would do Had God made a Law in that sort in fauour of mans sinfull nature they might with better reason haue layd folly to his charge for bending the rule to the crokednesse of mans heart and not leuelling it according to the streightnesse of the Rule God was to set forth a Law of Liberty that should not flatter but freely rebuke Man of all vnrighteousnesse a perfect Law containing in it a full description of Holynesse and Iustice which Man ought to haue and performe towards God and his Neighbour in this case God had iust reason to haue respect vnto mans duty not his ability which once he had but now had forfited and lost The next Argument is 5 Euery Prayer made in Faith according to Gods will is heard and granted But we pray that we may fulfill the Law perfectly For we pray that we may doe Gods will in Earth as it is in Heauen Ergo God heares vs and giues vs such grace that we can doci Hereto we answere That this prayer shewes vs what we are bound too and what is our duty continually to endeuour That we may doe Gods will euery day more perfectly cheerefully and constantly then other And so farre God heares the faithfull prayers of his louing children enabling them to better performance the longer they liue But that such perfection of Obedience is giuen to vs in this life as the Saints enioy in Heauen will not be graunted by our Aduersaries themselues Wherefore they must also grant that that Prayer is heard and granted vs by degrees In this Life we attaine such perfection as God sees fit for vs afterwards that which is
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
judge St. Iames in the example of Rahab speakes of the first Iustification because as he saieth she was then at the first made a beleeuer of an infidell a righteous woman of an harlot And againe Paul he speakes of the 2. Iustification in the example of Abraham which is alleaged by both the Apostles Heere 's then a confusion insteed of a distiction Paul speakes of the first Iames speakes of the 2. and yet both do speake of both Iustifications Againe when they say Iames speakes of the second Iustification whereby of just a man becomes more just ti 's a groundlesse imagination for asmuch as it was to no purpose for the Apostle Iames to treat of the second Iustification whereby men grow better when those Hypocrites with whom he had to doe had erred from their first iustification whereby they were not as yet made good as the learned Iackson obserues Nay there is not in all St. Iames his dispute any sâ—llable that may giue any just suspicion that by Iustification he meanes the increase of inhaerent Iustice. Bellarmine catcheth at the clause v. 22. By workes Faith was made perfect which is in the Iesuites construction Abraham's inhaerent justice begun by faith receiued increase and perfection by his workes But this is onlie the Iesuites phrensie Abraham his faith and his Righteousnes whereof his Faith is but a part was not made but declared to be perfect by so perfect a worke which it brought forth as euen Lorinus another of that sect expounds it orthodoxly 3 Thirdly that distinction of workes done before Faith without grace and after Faith by grace is to as litle purpose as the former in this matter of our Iustification Heretofore we haue touched vpon that distinction and shewed the vanitie thereof in limiting St. Paul to workes done without grace when simplie he concludes all workes from our Iustification And St. Iames though he require workes of grace to be ioyned with that Faith which must justifie vs yet he giues them not that place and office in our Iustification from which Paul doth exclude them and wherein our adversaries would establish them as it shall appeare anon Leauing then this sophisticall reconcilement coined by our aduersaries I come to those reconciliations which are made by our diuines wherein we shall haue better satisfaction vpon better grounds Two waies there are whereby this seeming difference is by our Men reconciled 1. The 1. by distinguishing the word â— Iustification which may be taken either 1 For the absolution of a Sinner in Gods iudgement 2 For the declaration of a mans Righteousnes before men This distinction is certaine and hath its ground in Scripture which vseth the word Iustifie in both acceptions for the quitting of vs in Gods sight and for the manifestation of our innocency before man against accusation or suspicion of faultines They applie this distinction for the reconciling of the two Apostles Thus. St. Paul speakes of Iustification in foro Dei S. Iames speakes of Iustification in foro hominis A man is justified by faith without workes saieth S. Paul that is in God's sight a man obtaines remission of Sinnes and is reputed just only for his Faith in Christ not for his workes sake A man is justified by workes and not by Faith onely saieth S. Iames that is in mans sight we are declared to be just by our good workes not by our Faith onely which with other inward and invisible Graces are made visible vnto man onely in the good workes which they see vs performe That this application is not vnfit for to reconcile this difference may be shewed by the parts 1. For S. Paul ti 's agreed on all sides that he speakes of mans iustification in God's sight Rom. 3. v. 20. 2. For S. Iames we are to shew that with just probability he may be vnderstood of the declaration of our Iustification and righteousnes before men For proofe whereof the Text affords vs these reasons 1. Verse 18. Shew me thy Faith without thy Workes and I will shew thee my Faith by my workes Where the true Christian speaking to the Hypocriticall boaster of his Faith requires of him a declaration of his faith and Iustification thereby by a reall proofe not a verball profession promising for his part to manifest and approue the trueth of his owne Faith by his good workes Whence it appeares that before man none can justifie the soundnes of his Faith but by his workes thene proceeding 2. V. 21. Abraham is saied to be justified when he offered vp his sonne Isaak vpon the Altar Now ti 's manifest that Abraham was justified in Gods sight long before euen 25. yeares Gen. 15. 6. Therefore by that admirable worke of his in offering his Sonne he was declared before all the world to be a just man and a true Beleeuer And for this purpose did God tempt Abraham in that triall of his Faith that thereby all beleeuers might behold a rare patterne of a liuely and justifying Faith and that Abraham was not without good cause called the Father of the Faithfull 3. V. 22. It is saied that Abrahams faith wrought with his worke and by workes was his faith made perfect Which in the iudgement of popish Expositors themselues is to be vnderstood of the manifestation of Abrahams faith by his workes His Faith directed his workes his workes manifested the power and perfection of his Faith It is not then without good probability of Reason that Caluin and other Expositors on our side haue giuen this solution vnto this doubt Bellarmine labours against it and would faine proue that justification cannot be taken heere pro declaratione Iustitiae But his Argument cannot much trouble any intelligent reader and therefore I spare to trouble you with his sophistry This now is the first way of reconciling the places Howbeit the trueth is that although this may be defended against any thing that our aduersaries objected to the contrary yet many and those very learned divines chose rather to tread in another path and more neerely to presse the Apostles steps whom also in this point â— willingly follow 2 The second way then of reconciling these places is by distinguishing of the word Faith which is taken in a doubled sense 1. First for that Faith which is true and liuing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Faith which worketh through loue and is fruitfull in all manner of Obedience 2. Secondly for that Faith which is false and dead being onely a bare acknowledgment of the trueth of all Articles of Religion accompanied with an outward Formality of Profession but yet destitute of sincere Obedience This distinction of this word Faith is certaine by the Scriptures as hath heretofore bin shewed in handling of that Grace Our Men now apply it thus S. Paul when he affirmes that we are justified by Faith onely speakes of that Faith which is true and liuing working by Charity S. Iames when he denies a Man is justified by
vpon God and play with his Iustice as the flie with the Candle let them take heed lest in the end they be consumed by it To leaue then these vaine Inuentions Let vs giue to God the glory that 's due to his name and so we shall well provide for the peace of our Soules Trusting entirely and onely vnto that Name of Iesus Christ. besides which there is not in Heauen or in Earth in Man or Angell any name Merit Power Satisfaction or whatsoeuer else whereby we may be saued And thus much touching the first maine branch of the matter of our Iustification namely Our owne Righteousnes Whereby it appeares sufficiently that we shall neuer be justified in Gods Sight Μόνῳ Ï„á¿· Θεῷ δόξα FINIS THE CONTENTS OF EVERY Section and Chapter in this Booke SECTION 1. CHAP. I. The explication of these termes First Iustice or righteousnesse Secondly Iustification CHAP. II. In what sense the word Iustification ought to be taken in the present controuersie and of the difference betweene vs and our Adversaries therein CHAP III. The confutation of our Adversaries cauils against our acception of the word Iustification SECT 2. CHAP. I. The orthodoxe opinion concerning the manner of Iustification by Faith and the confutation of Popish errours in this point CHAP. II. The confutation of the Arminian errour shewing that Faith doth not justifie sensu proprio as it is an act of ours CHAP. III. The confutation of Popish doctrines that other graces doe justifie vs and not Faith alone SECT 3. CHAP. I. Of the righteousnes whereby a man is justified before God that is not his owne inhaerent in himselfe that in this life no man hath perfection of holinesse inhaerent in him CHAP. II. No man can perfectly fulfill the Law in performing all such workes both inward and outward as each commandement requires against which truth Popish objections are answered CHAP. III. No man in this life can performe any particular good worke so exactly that in euery point it shall answer the rigour of the Law proued by conscience Scriptures reason and Popish objections answered CHAP. IIII. Three seuerall exceptions against the truths deliuered in this 3 Section SECT 4. CHAP. I. Iustification by workes makes voide the couenant of grace Of the difference betweene the Law and the Gospell Of the vse of the Law Of the erronecus conceit of our Adversaries in this point CHAP. II. Of Bellarmine's erroneous distinction of the word Gospell SECT 5. CHAP. I. Iustification by fulfilling the Law ouerthrowes Christian libertie The parts of our Christian libertie CHAP. II. Iustification by workes subjects vs to the rigour and curse of the Law SECT 6. CHAP. I. The reconciliation of that seeming opposition betweene S. Paul and S. Iames in this point of Iustification CHAP. II. The confirmation of the orthodoxe reconciliation of S. Paul and S. Iames by a Logicall Analysis of S. Iames his disputation in his second Chapter SECT 7. CHAP. I. None can be justified by their owne satisfaction for the transgression of the Law A briefe sâ—mme of Popish doctrine concerning humane satisfactions for sinne CHAP. II. All sinne is remitted vnto vs wholy in the fault and punishment For the onely satisfaction of Iesus Christ. Sect. l. â— 1. Rom. 8. 30. Heb. 9. Lib. 1. de Iust cap. 1 See luke 18. 14 This Man went downe to his house iustified rather then the other His prayer was for pardon God be mercifull c. For he went home Iustified i. e pardoned and absolued rather then the Pharisee Which is referred ad gratiam Regenerationis Tom. 2. tract 4. Cap. 2. Parag. â— Rom 6. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significat liberatur sed sersus loci dâ—scrimen indicat 〈…〉 a Ephâ— 4. 24. Col. 3. 9. a Ephâ— 4. 24. Col. 3. 9. b 1 Cor. 3. 16. 6. 19. 2 Cor. 6. 16. Rom. 8. c Rom. 12. 5. 1 Cor. 12. 11. d Ioh. 15. 4. e Ioh. 4. 14. 1 Cal. Iustit lib. 3 cap. 1â— Rom. 8. 30. 〈◊〉 Ibid. Parag. 9. Sect. 2. â— â— â— Gen. Headâ— â— Cap. 7. Generall head a Gal. 2. 16. b Rom. 5. 1. c Rom. 28. d Rom. 4. 2. 3. 20. Gal 2. 16. Iam. 2. a Luke 7. 5â— b Mat. 9. 22. c Maâ— 10. 52. d Mat. 15. 21. e Mat. 7. 29. f Rom. 4. 20. g Heb. 21. 5 6. i Rom. 3. 24. k Heb. 1. 3. n Act. 6. 7. 6. 5. o 1 Tim. 3. 9. 4. 6. Virg. Georg. 1. p Gal. 3. 23. Act. 13. 38. Rom. 11. 6. 〈…〉 Thes. 48. 2. 3. pag 6â— c Aâ—tibell pag. 106. d Collat. cuâ— Sib. Lubber e Thesibu de â—ustific f Râ—monstrâ—nt In Cell Delphensi Art 2. Antith 2. Statuimus Deum Fidem noâ—iram nobis imputare per obedientiam eaâ—que nos in illa acceptos habere We are saued by grace thorough faith Ephes. 2. 8. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Arg. Bell. b Lib. 1. cap. 13. a Lib. 1. cap. 2â— Nectamen est a Deo intus inhabitante per graâ—â—am Sanctificari sidextrinsâ—cus adâ—â—vante exitonte a Et Cap 13. pag. 311. H. a Feare Feare b Psal â—11 10. Pro. â— 7. Faith is radix a part of the tree Hope c Rom. 5. 5. d Heb. 6. 18. Loue. e Rom. 5. 5. a Rom. 5. 5. Repentance Reformation Not of Ahab or Iudas a Tom. 2. Tract â— cap. 3. Quest. 3. Bell. lib. 1. c. 14. 2 Arg. a 〈◊〉 antid â—onc Trid. Sess. 6 cap. II. b Cap. 15. eiuâ—dem Lib. primi 3 Arguâ— Bell. lib. 1 cap. 16. Allein durch â—en gsaubren Bell. quotes Luâ—beri Resp. ad duos Art ad amiâ—â—m quendam a Tit. 3. 5. 6. 7. b Rom. 3. 〈◊〉 c Rom. 9. 31. 32 How knowes Bellarmâ—ne that Bell. lib. 1. c. 19 â—ello cap. 16. a Bell lib. 1. â— 19. b 〈◊〉 Tom. 2 tract 4. cap. 2 quest 6. §. 15. c Bell. cap. 19 d As Adam a So Bellarminâ— cap. 19. answering that place Gal. 2. If righâ—teousnesse be by the Law then Christ dyed in vaine saith Nay seeing we are iustified by faith and workes following it Christ died to purpose that God might giue vs grace so to be iustified b Workes without grace doe not iustifie h Why because imperfect or because done by natures strength Not the later For then Adam not iustified Not the former forse all good works of the best are imperfect Sect. 3. c. 1. 2 Generall heads a 〈…〉 〈…〉 Conclusion Arg. a Rom. 3. Gal. 2. b Iohn 1. 8. c Verse 10. 2 Argument Pure in heart vndefiled 〈◊〉 the way 2 Cap. â— 3 Cap. 3. Proposition a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euen I my selfe b 〈…〉 c Iohn 1. 29. d Heb 9. 28. e Acts 3. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. f Micah 7. 19. a Ezek. 16. 2â— Apoc 1. 6. 1 Iohn 1. â—7 c Col. 1. 13. d Tit. 2. 14. e Rom. 6. 18. 2â— f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 h Heb. 4. 14 a Rom.
to assent vnto and apprehend diuine Reuelations without further helpe then of their owne naturall Abilities Man in his fall sustained greater losse in the spirituall powers of his soule therefore stanâ—s in need of helpe Which helpe is afforded euen vnto the vngodly but this is by ordinary illumination not by speciall infusion of any sanctifying Grace Enlightned they are aboue the ordinary pitch of naturall blindnes but not aboue that whereto a meere naturall vnderstanding may be aduanced Yea were Mans Vnderstanding raised vp to that perfection which is in diuels this were more then Nature yet lesse then Grace This common gift of Illumination bestowed on wicked Men but not on diuels is no proofe that their Faith is of a diuerse kinde As to the last difference we are not so far studied in Moralities as to conceiue wherein the dishonestie of the diuel 's Faith and the honestie of Hypocrites Faith doth lie To ordinarie vnderstanding it seemes euery way as honest commendable a matter for a wicked fiend as for a wicked Man to beleeue what God reueales vnto him If not we must expect to be further informed by these Iesuites Men that are better read in that part of Ethickes whether diabolicall or hypocriticall 4. This of the Apostle's third Argument we come to the fourth The 4. Argument is contained in the 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25 verses Before which the Apostle repeates his maine Conclusion That Faith without Obedience is a false and dead Faith But wilt thou know O vaine Man or hypocrite that Faith without workes is dead v. 20. For the convincing of him further he proceeds to a new Argument to proue it vnto him The Argument is this That Faith which will not iustifie a Man is a false and dead Faith But the Faith which is without workes will not iustifie a Man Ergo 'T is a dead and a false Faith The Maior the Apostle omits as most evident of it selfe The Minor he proues by an induction of two Examples Thus. If Abraham and Rahab were instified by a working faith thou that Faith which is alone without workes will not iustifie But Aâ—raham and Rahab were so iustified viz. by a working Faith Ergo Faith without workes will not iustifie a man The Reason of the Consequence is manifest Because as Abraham and Rahab so all other must be justified The meanes of justification and Life were euer one and the same for all men Which also the Apostle intimates in that clause v. 21. Was not our Father Abraham c. implying that as the Father so also the children the whole stocke and generation of the Faithfull were and are still justified by one vniforme meanes The two instances the Apostle vrges that of Abraham v. 21. 22. 23. that of Rahab v. 25. The conclusion with aequally issues from them both he interserts in the middest after the allegation of Abrahams Example v. 24. I shall goe ouer them as they lie in the Text. In the example of Abraham the Apostle v. 21. sets downe this proposition That Abraham was justified by a working Faith For this interrogatiues Was not our Father Abraham justified by workes must be resolued into an affirmatiue Abraham our Father was justified by workes That is a working Faith Which proposition the Apostle confirmeth by it's parts 1. Shewing that Abrahams Faith was an operatiue faith declared and approued by his workes Secondly prouing that by such a working Faith Abraham was justified in God's sight That the faith of Abraham was operatiue full of life and power to bring forth Obedience vnto God the Apostle alleageth one instance insteed of all the â—est to proue it And that is that singular worke of Obedience vnto God's command When he offered vp his sonne Isaak vpon the Altar Many other workes there were performed by Abraham abundantly justifying the trueth of his Faith But the Apostle chooseth this aboue all other as that worke which was of purpose enjoyned him by God for a triall of his faith Wherein Abraham mightily ouerâ—oming all those strong temptations to disobedience and infidelity made it appeare that his faith was not an idle dead and empty Speculation but an actiue and working Grace Wherefore the Apostle adds ver 22. Seest thou how faith wrought with his workes and by workes was faith made perfect That is as in other workes of that holy Patriarch so specially in that sacrificing his sonne all that can see may plainely behold the strength and life of his faith Faith wrought with his workes That is His faith directed and supported him in the doing of that worke as the Apostle Paul expounds it Heb. 11. 17 By faith Abraham offered vp Isaack that worke had not binne done if faith had not wrought it In euery circumstance thereof faith did all in all from the beginning of the worke to the end This interpretation is most simple and generally receaued Faith wrought with That is In or by his workes vnto the performance whereof the force of faith was in spaeciall manner assesting Pareus reads the words by a tmesis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 scilicet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Faith being with his workes wrought What his Iustification But this construction seemes somewhat hard and not necessary for this place The other sense is much plainer shewing vs by or with what vertue Abraham's workes were wrought viz. By the vertue of his faith which in most powerfull manner incited and inabled him to obey The Apostle goes forward And by workes was faith made perfect That is declared to be perfect For workes did not perfect Abrahams Faith essentially in asmuch as long before this time it was perfect as is plaine in that Abraham was justified by it 25 yeares before the oblation of his sonne Isaack and also by the strength of his Faith had done many excellent workes and obtained great blessings at the hand of God So that the offering vp of Isaack was not the cause but a fruite of the perfection of Abrahams Faith the great difficulty of that worke shewed the singular petfection of that Grace which was able so to encounter and conquer it The goodnes of the fruit doth not worke but declare the goodnes that is in the tree the qualities of the fruits alwaies depending vpon the nature of the Tree but not on the contrary Thus then the first part of the Proposition is plainly proved by the Apostle That Abrahams Faith was a liuely and working Faith declaring and approuing it's owne trueth by the workes of his Obedience The next part Namely That Abraham was justified in God's sight by such a working Faith he proueâ— 1. By a Testimony of Scripture 2. By an effect or consequent thereof Both are expressed in the 23. v. The first in these words And the Scripture was fulfilled which sayeth Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed vnto him for Righteousnes The application of this testimony is very heedfully