〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
that kind whereof his Aduersaries accused him His heart was vpright his life was innocent neither his Aduersares could make proofe neither did his conscience accuse him or God condemne him of these faults that he was charged withall Thus farre Dauid durst stand to Gods Iudgement that hee was innocent in those particular euils whereof man had accused him but it followes not therefore hee durst enter into iudgement with God and plead that God himselfe could find no fault at all with him Hee might haue many secret faults and imperfections euen in this most innocent passage of his life which neither himselfe knew nor his enemies could come to the knowledge of and therefore though he dare pleade his righteousnesse before God so farre as man can accuse him of vnrighteousnesse yet he dare not goe further to cleare himselfe against all that God may obiect against him Heare what himselfe saith in this case Psal. 139. 23. 24. Search me O God and know my heart try me and know my thoughts Speakes the Prophet this out of confidence that God vpon search and tryall shall finde no euill in his heart and thoughts No but out of holy desire that whatsoeuer euill is found in him may bee amended Hee knowes well that many things may be found faulty in him and therefore he stands not to iustifie himselfe but only sues for grace to redresse them adding in the next words And see if there be any wicked way in mee and lead mee in the way euerlasting 2 They proue that the workes of Men regenerate are not Sinnefull by the Scriptures which call them good workes and say that they are pleasing vnto God 1. That they are good Let your light so shine before Men that they may see your good worke Matth 5. 16. Charge the rich that they doe good and bee rich in good workes 1 Tim. 6. 18. wee are his workemanshippe created in Christ vnto good workes Eph. 2. 10. why trouble yee the woman for shee hath wrought a good worke vpon mee Mat 26. 10. 2. That they are also pleasing vnto God is apparant by these places Ye are made an holy â—riesthood to offer vp spirituall sacrifices acceptable to God by Iesus Christ 1 Peter 2. 5. In the Epistle to the Philippians the Apostle calleth their almes seat vnto him An odor of a sweet smell a sacrifice acceptable well pleasing vnto God Philip 4. 18. Againe To doe good and to communicate forget not for with such sacrifices God is well pleased Heb. 13. 16. Hence thâ—y argue If the workes of Men regenerate bee good and acceptable vnto God then certainely the Protestants erre in their Doctrine teaching that the best workes of Men are sinnefull for as much as Sinne is neither good in it selfe nor any way pleasing vnto God Who is infinitely offended at all iniquity Hereunto we answere That this Argument is nothing but a forward and wilfull mistake of our doctrine Wee teach that the best workes of the best men are in part sinnefull They thereupon cry out that wee take away all goodnesse from the workes of the godly and that wee account them to be in se. i. e. Ex natura sua damnable and mortall sinnes This is a foolish calumny of Men that cannot distinguish betweene the disease and the diseased Body but straightway conclude that the whole body it selfe is nothing else but a meere rotten vlcer because it hath swellings and sores in some parts of it Wherefore to vnfold their eyes in his point they are to vnderstand that wee make a necessary true distinction between That which is sinne and that which is sinnefull teaching that the good workes of the Regenerate be not sinnes though they be sinfull Wee explaine it thus That is to be called Sinne in its owne Nature which is the transgression of the Law in doing any act forbidden or in leauing vndone any act commanded by the Law The omitting or committing of any such act is properly in se ex Naturâ suâ a sinne Because it is directly and totally in the very substance of it against the Law As to pray to a false God or neglect prayer to the true God are both of them sinnes in their very proper Natures because both are forbidden by the morall law That wee call sinnefull which is for the maine substance of the worke conformable to the Law but it failes and offends against the Law in some circumstances required in the doing of it when the thing is done which the Law commands but noâ— perfectly in euery point as the Law commands it such a worke we say is not a sinne though it be sinnefull there is sinne in it but it is not all sinne This distinction our Aduersaries cannot but admit of as in the workes of the Heathen and Christians vnregerate so in the good workes of the Regenerate themseâ—ues Wee and they confesse that the morall Vertues of the Heathen were good and commendable in the substance thereof nor doe we thinke there is any men so deuoide of reason as to affirme that the Iustice Temperance Chastity Liberality of a Heathen are meere vices sinnes We all grant they were vertues but yet our Aduersaries themselues cannot affirme that they were euery way vertuous free from all spots and staines of Vice seeing they had neither faith sanctity from whence they sprung nor the glory of God at which they aimed Now as the vertues of the naturall man are in part vitious so the good workes of the Regenerate are in part sinnefull To fast to pray to giue almes with the like workes of Piety or Mercy we affirme and teach that they are good workes good in their nature and vse being such actions as the Law commands We know none of our side so farre gone with passion as to maintaine that a godly man sinnes because hee fasts prayes and giues almes as if those very acts were nothing but damnable sinne We detest such franticke opinions and if any of our Writers haue let slip such words as may giue occasion to our Aduersaries so to thinke of vs we doe not nor are we bound to iustifie euery hot and cholericke speech breathed out in eagernesse of disputation Good workes they be truly and verily good but they are not perfectly good When a godly man prayes he doth well but he neuer doth so well but he may doe better Nor dare any man in the world auouch that either the roote whence good actions come is purged by perfect Holinesse or the manner of doing them is so exactly kept in a precise obseruation of euery circumstance or the end in doing them Gods glory and Mans good so syncerely and truely aimed at that the seuerity of Gods Iustice cannot finde any the least failing in any of those things This is all we teach touching the sinfulnesse of good workes and thus we stand too as a most certaine truth And we say That this sinnefulnesse accompanying our good workes is
say that there is But concerning Grace and Righteousnes 't is certaine there is that remissio graduum without any admixtion of Sinne and iniquity As the Holines of Saints is lesse then that of Angels that of Angels lesse then the Holines of Christs glorified Humanity this lesse then his Diety And yet in the least of these Righteousnesses there is no Vnrighteousnes at all to be found no not in the seuere judgement of God Except we say there is vnrighteousnes in Heauen where no vncleane thing can enter Well then What Imperpection of mans Righteousnes is it which is Sinne We say That Imperfection when man in any Grace or good Worke wantes that degree of goodnes which he ought to haue As in nature If the Eye want that cleernes of sight which should be in it 't is a naturall Euill In Morality if a man want that Temperance or degree of Temperance he ought to haue it s a vitious and morall euill so in Grace the want of that righteousnes or degree of righteonsnes which God requires to be in man is a Sinne and spirituall Euill All such priuations of what should be present are Euill in what kind soeuer If they be in nature they be malamiseranda deserue pity and cure if in Vertue and Grace they be mala culpanda worth of blame and punishment Such defects as these in Grace when man fals short not onely of that which is in others but that which should be in himselfe doe alwaies arise from the mixture of Corruption and Sinne. Hee that loues nâ—t God or his neighbour so much as he ought to doe 't is because his heart be wicked at the least in part and that he loues others things more then he should doe These things are certaine and vndeniable according to those words of St. Augustin that are authenticall Profecto illud quod minus est quam debet ex vitio est And againe Pecâ—atum est vel cum non est charitas quae esse debet vel minor est quam debet 'T is a Sinne not to loue God at all or to loue him lesse then we should Wherefore heere we aske the Iesuite whether Charity and other Graces in a man regenerate be so perfect in this Life as they ought to be If he say they be not so perfect as they ought to be how can he affirme that this defect is no fault nor Sinne Can a man possibly doe worse or be worse then he should and yet be iâ— no fault therefore If he say they be as perfect as they should be his owne Conscience and the Conscience of all the men in the World will gain-say him for a liar No man can say that he loues God and his Neighbour asmuch as he ought to doe and that he is not bound in euery grace and good worke to ariue at greater perfection then hee hath for the present He that thinkes himselfe come nearest vnto the marke will yet be driuen to confesse that he fals many bowes short of those patternes which we ought to imitate Adam in his Innocency Christs Humanity and the Saints in Heauen Wee here bid them Depinge ubi sistam make a point where we shall stoppe that when we are come so farre we need seeke no further perfection If they cannot do this then they must confesse as the truth is that euery man is bound by Gods command to be more holy to be more perfect in all Graeces and good workes and so farre as he wants any degree or dramme of goodnesse that should be in him and his works so farre he is sinfull and guilty of a fault 3 I goe on to the last Assertion of our Aduersaries which is toâ—ching veniall sinnes viz. That these doe not hinder the righteousnesse of mens good workes A man may be a perfect iust man though he commit many veniall sinnes The reason whereof they make to be because veniall sinnes are not contrary to charity the loue of God and our neighbour and so may stand well enough with the fulfilling of the Law Against this errour tending to the obduration of mans hart in impenitency loue of sin we maintain this conclusioÌ„ Those sinnes which the Church of Rome cals veniall doe truly make a man regenerate and his workes vnrighteousnesse in the sight of God This we proue by this one Argument Whosoeuer transgresseth the Law he is vnrighteous in so doing But he that commits veniall sinnes transgresseth the Law Ergo He that commits veniall sinnes is an vnrighteous man The Maior is vndeniable For the Minor our Aduersarie is at a stand They are loath to grant it yet cannot tell how to deny it with any honesty Bellarmine after one or two shuffling distinctioÌ„s of simpliciter secundum quid perfectè and imperfectè at last plainly denies that veniall sinnes be contrary to the Law For answering vnto those places in Iames. In many things we offend all and that in Iohn If we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues Hee saith they cannot hansomly shift themselues of those places who hold that veniall sinnes be propriè contra Legem Such as bee of that opinion Let them looke to it saith he what they will answere to that of Saint Iames. He that keepes the Law in one point c. He therefore will be more wise and wary Solâ—da igitur respensio est saith he Peccata venialia sine quibus non viuitur non esse peccata simpliciter sed imperfectè secundum quid neque esse contra Legem sed praerer Legem And thus saith he Omnia cohaerent like a Pebble in a Withe Nam qui ostendit in vno praeuaricans scilicet vnum praeceptum reus est omnium simpliciter iniustus constituitur tamen in multis offendimus omnes quia tametsi nihil facimus contra Legem tamen multa facimus praeter Legem Et qui â—atus est ex Deo non peccatat transgrediendo Legem tamen si dicamus qâ—ia peccatum non habemus viz. nihil praeter Legem faciendo noâ— ipsos seducimus veritas non est in Nobis This is an vnbound Besome as will appeare by vndoing that distinction which seemes to hold it together Veniall sinnes are not against the Law but besides the Law Well we must now know what is against the Law what besides That is against the Law when any thing is done which the Law forbids or left vndone which it commands That is besides the Law when the thing done is neither coÌ„manded nor forbidden in the Law He then that commits a veniall sinne doth some such act as the Law neither forbids nor commands Here then we aske Be veniall sinnes sinnes Yea they be Is God offended with them Yea and he may iustly punish them on vs with the losse of Heauen For so Bellarmine himselfe confesseth Peccata venialia nisi misericorditer remittantur impediunt ab ingressu illius Regni in quod nihil
coinquinatum intrare potest Now sure this is admirable that such acts as these should defile a man deserue hell offend God in a word be sinnes and yet for all this neither commanded nor forbidden in any Law of God Was there euer such a toy heard of as this as Sinnes beside the Law T is a most ridiculous contradiction Peccatum praeter Legem He that doth any thing beside the Law not mentioned nor include â— therein by way of prohibition or command t is most apparent he sinnes not nor offends not at all For whom doth he offend or who can challenge him of Sinne Doth God the Law-giuer No for t was not his intention to command or forbid such an act and ergo be it done or not done it crosseth not his will nor hath he any reason to finde fault or be displeased at it Satan or Man cannot accuse him For let them then shew the Law that prooues him an offender If they cannot alleadge a Law against which he hath transgressed they wrongfully accuse him of a fault Were it not absurd accusation against a prisoner at the Barre to say that he hath indeed done nothing against the Lawes of the Land but many things besides the Law not forbidden nor commanded in the Law those hee hath done and deserues to be punished for it as an offender But now if those veniall sinnes bee mentioned in Gods Law then are such actions either commanded or forbidden If commanded then the not doing of such a thing is plainely contrary to the Law As for example To steale a penny or some other small matter to please an idle word to tell an officious lie these be veniall sinnes say our Aduersaries But how hnow they they be sinnes who told them so The Scriptures they will say Where In the 8 and 9 Commandement Aske them now Did God intend in those Commandements to forbid those actions of stealing and lying Yea or No If he intended it not then t is no sinne at all to doe them seeing it croâ—seth not Gods will nor offends him If he did intend to forbid vs those things then to doe them is a sinne manifestly contrary to the holy will of God the Lawgiuer Wherfore let vs here remeÌ„ber that excellent rule of Bernard Non iussa quïdem licitè vtrumlibet vel admittuntur vel omittuntur iussa vero sine culpa non negleguntur sine crimine non â—ontemnuntur For things not commanded we may either lawfully doe them or leaue them but for things commanded to neglect them is a sinne to contemne them is a haynous crime Wherefore this distinction of sins against and sinnes beside the Law falleth to dust and our Minor Proposition stands firme That he who committeth veniall Sinne transgresseth the Law of God and therefore is vnrighteous for his so doing Becanus here forsakes the Cardinall in this distinction and helpes him by an other deuisâ— He grants that Veniall Sinnes be against the Law and proues it because euery Veniall Sinne is moraliter malum and Ergo contra rectam rationemet Legem aeternam But here 's now the distinction It is one thing to be contra Legem another contra finem Legis All Veniall sinnes be against the Law but no veniall sinne is properly against the end of the Law that is against Charity the Loue of God or our Neighbour Is not this a superfine Inuention As if a Subiect that hath in many things broken the Law should say True my faults be against the Law of the Land but yet they are not against the end of those Lawes viz. obedience to my Prince and Loue to the good of him and my Country Though I break the Lawes yet I would not haue you thinke but I loue and honour my Prince and Country well enough Iust so the Iesuits A man may commit many sinnes against Gods Law and yet obserue the end of the Law in louing God with all his heart and his Neighbour as himselfe Then which nothing can be more senselesse that a man should offend God in breaking of his Law and yet not withstanding loue God with his whole heart That a man should wrong his Neighbour doing that to him which he would not haue done to himselfe and yet for all that loue his Neighbour as himselfe If ye loue mee keepe my Commandemâ—nts saith Christ. Iohn 14. 15. Nay say the Romanists we loue him and yet breake his Commandements Loue doth none euâ—l to his Neighbour saith the Apostle Romans 13. 10 Nay say the Iesuits Loue may doe euill to his Neâ—ghbour and yet keepe the name of loue A man may be angry with another without cause reuile him and call him Racha hee may defraude him in small matters for these they make veniall sinnes and yet in the meane time all this without breath of Charity Himselfe would not willingly be so vsed but hee will vse another in this sort and yet looke to bee thanked for his loue too Such grosse absurdities doe our Aduersaries runne in to by coyning such senselesse distinctions of Sinnes not against but besides the Law of sinnes not against the end of the Law though against the Law it selfe Our Consciences cannot be satisfied with such silly shiftes and therefore we leaue them vnto those that can content themselues and choake vp their Consciences with a little sophistry Men who make a pastime of sinne and take liberty to qualifie and dispence with Gods Law as they thinke agreeable to their Conscience hoping by tricks of wit and dodging Distinctions to a void the accusations of Conscience and to elude the seuerity of Gods Iudgement SECT 4. CHAP I Iustification by workes makes void the couenant of grace of the difference between the law the Gospel of the vse of the Law of the erroneous conceit of our Aduersaries in this point THus much of these three Exceptions of our â—econd Argâ—ment prouing the impossibiliâ—y of our Iustification by the workes of the Law because we cannot perfectly fulfill the â—aw We goe now forward vnto two Arguments more taken the one from the difference of the two Couenants God hath made with man First of works the other of grace and the other from the Nature of true Christian Libâ—rty obtained for vs by Christs death Argument That which makes voide the Couenant of Grace is a false and haereticall doctrine But Iustification of workes of the Law makes void the Couenant of Grace Ergo T is false and haeriticall so to teach For confirmation of the minor in this Argument wee must briefly shew 1 What the Couenant of Grace what the Couenant of workes is 2 What opposition their is betweene these two By the Couenant of Grace we vnderstand in one word the Gospell i. e. the gratious appointment of God to bring man to Saluation by Iesus Christ. In the administration of this gratious purpose of God we must obserue foure periods of time where in God hath diuersly ordered this meanes
for the transgression of the Law A briefe summe of Popish doctrine concerning humane satisfactions for sinne THus we haue the resolution of the dispute of S. Iames together with such Cauils as our Adversaries make vpon the seuerall passages thereof By the whole order whereof it appeares sufficiently that Saint Iames disputing against Faith meanes thereby that false and bastard Faith which hypocrites pleased themselues withall insteed of a true Faith and that disputing for workes he meanes nothing but a working Faith And it appeares also that the drift of the Apostle is not in this place to dispute directly of Man's Iustification but only to bring that in as an argument to proue his principall Conclusion That Faith without workes is dead because it will not iustifie In summe it 's euident that neither these Apostles doe disagree between themselues nor yeâ— either of them doe agree with our Adversaries in teaching Iustification by the the Workes of the Morall Law Of the impossibility of Man's Iustification by which meanes Hitherto Theâ—r exâ— Proposition is that None can be iustified by their owne safisfaction for the transgression of the Law For this is this is the only way 〈◊〉 for an Offender to obtaine Iustification and Absolution viâ— to alleage that he hath satisfied for his offence committed by doing or suffering so much as the party offended could in justice exact of him Which satisfaction being made he is no longer debter vnto him but deserues his absolution and his fauour as if he had not offended at all Now then the Question is Whether a Sinner may by any thing done or endured by himselfe satisfie the Iustice of God so obtaine absolution at the Barre of God's Iudgment We defend the Negatiue That it is impossible for a Sinner by any Action or Passion of his own to doe so much as shall be aequivalent vnto the wrong which he hath done vnto the glorious Iustice of God that there with he may rest satisfied and exact no further paenalty Which point is so euident vnto the Conscience of euery one that knowes himselfe to be either a Creature or a Man or a Sinner that it needes not any confirmation If we be considered as Creatures there 's nothing that a finite strength in a finite time can performe which can hold proportion with the offence of an infinite goodnes and Iustice and the eternal punishment thereby deserued Consider vs as Men so we are bound to fulfill the Law of God in all perfection nor is there any thing so true so honest so just so pure so worthy loue and good report but the Law one way or other obliges vs vnto the thought and practise of it So that besides our due debt of Obedience we haue nothing to spare ouer and aboue whereby to satisfie God for those Trespasses that we haue committed vpon his honour and Iustice. Lastly consider vs as Sinners so we are tyed in a double Obligation 1. of punishment to be suffered for Sinne committed 2. Another of Obedience to be perpetually performed Both these debts of punishment and Obedience are equally exacted of sinfull Men and ergo 'tis as absurd in Diuinity to say the Obedience of the Law or good workes will satisfie for the Transgression of the Law as 't is in ciuill dealing to account the payment of one Band the discharge also of another Wherefore euery one that is not blinde and proud in heart will here be soone perswaded to relinquish all claime of Heauen by his own satisfaction running vnto him onely who alone without the helpe of Man or Angell hath troden the Winepresse of the fiercenesse of God's wrath bearing our Sinnes in his Body on the Tree suffering the vtmost whatsoeuer was due to the punishment of them Our Adversaries in this busines are at a stand mistrusting their owne yet not daring wholly to trust to Christ's satisfactions They will giue him leaue to haue his part but by his leaue they will haue one share too in satisfying for Sinnes For they are a generation of Men that are resolued to be as litle beholding to God as may be for grace or for glory And if there be any article of Religion wherein Scripture and Reason would giue the honour of all vnto God they looke at it with an Euill Eye and cast about which way to thrust in themselues for copartners 'T is strange to see to what passe Pride and Couetousnesse haue brought the doctrine of Satisfaction as it is now taught and practised in the Romish Church With you patience I shall take a short survey of it that you may see whether of vâ—twaine rest our Consciences vpon the surer and more stedfast anchor we that trust onely to Christ's satisfactions or they that joine their owne together with his The summe of their doctrine as it is deliuered vnto vs by the Councell of Trent Sess. 6. cap. 14 16. Sess 14 cap. 8. 9. with the Romish Catechisme part 2. cap. 5. quaest 52. seq and explained at large by Bellarmine in his two bookes De Purgatorio in his 4th Booke De Poenitentia and his Bookes De Indulgentijs is this Sinnes are of two sorts 1. Sinne committed before Baptisme as Originall Sinne in all that are baptized Infants and actuall sinnes in those that are baptized at yeares of discretion 2. Sinne committed after Baptisme when after the Grace of the holy Ghost receiued in Baptisme men fall into Sin polluting the Temple of God and grieuing his Spirit Touching the former sort of Sinnes they are agreed that Men are freed from them both the fault and punishment by the Merits and satisfaction of Christ only without any satisfaction on our part But now for Sinnes after Baptisme in obtaining of Remission of them Christ and we part stakes Which copartnership is declared vnto vs in this manner In 〈◊〉 Sinnes we must know there are three things considerable 1. The fault in the offence of God's Maiesty and violation of our friendship with him Here they grant also That Man can not satisfie for the fault doing any thing that may appease God's displeasure and procure his loue Christ onely hath done this for vs for whose onely satisfaction God of his mercy freely returnes into fauour and friendship with vs. But this must be vnderstood in a catholique sense viz for fault of Mortall Sinnes as for Veniall Sinnes God is but slightly angry with them and so we may satisfie him for the fault thereof both in this life and in Purgatory 2. The staine or corruption of Sinne called the Reliques of Sinne abiding in the Soule For the purging out of which there is great force in such satisfactions as are made by Prayers Fastings Almesdeedâ—s and other laborious workes although the Heretiques say otherwise That the abolishing of inhaerent corruption is by the gift of grace freely bestowed on vs by degrees in the vse of all godly meanes 3. The punishment of Sinne which after the fault is pardoned
such a fact lawfull howeuer questioned to the contrary In other Languages my skill serues mee not nor is it needfull to trouble you with Instances Those that haue written of this subiect of every Nation witnesse every one for their owne Language And further this word Iustificare being of a latterâ—stampe vnknowne to such Latine Authors as are of ancient and purer Language fitted by Ecclesiasticall writers to expresse the meaning of those two words of the Originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is apparent the Copy must follow the Originall and the Latine word beare the same sense as the Hebrew and Greeke words doe And that this is that Legall sense which wee haue spoken of is a point so manifest throughout the whole Bible that nothing but impudency can deny it As wee shall presently perceiue For in the next place 2 As to the Scriptures which they alleadge for proofe of their Interpretation of the word We answere That of a Multitude of places of Scripture wherin the word Iustifie is vsed our Adversaries may truly pick out one two or three that seem to fauor their Assertion of Infusion of habituall Iustice yet haue they gained little thereby For where tenne or more may be alleadged against one in which the contrary signification is vsed reason tels vs that an Article and Doctrine of Religion ought to bee framed out of the signification of words and phrases which is vsuall ordinary and regular and not out of that which sometimes comes in by way of particular exception Might he not be iudged destitute of sense or modesty that would quarrell at the signification of the word Ecclesia that in the New Testament it is not taken for the Company Assembly of the faithful because in a place or two as Act. 19. it is taken for any ordinary ciuill meeting of people together Wherefore we may grant them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that of Dan. 12. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Apoc. 22. is to be made iust formaliter by infusion of inherent Holinesse in a Sinner For so Ministers may be said to iustifie many as it is in Daniel viz. by Ministery turne many to righteousnesse directing them to the meanes of Holinesse and as Gods Instruments working in them the graces of Conversion and Regeneration And so he that is iust in the Apoc. may be iustified still that is encrease in the inward Habite and outward Exercise of Holinesse more and more thus we may yeeld them in these two places without seeking too other Interpretations further off And yet will this be no prejudice to our Doctrine grounded vpon the other signification so generally vsed Wee answere that of all those other places alleadged by Bell and Becanus there is not any one that doe necessarily enforce such a meaning of the word as hee and his fellowes stand for These aboue the rest haue most apparance namely 1 Cor 6. Tit. 3. Rom 8. 30. where Iustification is say they confounded as one and the same with Sanctification Regeneration Wherevnto I answeare that they doe ill to confound those things that the Apostle hath distinguished very plainly Hee tels the Corinthians that the Vnrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdome of God and that themselues had bin such euen of the most notorious rancke but now they were washed sanctified and Iustified By three words the Apostle expresseth the change of their former condition One Metaphoricall yea are washed The meaning whereof hee declareth in two proper words following yee are Sanctified that 's one degree of washing or clensing from the corruption of Nature in part by the Spirit of our God of whome is the gift of inherent grace And ye are iustified that 's another sort of washing from the guilt of Sinne in the whole in the name of the Lord Iesus that is by the Righteousnesse aâ—d Merits of Iesus Christ. Nothing can be more perspicuous and elegant That place to Tit. Chap. 3 is also as plaine God sayeth the Apostle speaking of the Heires and sonns of GOD in Christ hath saued vs not by any workes of ours but by his owne mercy ver 5. This salvation is set forth to vs in the Meanes and in the End The meanes are two Regeneration and Iustification He hath saued vs by the washing of Regeneration renewing of the Holy Ghost This is the first Meanes viz. Regeneration expressed 1. by its properties or parts 1. Washing or doing away of the filthy Qualities of our corrupted Natures 2. Renewing the Investing of it with new Qualities of Graces and Holynesse 2 By the cause efficient the Holy Ghost whome hee hath shed on us abundantâ—y or richly following the Metaphore comparing the Holy Ghost in this operation to water powred out 2 The Meritorious Cause of it Through Iesus Christ our Saviour who hath procured the sending downe of the Holy ghost into the hearts of the elect ver 6. This is one stepp to Heauen our Regeneration but it is imperfect and cannot abide the severity of Gods Iudgements now we must be absolutely free from all fault and guiltinesse before we can haue hope of obtaining eternall Life Therfoâ—e followes the other meanes of salvation viz. our Iustification by the free grace of God which vtterly frees vs from all blame whatsoever both of obedience to the law and satisfaction for Sins against the law that thus being Regenerate and Iustified we might obtaine the end of our salvation eternall Life The third place is that Rom. 8. 30 Whom God hath Praedestinated these he hath called whome called iustified whome iustified glorified In this place Becanus triumphs For sayth he The Apostle here describing the order of Mans salvation first in Gods decree then in the Execution of it by three degrees of Vocation Iustification and Glorification it followes necessarily from thence that either Sanctification is left out or that it is confounded with one of those three degrees named T is a desperate shift to say that Sanctification is signified by Vocation or Glorification therefore it must be the same with Iustification And this cannot be avoyded by any Elusion We leaue shifts to the Iesuites returning him to this place this plaine direct answere That Sanctification is here comprised in the word Vocation For whereas the linkes of this golden chaine are inseparable and all those that are called must needes be iustified and glorified by vocation must here be meant that calling which is inward and effectuall not that alone which is outward by the externall Ministery of the Word For all that are thus called bee not iustified as is apparent and againe some as Infants are iustified that are not capable of such a Calling But now wherein stands the inward vocation of a sinner Is it not in the Infusion of inherent sanctifying Grace enlightning his Eyes opening his Eare changing his Heart turning him from darkenesse to light from the power of Satan to the obedience of
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
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
Grace Both Sentences are squint eyed and looke quite awry from the Apostles ayme in this dispute touching Iustification Is it his intent Rom. 3. to proue that a sinner destitute of grace cannot be made inherently holy by Morality or outward workes of Piety or thus That a Sinner cannot attaine to Sanctification by his owne strength but he must attaine to it by the grace of God Take a suruey of the Chapter and follow the Apostles Argumentation All both Iewes and Gentiles are vnder sinne verse 9. therefore euery mouth must be stopped and none can pleade innocency and all the world must be guilty before God and so liable to condemnation verse 19. What followeth hence now Therefore by the workes of the Law shall no flesh be iustified in his sight verse 20. How strange were this Conclusion taken in our Adversaries Construction Ergo By Obedience vnto the Morall Law done without grace no flesh can attaine Sanctification in his sight For neither doth the Apostle speake of Sanctification but of absolution as is apparant All are sinners against the Law Ergo by pleading innocency in the keeping of the Law no Man can be wholy sanctified nor Iustified nor absolued from Blame in Gods sight Nor yet will the Reason immediately annexed admit that glosse Workes without Grace By the workes of the Law shall no flesh be Iustified in his sight Why For by the Law commeth the Knowledge of Sinne that is By the Law Men are conuinced of Sinne and declared not to be innocent Which reason is not worth a Rush according to our Aduersaries Construction He that without grace shall doe the workes of the Law he is not thereby made holy Why Because the Law is the knowledge of sinne The Law thus obserued tels him he is a sinner In which reason there is no force vnlesse it bee true on the other side He that by the helpe of grace doth the workes of the Law is thereby sanctified because the Law thus kept tels him he is not a sinner which is most vntrue In as much as not onely those which are destitute of grace but those that haue grace also and by the helpe thereof keepe the Law in some measure are by the Law notwithstanding convinced to be sinners The Apostle yet goes forward If we be not iustified by the workes of the Law by what then He answeres verse 21. But now is the righteousnesse of God made manifest without the Law We are iustified by the righteousnesse of God But what is that It is saith the distinction that obedience to the Law which we performe by Gods grace A glosse apparantly false For the righteousnesse of God here is a Righteousnesse without the Law But obedience to the Law though performed with grace is a Righteousnesse with the Law because t is the Righteousnesse of the Law For t is all one he that obeyes the Law by his owne strength if he doe it perfectly he hath the righteousnes of the law he that obeyethit perfectly by Gods grace hath still the same righteousnes of the law and no other For so the Law be kept it alters not the righteousnes thereof that we keepe it by our own strength that wee haue of our selues or another helpe that giues vs strength to doe it For then that strength which he giues vs is our owne Which point duely obserued cuts in sunder the sinewes of this distinction for t is cleare the Apostle distinguisheth the Righteousnesse of the Law and of God as different in thir kindes these make them to be one and the same thing Obedience to the morall Lawe but done by diuers helpes one by meere nature the other by Grace This is most contrary to the Scriptures and specially to that excellent place Rom. 10. 3. 4. c. where the Apostle shewing the differeÌ„ce betweene the Righteousnesse which is our owne or of the Law and that which is the Righteousnesse of God or Faith tels vs. The Righteousnesse of the Law is thus described Th Man that doth these things shall liue thereby but the Righteousnesse of Faith speaketh on this wise whosoeuer beleeueth on him i. e. Christ shall not be ashamed Can any thing be more plaine then that the Apostle opposeth heere Doing of the Law and Beleeuing in Christ Not doeing the Law by our owne strength and doeing of the Law by Gods grace These are Iesuiticall glosses that corrupt Apostolicall Doctrine and strangely peruert the worke of Christ in our Redemption as if he had done no more for vs but this viz. procured that where as we could not liue by doeing of the Law through our owne strength God will now aide vs by his grace that we may fulfil the Law and by that Legall Righteousnesse obtaine Iustification and remission of Sinnes We abhorre such Doctrine and doe reiect as vaine and imaginary that distinction wheÌ„ce such absurdities necessarily follow More might be sayed in confutation thereof were it needefull but we haue dealt long vpon this point and t is time to hasten forward By the way vnto the Iesuits Arguments in the defence of this Distinction We answere 1 We confesse Faith is a worke and in doeing of it we obey the Law because as Saint Iohn speakes Iohn 3. 23. This is Gods Commandment that we beleeue in the name of his Sonne Iesus Christ. And therefore the Gospell is called The Law of Faith because the promise of grace in Christ is propounded with Commandment that Men beleeue it But now we deny that Faith iustifies vs as 't is a worke whiâ—h we performe in Obedience to this Law It iustifieth vs onely as the Condition required of vs and an Instrument embracing Christs Righteousnesse Nor can the contrary be proued 2 The Iesuits are mistaken in the scope of the Apostle Rom. 3. whose intent is not to shew the Iew or Gentile could not attaine Sanctification without Gods grace by such Obedience to the Law as they could performe through the meere strength of Naturall Abilities They affirme it strongly but their Proofes are weake being manyfestly confuted by the whole File of the Apostles disputation who clearely and plainely exclude both Iewes and Gentiles from being Iustified by the workes of the Law without making mention or giueing the least Intimation by what meanes these workes must be performed whether without grace or by the Helpe of grace Yea it had been quite besides his purpose so to haue done For the Apostles argument is cleare as the Light and strong as a threefold cord All are Sinners against the Law therefore by obedience vnto the Law Let Men performe which way they list or can without grace or with grace no Man is in Gods sight pronounced innocent 3 To the Last argument out of Rom. 4. 4. we answere The Apostle there proues that the Faithfull children of Abraham are not iustified by workes Because Abraham the Father of the Faithfull was Iustified by Faith and not by workes Where wee affirme
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
my selfe in my minde serue the law of God but in my flesh the law of sinne Euen Paul serues God in the better halfe of him doe what he can sinne will haue a place in his heart a part of his seruice though he be vnwilling to yeeld it If any will compare and preferre himselfe to this holy man he may prooue himselfe prouder but better then him he cannot T is arrogance for a simple Fryer to claime perfection when so great an Apostle disauowes it He that will not acknowledge that corruption in himselfe which Paul in the name of all confesseth in his owne person t is not because such a one is more holy then the Apostle but because he is ignorant and sees it not or high-minded and scornes to be knowne of it Furthermore Reason confirmes what Scriptures and experience doe witnesse viz. that sinfull corruption will hang fast vpon vs vnto our dying day for if we suppose an vtter abolishment of sinne and corruption in our Nature it must needes follow there will neuer be any sinfulnesse at all in our workes and liues Where the Habit is perfect the Action is so too and a sweet Fountaine cannot send forth bitter waters Wherefore seeing not the best of men can liue without manifold actuall sinnes It it apparent that this ill fruit comes from a bad humour in the tree and this defect of actuall obedience comes from the imperfection of habituall holinesse This is sufficient for Iustification of the truth of our first Preposition That inherent holinesse in this life is not perfect Because t is alwayes coupled with some sinfull corruption But here our Adversaries cry out with open mouth that we maintaine moastrous propositions Namely That there is nâ— inherent holinesse in a man that 's iustified that after Iustification a man still remaines a sianer and vniust That in Iustification sinne is not abolished but onely couered with Christs mantle Thence they fall to their Rhetoricke That all Calvinists are but painted Sepulchers faire without full of rottennesse within Like foolish Virgins that haue no oyle of their owne But thinke to be supplyed by that of other folkes Like Wolues in a Lambes skinne which hides but takes not away their rauening and fierce nature Like a leprous person in fine cloathes that lookes to be fauoured and imbraced by his King because his is well apparelled For this is say they to teach That a Man iustified is yet a sinner in himselfe That corruption filthinesse and vncleannesse remain in him when yet in Gods sight he is accounted pure and cleane because hee hath hid himselfe vâ—der the cloake of Christs righteousnesse Whence also they tell vs it well follow Wee make Christs body monstrous a holy beautifull head ioyned to filthy leprous members Christs marriage polluted A most holy and faire Bridegroome coupled to a foule deformed Spouse To this we say Truth is modest yet shee will not bee out-faced with bigge words Their eloquence hath slandered partly vs partly the truth Vs in that they affirme we deny all inherent righteousnesse in a person iustified which is an impudent calumny The truth in condemning that for an error which is sacred verity taught vs by God in the Scriptures viz. That a person iustified is yet after that in himselfe in part sinfull This we still teach and maintaine for a truth firme as the foundation of the earth that cannot bee shaken namely That although a Iustified person is by the grace of the Holy Ghost dwelling in him made inherently holy yet this sanctity is not that perfect purity of the heart which the Law requires because some degrees of impurity and corruption doe dwell in him till death And therefore the most iustified person liuing is yet in himselfe partly sinfull and vniust but the sinfulnesse is pardoned vnto him in CHRIST Against this the Râ—manists contend labouring to proue that in him that is iustified Sinne doth not remaine at all but is vtâ—erly abolâ—shed They proue it by such Arguments as these 1 The Scriptures testifie That Christ is the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world That Hee was offered to take away the sinnes of many That in Repentance our sinnes are blotted out That God will subdue our iniquities and cast our sinnes into the bottome of the Sea in allusion to the drowning of the Aegyptians in the red Sea Wherefore if sinne be taken away blotted out drowned in the Sea like the Aegyptians then sure it is abolished and remaines no longer 2 They prooue it from the Properties which are ascribed to Sinne as namely these 1 Sinne is compared to spotts staines and filthynesse but from thence we are washed by the powring on of cleane water vpon vs and by the Blood of Christ. 2 Sinne is compared to Bonds Fetters the Prison whereby we are holden captiue vnder the power of Satan Now Christ hath broken these Chaines and opened these prison doores hauing deliuered us from the power of darknesse and redeemed us from all iniquity made us free from Sinne to be come the seruants of Righteousnesse 3 Sinne is compared to sicknesses diseases wounds Now God is the best Phisition the most skilfull Chirurgian and where he vndertakes the Cure he doth his worke throughly he cures all diseases and each on perfectly He doth not spread on a sick Man a faire Couerlid or couer a festred wound with a faire cloth as Caluin imagines but by a purgatiue potion he expelles the disease by a healing plaister he cures the wound So that there is not left nor corrupt matter nor dangerous sore that can proue deadly according to that Rom. 8. 1. There is no condemnation to those that are in Christ Iesus that is There is no matter at all for which they deserue Condemnation as those expound 4 Sinne is likned to death nay it is the spirituall Death of the Soule Now he that is iustified is restored to Spirituall Life and where Life is there death is quite taken away seing a Man cannot be aliue and dead both together Wherefore the Apostle saith Rom. 6. 6. Our old Man is crucified with him that the Body of Sinne might be destroyed that hence forth We might not serue Sinne and v. 11. We are dead vnto Sinne. Hence they conclude If the filthinesse of sinne be washed away the Chaines of sinne broken the Diseases and hurts of Sinne healed the Death of Sinne abolished then it followes that Sinne is quite exstinguished and remaines no more in those that are iustified 3 They argue thus If Sinne remaine in those that are iustified and be onely couered then God either knowes of the sinne or knowes it not To say he were ignorant of it were blasphemy all things being naked and bare before his eyes If he know it then either he hates it or he hats it not If he doth not hate it how doth the Scriptures say true
sanctifying them abolished their naturall corruptions by degrees That so the body of sinne might be destroyed that is not presently annihilated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made of no force and strength made vnable to worke strongly in vs. That henceforth we might not serue sinne Though alwayes we should haue sinne in vs. So are we dead to sinne not as if sinne were vtterly dead in vs or had no more working in vs then it hath in a dead carcase but because the guilt of sinne is fully taken away and the power of sinne hatâ— receiued a deadly wound doth bleed out some of its life now and shall infallâ—bly bleed out the last drop of its life hereafter Vnto the third Argument we answere thus That the Hornes of those Dilemma's be made of wood and may be easily battered We say then that God sees and knowes the sinfull corruption which is in the regenerate for wee cannot assent vnto that wilde and franticke imagination of some who haue troubled the quiet of some places in this Land by preaching that God doth not nay cannot see any iniquity or matter of blame in those that be in Christ Iesus We beleeue that nothing is hid from his eyes nor be our sins lesse visible to him then our graces God knowes what sinnes his children commit he iudgeth them to be faults and such as deserue his infinite wrath Yea to goe further as hee sees the sinne of the regenerate so he hates it with a perfect hatred it being impossible that his pure eyes should behold impurity and loue it But now what followes hence If he see it and hate it then he cannot but punish it True that consequence is certaine But what 's next If God punish that sinne which is in the Regenerate how then is their sinne couered and their iniquities forgiuen How doth hee account them Iust whom he knoweth and punisheth for vniust Here 's a Sophisme He sees sinne and hates sinne and punisheth sinne of the Regenerate Therefore he punisheth it in and vpon their owne persons That 's a non sequitur Hee punisheth it but t is in the person of Christ who hath troden the Winepresse of the fierce wrath of God conceiued against all sinfulnesse whatsoeuer in his Elect by which meanes his hatred towards the sinne of the Regenerate is fully satisfied and also his loue towards their persons procured He graciously passeth by their iniquity pardoning vnto them what he hates and hath punished in Christ in which respect he may be truly said not to see that sinne in them which he will neuer punish in them and to couer that sinne which shall neuer bee layed open in iudgement against them 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 Obiections are answered ANd thus much touching the first Proposition and the first point wherein Man fals short of his obedience to the Morall Law viz. in the imperfection of habituall inherent holinesse We goe on vnto the next Proposition touching Mans actuall Obedience vnto the whole Law Where we teach That no man can perfectly obey the Law in performing all such workes both inward and outward as each commandement requires A man would thinke this point needed no other proofe but onely experience In all the Catalogue of the Saints can you pricke out one that after regeneration neuer committed sinne against the Law We shall kisse the ground he treads on if we know where that man haunts who can assure vs that since his conuersion he neuer brake the Law Shall we finde this perfection in a Monkes Cell or in a Hermits Lodge an Anachorites Mue vnder a Cardinals Hat or in the Popes Chaire All these are Cages of vncleannesse not Temples wherein dwells vndefiled Sanctity Neuer to sinne that 's a happinesse of Saints and Angels with whom we shall hereafter enioy it but whilst wâ—e are mortall we can but wish for it Thy Law saith Dauid is exceeding large It compriseth in it not a few but many and manifold duties Good workes are by a kind of Popish Soloecisme brought to a short summe Prayer Fasting and Almes-deedes These are eminent among the rest but not the hundreth part of the whole number There is besides a world of duties enioyned and as many sinnes forbâ—dden each Commandement hath it seuerall Rankes euery duty its manifold Circumstances to reckon vp all were a businesse which the wit of the subtilest Iesuite or the profoundest Diuâ—ne could hardly master To performe them is a taske which is beyond the strength of the holiest Man who in finding it a great difficulty to doe any one well would forthwith iudge the performance of so many an impossibility But if this suffice not we haue expresse Scriptures to proue that no man doth actually obey the Law in all points Such places are these 1 1 Kings 8. 46. There is no man that sinneth not 2 Eccles. 7. 20. For there is not a iust man vpon eaâ—th that doeth good and sinneth not 3 Iames 3. 2. In many things we offend all 4 1 Iohn 1. 8. If we say that we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues and the truth is not in vs. Whence we conclude that de facto neuer any man did keepe the Law but brake it in some yea in many things And therefore we say that the dispute of our Aduersaries touching the possibility of keeping the Law vanishes to nothing For seeing no man hath or will euer actually keep it as the Scriptures witnesse to what end serues all the quarrelling aâ—d dispute about the possibility of keeping it No man shall be iustified by the Law because he hath a power to keepe it if he list but because he hath actually kept it Whence it is manifest that the reply of our Aduersaries is ridiculous No man indeed doth keepe it but yet they may if they will For 1. what is that to Iustification Can a man that 's regenerate be iustified by his obedience of the Law when yet after his regeneration hee doth not keepe it 2. And againe How know these men that there was or is such a power in the Saints to keepe the Law when yet the world neuer saw it brought into Act Is it not more probable that what neuer was nor will be done neuer could nor can be done Were they all idle and did not doe their best endeauour T is true none doth so much good as hee should and might but yet t is a sharpe censure to say that none would put themselues forward to the vtmost of their might What shall be said of Saint Paul Phil. 3. 12. He confesseth that himselfe was not yet perfect but that he sought after it How negligently No with great diligence and intention He followed after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 12. and that eagerly Reaching forth to catch the things that were bâ—fore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 13. And pressing towards
inoncency or the Saints haue in glory Touching the third sense of the words we grant indeed that to Loue God with all the heart is to loue him super omnia that is aboue all Creatures But the Iesuites take here but one part of true loue of God T is a singular part of Diuine loue when the heart is so fixed on God that neither the loue nor feare of any earthly thing can draw it from obeying of God Which we say is a matter wherein euery one failes in some kinde or other more or lesse though in the end may Martyrs and other holy men haue herein by faith ouercome the world But this is not enough vnto perfect loue to preferre God before all Temporall paines and pleasures profits or discommodities He loues God with all his heart not onely who loues him aboue all but also obeies God in all This is the loue of God that we keepe his Commandements He that for Gods loue will not obey Gods Law he loues his sinnes more then God Offend but in the least thing there 's presently want of loue for hee that will not doe as God bids him then is voyde of that loue which moues him to obey at other times He then that keepeth Gods word in him is the loue of God perfect indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Iohn 2. 5. Perfect obedience and perfect loue are inseparable Now seeing the former cannot be found in mortall men we cannot in them seeke for the latter And therefore this Commandement Loue God aboue all things cannot be kept in this life 2 That a man may loue his neighbour as himselfe For which purpose they turne vs vnto Rom. 13. 8. Hee that loueth another hath fulfilled the Law Because the Law is comprehended in this saying Thou shalt loue thy neighbour as thy selfe v. 9. and loue doth not euill to his neighbour therefore is loue the fulfilling of the Law vers 10. And they bid vs looke Gal. 5. 14. Where we reade For all the Law is fulfilled in one Word Thou shalt loue thy neighbour as thyselfe Hereto we answere That there 's in these places nothing that needs answering We grant that the loue of our neighbour as of our selues is the fulfilling of the Law that is of the second Table of the Law touching our duty vnto man and so much these places witnesse commanding vs also so to doe But now how doe our Aduersaries prooue out of these places that men can perfectly obâ—serue this Law We yeeld the Regenerate loue their neighboars as themselues but that perfection of loue which in euery point fulfils the Law doing our neighbour no hurt but all good in all our thoughts words and deeds this we cannot grant them vnlesse vpon better proofes Let vs goe to the tenth Commandement which they say may be kept that is 3 Thou shalt not couet This tenth Commandement of the Decalogue is say they possible to be fulfilled by a Regenerate man For three things must be obserued touching this concupiscence or coueting forbidden in the tenth Commandement 1 The vitious proâ—enesse and inclination of Nature vnto baddesires which is styled concupiscence in actu primo As to haue a theeuish minde 2 The inordinate motions of the heart immediately arising from that corrupt disposition which preuent reason and goe before consent as to desire another mans money but sodenly vanisheth of it selfe or vpon deliberation t is checkt 3 The consent of the will when either it takes 〈◊〉 mediate delight in such desires themselues as speculatiue fâ—rnication c. or when it resolues to put in execution what the heart imagined as to lay a plot to spoyle another of his goods The two former the vitious disposition of Nature and the inordinate desires that goe before consent these be no sinnes say the Romanists and so not forbidden in the tenne Commandements The last viz. Euill desires with consent they be the very sins which are forbidden in that Commandement Whence they conclude that a Regenerate man may auoid the breach of this commandment seeing it is in the power of his will whether he will consent vnto such motions of the heart or no and if he doe not consent then hee sinnes not Herevnto wee answere That whereas they of Rome teach that the Habituall vitiousnesse of Nature and the disorderly motions of the Heart which goe before Consent are no Sinnes they therein erre grossily against Scriptures and sound Reason This the gift of these Men alwayes to iudge flatteringly and fauourably on Natures side they concipt to themselues a God in Heauen like their God in Rome Facilem Deum one that will wincke at small faults and graunt Indulgence by the Dozen Looke what they iudge a small Matter God must be of there mind or else they are not pleased His Loue must fit there Humors what they thinke they can doe that God shall haue leaue to command or forbid but if otherwise they 'le tell him to his face that he is a foole ct a Tyrant to command them that which now they cannot performe For God say they to require of a Man a freedome from all vitious Inclinations and euill desires this were as mad an injunction as for a master to command his seruant neuer to be hungry or thirsty hot or cold and to threaten him that hee should looke through a halter in case it bee otherwise with him This errour wee shall more conueniently speake of in the refutation of common and generall exceptions which they make against all those proofes that doe demonstrate the impossibility of keeping the Law whereof this is one that Concupiscence in the first and second act is not Sinne. But now whereas they affirme that it is in a Regenerate Mans power not to yeeld consent to the motions of Sin and that therefore he may fulfill the Law which sayed thou shalt not lust we graunt them that the Spirit may many times get the victory ouermastring such vuruly motions of the heart but this is not perpetuall For who is there except extreamely ignorant of Grace and Nature but will confesse that many times these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 affections of Sinne as the Apostle cals them do work in them so strongly vpon such circumstances and aduantages that they doe not only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 combate and fight against the powers of grace but also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vanquish them and euen leade a Man regenerate captiue vnto the Law or command of sinne The Apostle confesseth so much of himselfe Rom. 7. 23. Who yet was able to doe as much as he that thinkes himselfe best And therefore what euer power we may seeme to haue not to yeeld consent yet 't is certaine that we shall often faile in in our practise This of the second Argument touching the obseruation of the obseruation of the hardest precepts of the Law The third followes 3 If a Man may doe more then the Law requires he may certainely doe as much
compleate 6 They proue by these Scriptures that the Law may be fulfilled Gal 5. The apostle reckons vp the fruits of the spirit Loue ioy Peace c. then he sayth ver 23. that against such there is no Law That is sayeth Bellarmine the Law cannot accuse such men of Sinne. So 1 Iohn 3. 9. Whosoeuer is borne of God doth not commit Sinne for his seede remayneth in him and he cannot Sinne because he is borne of God Ergo the regenerate cannot so much as breake the Law We answere That both these places are peruerted by false Interpretations Against such there is no Law sayth the Apostle Against what such persons or such graces If it be meant of Persons viz. That such as haue the Spirit and bring forth the fruits of the Spirit there mentioned against those there is no Law we must take it in the Apostles owne meaning which hee expresseth verse 18. If yee he led by the spirit ye are not vnder Law How is that Are not the Regenerate vnder the Law that is vnder the Obedience of the Law Yes wee graunt on both sides that Grace frees vs not from subiection and obedience vnto Gods Law How then are they not vnder the Law T is plaine They are not vnder the Curse and Condemnation of the Law as those be that walke in the flesh and doe the workes thereof who therefore shall not inherit the Kingdome of God v 19. and that 's to be accursed But such as walke in the Spirit being regenerate and Iustified are not vnder the Curse and therefore though the Law may and doth accuse them of Sinne yet the Law is not so against them as to bring condemnation vpon them as it doth vpon other from which in Christ they are freed If the clause be vnder stood of the Graces of the Spirit there reckoned vp the sense is this Against such workes there is no Law forbidding them as there is against works of the flesh these agreeable those contrary to the law But this makes nothing to our Adversaries purpose For the place in Iohn He that is borne of God doth not commit Sinne yea cannot If our Aduersaries exposition according to the very Letter may stand good it will â—ollow That in the regenerate there is not onely a possibility to keepe the Law but also an impossibility at any time to breake it But they easily see how absurd this position is and that it being graunted their doctrine of falling away from Grace lies flat in the dust seeing Iohn sayeth expresly That a man regenerate not onely doth not but cannot Sinne. Therefore certainely he cannot fall from Grace Wherefore they helpe it out with a distinction Hee cannot sinne that is mortally He may sinne that is venially and veniall sinnes may stand with grace and with perfect Obedience of the Law This distinction is one of the rotten pillars of the Romish Church tw'ill come in fit place to be examined hereafter for the present we say Hee that Sinnes venially as they mince it breakes the Law and againe a Man Regenerate may sinne mortally which is true not onely according to there doctrine who teach that a Man may fall from the Grace of Regeneration which to doe is a mortall Sinne but much more according to the Scriptures and Experience which witnesse that Peter Dauid Solomon and Many yea all the Saints haue at sometime or other there greivous falls out of which notwithstanding by the Grace of the Holy Ghost abiding in them they recouer themselues so that finally they fall not a way The last Argument is from the examples of such men as haue fulfilled the Law 7 The Scriptures record that diuers men haue beene perfect in fulfilling the law in all things 〈◊〉 Abraham Noah Dauid Iosiah Asa Zacharie and Elizabeth the Apostles and other holy Men. Therefore the Law is at least possible to bee kept by some Not to stand in particular examination of all the places of Scripture which are alleadged for proofe of these examples we answer briefly That it is euery maÌ„s duty to aime at perfection in his obedience according to Christs Commandement Mat. 5. 48. Be ye therfore perfect euen as your Father in Heauen is perfect 2 That in this life there are many degrees of grace which God bestowes diuersly on diuers men according to his owne pleasure and their greater or lesse diligence in the practise of Holinesse So that comparatiuely some men may be said to be perfect because farre more perfect then others as the greatest starres bee said to be of perfect light because they shine brighter then those of lesser Magnitude though yet not so bright as the Sunne But 3. we affirme that no man in this endeauour after perfection goes so farre as for inward Holinesse and outward obedience to answere the perfection of the Law in all points Euen in these holy Saints which they bring for instance the Scriptures haue recorded vnto vs their failings that in them at once we may see a patterne of Holinesse to be imitated and an example of humane Infirmity to be admonished by wee haue Abraham somtimes misdoubting of Gods promise protection and helping himselfe by a shift scarce warrantable Noah ouer-seene in drinke Dauid breaking the sixth and seauenth Commandements one after another Iosiah running wilfully vpon a dangerous enterprise against Gods Commandement Asa relying on the King of Syria for helpe against the King of Israel and not vpon the Lord in a rage imprisoning the Prophets for reprouing him and in his disease seeking not to the Lord but to the Phisitians Zachary not giuing credence to the Angels message The Apostles all at a clap forsaking or denying Christ. We cannot then in these Saints finde perfection in the full obedience to the Law amongst whose few actions registred by the Holy Ghosts penne we may reade their sinnes together with their good workes And had the Scriptures beene silent in that point yet who could thence haue concluded that these men or others had no faults because no mention is made of them It was Gods purpose to relate the most eminent not euery particular action of their liues euen Christs story fals short of such exactnesse Wee conclude then notwithstanding these Arguments Our second Proposition standeth firme and good viz. That no man in this life can fulfill the Law in euery duty both inward and outward but that the iustest man on earth will faile in many things So if he should seeke for Iustification by this his actuall obedience to the Law he throwes himselfe vnder the curse of the Law For cursed is euery one that continues not in all things which are written in the booke of the Law to doe them saith the Apostle out of Moses Which curse must needs light on those that are of the workes of the Law that is seeke for Iustification and life by
the obedience of the Law which yet they cannot in all things perfectly obey CHAP. III. No man in this life can performe any particular good worke so exactly that in euery point it shall answere the rigour of the Law proued by conscience Scriptures reason and Popish obiections answered I Proceed vnto the last Proposition which concerneth Mans actuall Obedience to any one particular precept of the Law Wherein will appeare the third Imperfection of mans Obedience in fulfilling of the Morall Law We haue seene That no man hath perfect inherent sanctity free from Natures corruption Againe That no man can performe perfect actuall obedience to all and euery duty of the Law without failing in any one point And this much our Aduersaries will not much sticke to yeeld vnto vs and confesse That there is no man but sinneth at some time or other and that t is scarce possible to avoide veniall sinnes as they stile them But then they deny vtterly That a man sinnes in euery particular good worke though he cannot doe all perfectly yet in some he may exactly fulfill the Righteousnesse of the Law not missing in any one circumstance And therfore at least by that obedience he may be iustified This opinion of theirs hath neither truth in it selfe nor yet brings any benefit at all to their maine purpose in prouing Iustification by workes For to what end serueth it them to stand quarrelling for the perfectioÌ„ of our obedience in some one or two good works when yet we faile in many things besides One thing well done will not iustifie him that doth many things ill For that of Saint Iames must be a Truth Hee that keepeth the whole Law and yet faileth in one point is guilty of all Iames 2. 10. Much more guilty is he that keepeth it in a few and breakes it in many But yet further we reiect this opinion also as an Errour and we teach on the contrary That No man in this life can performe any one particular good worke so exactly that in euery point it shall answere the rigour of the Law and the seuere tryall of Gods Iudgement About this Assertion our Aduersaries raise much stirre and many soule slaunders against vs proclaiming vs to all the world open enemies to all good workes that wee bee Factors for the Kingdome of darknes promoting as much as in vs lyeth all licentiousnesse in evill courses and taking of the courage and endeauour of Men after pious duties For who will set himselfe say they to doe any good worke if the Protestants doctrine be true that in doing of it he shall commit a mortall Sinne who wil pray fast and giues almes if when he doth these things he cannot but sinne As good then it were to doe euill as to doe good a man can but sin and so he shall let him doe his best These slanderous incongruities fastened on vs spring not out of our Doctrine rightly vnderstood but out of froward and peruerse hearts that will not see the truth Such aspersions will easily bee wiped of when after the confirmation of the Trueth wee shall make answere to such obiections as seeme to infringe it We say then That no man can performe any good worke required in the Law with such exact observation of every circumstance that were it examined by the rigour of the Law and Gods Iustice no fault at all can bee found in it This we proue by Conscience by Scriptures by Reason First we here apeale vnto the Conscience of Man the Iudgment whereof is to be regarded and whereunto we dare stand in this matter Thou that boastest that in such and such good workes that thou hastnot committed any Sinne at all Darest thou indeed stand to it and vpon these Tearmes appeare in Gods Iudgment Darest thou abide the strictnesse of this examination standing ready to Iustifie thy selfe against euery thing that hee can obiect Wilt thou venter thy selfe vpon this Tryall euen in the best works thou dost That God cannot with his most piercing eye of Iustice spy a fault in theÌ„ if he number theÌ„ he shal find nothing short if he weigh them not one graine too light Againe let conscience speake when thou hast prayed fasted giuen almes done any other excellent worke of Piety and Charity in the deuoutest and most vnblameable manner thou thinkest possible Thinkest thou verily that in this case thou doest not at all stand in need of Gods fauour to passe by thine infirmities and that thou needest not euen in this behalfe pray Lord forgiue me my trespasses What man durst say or thinke in any good worke Lord in this particular I doe not desire thou shouldest be mercifull vnto me Without doubt there is no man liuing vpon earth that shall in serious consideration of the seuerity of Gods iudgement and the great infirmity of his owne Nature compare his own obedience with the seuerity of Gods Iustice but his heart will presently shrinke within him and his conscience shunne this tryall as much as euer Adam did Gods presence The thought of such a strict proceeding in Iudgement would make the proudest heart to stoope and tremble the boldest face to gather blacknesse filling the soule with an horrible feare in the expectation of that day should the most innocent life the most holy actions of men be there scanned according to the rigour of Iustice not graciously pittied pardoned and accepted according to that mercifull loue of God which couereth and passeth by multitudes of sinnes T were arrogant pride in any man to vtter that speach in a sober temper Whereunto Iob breakes out in a passion chased by the sense of his miserable tortures and the froward disputes of his friends Oh saith he that a man might pleade with God as a man pleadeth with his neighbour And againe Lay downe now put me in a surety with thee who is he that will strike hands with me And againe Oh that I knew where I might find him that I might come euen to his face I would order my cause before him and fill my mouth with arguments I would know the words which he would answere mee and vnderstand what he would say vnto me Speakes the man reason or is he beside himselfe what challenge God to dispute with him and hope to make his party good in the quarrell This was Iobs infirmity It s our Aduersaries arrogancy who dare set their foot against Gods and bid him pry as narrowly as hee list into their good workes they will maintaine the righteousnesse thereof against all that he can obiect to proue the least sinâ—ulnesse Iob saw his folly God grant that these may theirs In a calmer temper when conscience was not ouerclouded with griefe and anger he reades vs a quite contrary lesson In the 9 Chapter of his booke How should man be iust with God if he contend with him he cannot answer him one of a thousand v. 2. 3. And againe hauing reasoned questioned of Gods
wisdome power not to be questioned or resisted by any How much lesse shall I answere him saith he chuse out my words to reason with him whom though I were righteous yet would I not answer but I would make supplication to my iudge v. 14. 15. Further If I would iustifie my selfe mine own mouth will condemne me If I say I am perfect it shall proue me peruerse Though I were perfect yet would I not know my soule I would despise my life v. 20. 21. And once more If I wash my self with snow water make my hands neuer so clean yet that thou plunge me in the ditch mine own cloathes shall abhorre me For he is not a man as I am that I should answere him and we should come together in iudgement vers 30. 31. 32 See this holy Saint who elsewhere stands peremptorily to the defence of his Innocency and vprightnesse against that wrongfull imputation of hypocrisie which his friends charged him withall telling them that till he die he wil not take away his innocency from himselfe nor his heart shall not reproue him of his dayes yet when he sets himselfe before the Tribunall of Gods Iustice he dares not stand out in his own Iustification but submits himselfe to the mercy of his Iudge with humble supplication for his fauour These confessions of Iob be not complements out of a fained and needlesse modesty but the fruits of a conscience rightly informed and apprehensiue of its owne sinfulnesse and the seuere rigour of Gods iudgment The serious meditatioÌ„ of which two particulars we commend vnto our Aduersaries and all other of their humour that are apt to entertaine fauourable and gentle opinions touching their sinnes and withall to nourish high conceits of their owne goodnesse Whence they grow by degrees to thinke that Gods iudgement is like their owne foolish imaginations and where they out of blindnesse or selfe-loue cannot see a fault that there God himselfe can finde none We hardly see beames in our own eyes are we then so skilfull to spie the smallest moate who can vnderstand his faults saith Dauid wilt thou answere him Yes I doe A secret fault may soone sâ—â—p it a deceitfull heart may in one circumstance go beyond thy wit watchfulnesse Here then humility would doe well and prayer for thy ignorances for thy secret sinnes vnknowne to thy selfe as much as others Here true modesty would haue her place that thou preferre Gods wisedome and iudgement aboue thine owne remembring that he iudgeth not as man iudgeth but sometimes otherwise then thou doest accounting that abhomination which in thine eyes is much set by and alwayes more exactly then thou caust seeing much euill in that where thou seest little and some euill where thou think'st there is none And therefore alwayes speake vnto thy selfe in those excellent words of Saint Iohn If my heart condemne as in many things it doth God is greater then my heart and knoweth all things 1 Iohn 3. 20. God forbid then that in any thing I should presume to pleade with him in my Iustification He is wise in heart and mighty in strength who hath hardened himselfe against him and hath prospered Iob. 9. 2. Thus much touching our first Argument for the inward witnesse of the conscience Which in the most innocent life often in the most holy worke drawes backe from Gods Iudgement seat and is afraid to put it selfe vpon the tryall of his seuere Iustice. Wee haue the Scriptures to witnesse vnto vs the same Truth Psa. 143. â— 2. Heare my prayer O Lord giue earâ— vnto my supplication in thy faithfulnesse answere mee and in thy righteousnesse Here the prophet seemes to appeale to the Iustice of God requiring his helpe vpon such tearmes as if God out of pure Iustice could not haue denyed him But t is nothing so T is the mercy of God the holy Prophet sues vnto Answere me in thy faithfulnesse and Righteousnes that is in those gratious promises wherin thou hast made mee to trust where vpon I doe rely Thou art iust and faithfull in keeping promise be so to me in my distresse who according to thy promise seeke vnto thee for succour Vnto this Righteousnesse of God Dauid presents himselfe and his supplications but before that strict severe Iustice of God he dares not stand but in all submissiuenesse prayes in the next words And enter not into Iudgement with thy seruant He craues mercifull audience of his prayers but deprecates the strict examination of his Life and doings He knew well that if God should deale with him vpon so hard Termes his owne Innocency could neuer haue made his prayers exceptable For saith he in this shall no Man liuing be Iustified The force of this place Bell. seekes to decline by three poore miserable shifts That Dauid would not haue God enter into Iudgement with him to iudge him seiliâ—et according to such things as he had of himselfe but according to such things as God had giuen him that is Iudge mee not according to that righteousnesse which I haue by Nature but according to that righteousnesse which thou hast giuen by thy Grace Which interpretation how ridiculous a phantasy it is and quite besides the meaning of the Prophet t is easy for any one to Iudge by reading of that Psalme Bell. therefore hath another string to his Bow but as rotten as the Former 2 That the place is meant of veniall Sinnes without which a Man cannot liue and though they be small faults yet would it be no Iustice in God to punish them So that the meaning is Lord enter not into Iudgement that is Lord I will not contend with thee I confesse my selfe a sinner and craue pardon Diuers small faults I haue committed not against the Law but besides the Law and thou mayest easily pardon them My case is not singular I doe therein but as other Men doe amongst whome there is none so iust but some time failes and offends And therefore doe not lay such faults to my charge Men of corrupt conscience that thus sport with Sinne and play with the Scriptures The Iesuite must bring vs better proofes then he doth else wee shall neuer beleeue that Dauid was a Man of Bellarmine his mind touching Veniall Sins That doctrine is part of the dregs of corrupted Nature maynatined by Popish Moabites who are setled on thier Lees infatuated by the Loue of Sin and flattering themselues in that wickednesse as little light which God accounteth worthy to be haâ—ed wee acknowledge no Veniall Sinnes but such as deserue eternall death which hereafter we shall make good And therefore if Dauid would not that God should enter into iudgement with him because of veniall sinnes that accompany his holiest practises t is in effect that which we say the difference is onely in an Epithete We say Dauid prayed not to come into iudgement because his best workes were sinfull and Bellarmine addes Because venially or pardonably sinnefull
that such a good worke be done so and so what then we dispute now touching particulars in euery Mans reall practice The enquiry is not for the generall What euill is there in such and such a good worke done thus and thus according as the Circumstances are framed in an Imagined Case As to aske what Sinne is their in an Almes-deede done out of Faith and Charity to Gods glory This is a fond question thus framed vpon generall termes we say their is no Sinne in it But the enquiry is in particular what Euill their is in such a worke done by this or that Man according to all Circumstances that were at that time incident to the worke as What sinne was there in Zacheus or Cornelius almes-deeds This question we admit and answere to it That some Sinne there was for which those holy Men as wel as others would not haue beene willing that God should enter into iudgement with them strictly to iudge them Yea but will the Iesuits reply name what Sinne this was or else you wrong them Now this is meere impudency For who is judge of their actions Are we or is it God and their owne Consciences we can be no judges who at furthest can judge but accordrng to outward appearance We know not their Hearts nor are we priuy vnto euery particular Circumstance that did accompany those actions of theirs Circumstances in euery particular action differ infinitely one Man may offend in this point another in that nor haue we a generall Rule whereby to judge alike of all And therefore it is a childish quaere to aske on Man whether another Man offendes who may doe euill a 1000 times not only secret from others but vnwitting to himselfe If then the Iesuite will haue an answere to his question he must resort to particular mens Consciences and to God for only the spirit of Man and the spirit of God know the things of Man Let him aske a Cornelius when he giues almes whether he doe thinke this worke so well done that no fault can bee found with it Doubtlesse he will answere that he cannot excuse himselfe from all faultinesse though he knew nothing by himselfe yet he dares not stand to Gods judgment His confession and prayer would in this case be the same with Nehemiahs Nehem. 13. 22. Remember me O my God concerning this also and spare mee according to the greatnesse of thy mercy at once begging fauorable acceptance of his obedience and gratious pardon of his infirmities If this suffice not in the next place the Iesuite is to repaire to God almighty and question him where the Sinnes in such and such a good workes who no doubt can shape him an answere that will sore confound his pride and folly and make it quickly appeare vnto him that sinnefull Man when he pleades with God is not able to answere him one obiection of a 100 that God shall make against him This of the third Argument That Man hath sufficient meanes to doe well and not Sinne. The last followes drawne from such absurdities as they say doe follow vpon our Doctrine Thus. 4 If say they our Doctrine be true that the best workes of Men be Sinfull then these absurdities be likewise true doctrine That to be iustified by faith is to be iustified by Sin That no man ought to beleeue because the worke Beleeuing is Sinne. That all good works are forbidden because all Sinne is forbidden That God should command vs to commit Sinne because he commands vs to doe good workes That God bidding vs be zelous of goâ—d workes should in effect bid vs be zealous of mortall Sinne. That to pray for the pardon of Sinne were a damnable Sinne. These and such other absurd Positions would be true if the protestants doctrine concerning the sinfulnesse of good workes may stand for good Hereunto we answere That these absurdities issue not out of our Doctrine but out of our Aduersaries malitious Imaginations Who like the ragine Sea casting vp mire and Dirt from its owne Bottome would faine throw all this filth in the face of the Reformed Churches to make them odious and hatefull to the world The best is Truth cannot bee disgraced though it may be belyed These foule Absurdities touch vs not but follow vpon that Doctrine which is none of ours Namely That the good works of the Regenerate are in their very Nature altogether sins and nothing else but sordes inquinamenta merae iniquitates Such an absurd assertion would indeed yeeld such an absurd consequence But we defended it not they abuse vs grosly wheÌ„ in their writings they report of vs the contrary that we doe mainetaine This onely we teach That mens good workes are in part sinfull Much good they haue in them but with all some euill mingled therewith Amongst the gold some drosse also will be sound that will not be able to abide the fire of Gods seuere Tryall Imperfections will appeare in our best workes so long as humane infirmity and mortality hangs vpon vs. This we teach and from this Doctrine all that haue reason may see that no such vnreasonable conclusions can be collected And let thus much suffice for the clearing of this third Proposition touching the imperfection of our obedience to the Morrall Law of God euen in the good workes which we performe From whence euery godly heart should leâ—rne both Christian Humilitie and also Industry First Humility not to boast in the flesh and glory in its owne Righteousnesse thinking that God must highly account off and reward largely that which is very little worth Secondly Industry in a faithfull indeauour after perfection That what cannot be done well as it ought wee may yet euery day be done better then before it was CHAP. IIII. Three generall exceptions against the truthes deliuered in this third Section THus we haue stood long in the confirmation of our second Argument touching the impossibility of Mans fulfilling of the Law in this Life and so consequently of iustification by the Law Against all that haue bin sayed for the profit of this point our Aduersaries haue three Common and generall Exceptions Which are these 1 That Concupiscence or Naturall Corruption in the first and second act of it is no sinne 2 That imperfection in our Charity and Obedience is no sinne 3 That smaller faults or as they tell them Veniaâ—â— sinnes doe not hinder the Iustice and goodnesse of any good worke To these three Positions they haue continually recourse For whereas they cannot deny but that their is in the Regenerate both a pronesse of Nature vnto Euill and also many inordinate Sinnefuâ—l motions arising thence they first deny that either these Naturall Corruptions or disordered Motions of the Heart be any sinnes Againe they confesse that no man hath such perfect loue of God and Man but that he may increase in charity nor be his good workes so perfectly good but that they ought still to striue to doe them
better but then here also they deny that this imperfection of our charity and good works is any sinne Lastly they grant that no man can auoide veniall sinnes scarse in the best workes he doth but then they deny that veniall sinnes be contrary to the Law so that albeit a man commit them yet he may perfectly fulfill the Law of God I cannot stand largely in the refutation of these foule errors The confutation whereof belongs properly to the Article of remission of sinnes where the nature and kindes of sinnes are to be handled For this present I shall but touch on them briefly and proceed to the matter 1 For the first we defend this conclusion The vitious inclination and pronnesse of Nature vnto euill as also the inordinate motiâ—ns of concupiscence which goe before consent they are sinnes euen in a man regenerate That the inclination and pronnesse of Nature to sinne is a sinne we proue thus It is expresly so called by the Apostle Rom. 7. not once nor twice but almost in euery verse of the Chapter I am carnall sold vnder sinne The sinne that dwelleth in me ver 17. 20. The Law of sinne verse 23. 25. In it selfe it is sinne and deserues the wages of sinne eternall death For which cause the Apostle there cals it The body of this death verse 24. Because this inward Corruption which is like a Body that hath many members consisting of diuerse euill affections spreading themselues throughout his whole Nature made him lyable to eternall death from which onely Gods mercy in Christ could deliuer him 2 To rebell against the Law is Sinne. Ergo To haue a rebellious inclination is sinne likewise For if the act bee euill the habite must needes be naught if the Law forbid one it must needs forbid the other If it be euill to breake any Commandement in act is it not euill to haue a pronenesse and readinesse of minde to breake it The habit denominated a man sinfull and not the act Nor doth God lesse abhorre the pronnesse of man to offend him then wee doe abhorre the rauenous disposition of a Wolfe though it be a Cubb not yet vsed to the prey or one tyed vp in a chaine and kept from rauening That the euill motions of the heart without consent be sins 1 They are forbidden in the Morrall Law In the tenth Commandement Thou shalt not couet For motions with consent are forbidden in the other Commandments As appeares manifestly in Christs exposition of the Commandements Mat. 5. 22. were not only the outward act of Adultery but the inward desire is also forbidden if wee beleeue Christ the best interpreter of the Law When Ergo the tenth Commandement forbids coueting of our Neighbours Wife it either meanes the same kind of lusting with a needelesse Tautology or a different viz. that which is not consented vnto Nor can our Aduersaries shift this off though Becanus most impudently denies it with out any reason of his so doing 2 We proue it thus Whatsoeuer is inordinate and repugnant to right Reason that is Sinne. But these Motions without confent be inordinate Ergo They be Sinne The Minor is confessed That these Motions be inordinati recta Rationi repugnantes The Maior is apparant For what is Ordo recta Ratio in Moralibus but that course of doing any thing which is conformable to Gods Law and his will God is the God of order His Law is the rule of order in all humane actions Recta Ratio what is it but the conformity of mans vnderstanding and will vnto Gods will which only is the rule of righteousnesse We neuer purpose and will matters aright but when wee will them agreeably to Gods will Wherefore it is a grosse absurdity to deny the Sinnefulnesse of these disorderly motions seeing no man can breake those orders which God hath made and yet be faultlesse Nor is it possible a Man should doe that which is contrary to Gods will And yet be without Sinne in doing of it These motions then without consent be confusions in Nature opposites to the righteousnesse of the will of God and vnto that euen and streight order expressed in his Law We conclude then that Concupiscence and inordinate motions of the Soule not consented vnto are Sinnes contrary to our Aduersaries assertion They bring some Reasons to proue they are not 1 Originall sinne is taken away in Baptisme But concupiscence is not taken away in Baptisme as appeares by experience in the regenerate in whom it remaines Ergo concupiscence and pronnesse to Sinne is no sinne This Argument is friuolous In Originall sinne there are two things First the guilt Secondly the inherent corruptions We say in Baptisme the guilt is altogether washed away from the Baptized Elect by the blood of Christ. And for the corruption thereof it is part done away by the sanctifying Spirit of Christ powred out vpon the Regenerate which by degrees purgeth out the inherent sinfulnesse of Nature by replanting the graces of Sanctification in all parts Concupiscence then notwithstanding Baptisme remaines in the Regenerate and is a sinne in them the guiltinesse whereof God mercifully pardons in Christ. 2 What is not in our power to auoide that God doth not forbid vs by his Law But t is not in our power to auoide the Motions of the heart that preuent Reason and consent Ergo they be no sinnes forbidden vs. To this we answere The Maior is true in things meerely Naturall that fall out by the Necessity of Nature well disposed So we say Gods Law were vncouth should he command a man neuer to be an hungry or thirst which things he cannot auoide but they come vpon him will he nill he by the meere necessity of Nature But concerning inordinate motions there 's no such matter God hath layed no such necessity on Nature in her creation but we by our sinne haue brought it upon our selues Now such a necessity excuses vs not In this case it helpes a man no more to say I cannot auoid euill thoughts and desires then it doth a desperate sinner that by countenance hath hardened himselfe in euill courses or then it helpes the Diuels and the damned if they should say Wee cannot chuse but doe euill 3 They argue thus That which would haue beene naturall and without fault in man if he had beene created in puris Naturalibus that is no sinne nor fault in vs. But motions preuenting consent would be naturall and without fault in men so made Ergo In vs they be no faults of themselues Heere our Aduersaries haue made a Man of white Paper or the like to Materia prima that hath not any quality in him morally good or bad That is A Man that hath neither the Image of God in knowledge righteousnes and holines engrauen on his vnderstanding will affections and whole person nor yet though it haue it not hath in him any contrary euill quality that comes vpon him by
reason of such a defect Now of such a Wiseaker they dispute If God had created a Man thus in puris naturalibus neither good nor bad then What then As the old word is If the Heauens fall we shall haue Larkes good cheepe Suppositions framed by our Imaginations touching what might be done are vaine and needlesse when we see what is done This we see that Man was created in God's Image invested with all reall Qualities of Righteousnes and Holinesse This we see also that Man being falne is borne in Originall corruption depriued of God's Image thereupon depraued in his whole Nature by sinfull infirmity Wherefore a man in his pure Naturals one that hath neither Grace nor Corruption was neuer found in this world yea 't is a contradiction to imagine a man thus naked without his Qualities that he hath Reason but neither enlightened nor darkened a will but meerely indifferent neither enclined to good or euill affections but neither vertuously nor vitiously disposed In a word that he is a Man capable of Vertue or Vice Holinesse or Sinfulnesse and yet hath neither That were to make a Man litle better then an vnreasonable Beast But to follow them a little Suppose a Man were made in his pure Naturals would such disorderly motions be found iâ— him Yea say they and that boldly Si Homo crearetur a Deo in puris naturalibus proculdubiò constaret duabus partibus repugnantibus Spiritu Carne haberet duos appâ—titus contrarios Rationalem Sensitivum ergo naturaliter haberâ—t quosdam motus repugnantes Rationi Without doubt the Iesuite is deceiued in this his Imagination and his Argument is not worth a Button A Man in his pure Naturals should haue two parts a Soule and a Body Spirit and Flesh he should haue two appetites Reasonable and Sensuall ergo these parts in their motions and desires would be contrary one to the other This consequent is false They would be diuerse not opposite and repugnant The Body and the Sensitiues would lead a Man to those things that are agreeable to the Body The Soule and reasonable appetite or will would incline him to those higher and more noble objects agreeable to the Soule But neither of these inclinations would crosse and trouble one another the inferiour faculties like the lower Spheares would moue differently from the superiour but yet most orderly according to their owne nature without impeaching the Motions of the other Each faculty in it's place would worke orderly in sweet harmony and agreement each with other had not Sinne brought in confusion and discord into the world as betweene God and Man so betweene Man and himselfe This we further make good by this argument Whatsoeuer is naturall and so without blame in Man that Christ took one him But these inordinate Motions of the sensitiue appetite repugnant vnto Will and Reason Christ tooke not on him Ergo they are not naturall and without blame The Maior we proue by that Phil. 3. 7. He was made like vnto Man and Heb. 2. 17. In all things it behoued him to be made like vnto his Brethren And againe Chap. 4. 15. Wee haue not a high Priest which cannot be touched with a feeling of our infirmities but was in all things tempted in like sort yet without Sinne. Whence 't is manifest that Christ taking on him our Nature tooke on him all the properties of our Nature and with all such infirmities of our Nature as not sinfull in themselues or the effects or punishments of Sinne in vs. If therefore it be naturall vnto Man that the Motions of the sensitiue appetite should preuent and be repugnant vnto Reason and that this is no Sinne except consent make it so then certainly Christ had in him such motions and inordinate desires But to affirme that there were in Christ such disorderly Motions of his inferiour Faculties repugnant vnto his Reason and Will is a blasphemie against the immaculate Lambe of God Christ was indeed tempted as the text saith and in like sort as we are but will any Man heere vnderstand this of inward Temptations arirising from any thing within Christ as if he were like vnto vs drawne aside with Concupiscence and inticed the motions of his sensitiue faculties inclining him to that which was contrary to his vnderstanding and will We confesse that he was fiercely tempted by Satan and wicked Men from without but that he was tempted by any thing in himselfe by disorderly Motions of his heart tending vnto euill and ergo checked by his will and Reason this we account an abominable Errour touching the spotlesse humanity of our Sauiour Wherein we deny that there euer was any the least disorderly desire thought word or worke whatsoeuer And therefore we conclude that such motions are not naturall vnto Men becomming sinfull only by accident because they are consented vnto but they are accidentall vnto him being the fruit of originall Corruption and are in themselues verily and properly Sinnes For Conclusion of this point let vs heare that Argument which Bell. makes 4. Where there is no Law there is no sinne Rom. 4. 10. But there is no Law prescribed vnto sense and sensuall appetites Ergo The Motions thereof are not sinfull The Maior we grant The Minor he proues Because the Law praesupposeth Reason in all that whereto it is giuen But the sensitiue part of Man is without Reason and ergo not capable of a Law according as it is in bruite beasts to whom ergo no Law is giuen This he further proues by that place Rom. 7. 20. Now if I doe that I would not it is no more I that doe it but Sinne that dwelleth in me Where 't is plaine saith Bell. that the Apostle did not sinne because he lusted against his will 'T was not he did the worke but 't was the Sinne in him Wherefore he saith afterward That in his mind i. e. in his superior faculties he serued the Law of God and kept it although in his flesh i. e. sensitiue appetite and inferiour faculties he serued the Law of sin yet for all that he sinned not in so doing because sinne cannot be but in the minde and the Law is not giuen to those faculâ—ies that be vnreasonable To this we answere That God giues no Law to vnreasonable Creatures but such as haue Reason The sensitiue faculties of bruite-beasts haue no other Rule then Natures instinct which guides and moderates their seuerall motions in due order and measure But in man those inferiour faculties how euer vnreasonable are yet capable of Reasons Gouernment which according to Gods Law prescribes vnto the motions of the sensitiue appetite their measure and bounds beyond which they may not passe If a man were vncorrupt the appetite would obey this rule of Reason and keepe it selfe within those prescribed Bounds But being now corrupt by Sinne it breakes out beyond this compasse and ouerbeares Reason and will which in their sinfull weaknes
are not able to bridle these vnrulie motions wherefore when Bell. saieth That the Law is giuen to the reasonable will not to the sensiue appetite it is vtterly false Because in Man it is probable of gouernment and so subject to the Law Our Reason hath euen in this our corrupted estate a ciuill command ouer our appetite and affections so that it can moderate them by faire persuasions now and then That which it can doe sometimes it ought to doe alwaies and if any affections can obey Reason at sometimes were they not infected with Sinne they would doe it at all times And if they doe well when they obey certainly they doe euill when they disobey And ergo such motions of them as are repugnant to right reason are nothing but rebellion against God's Law As to the place in the 7. Rom. we answere That that Interpretation of it which Bell. brings is most peruerse and against all Sense The Apostle complaines that he did the Euill which he would not no doubt in so doeing he did sinne But what is it now which committed this guilt or sinne It is not I that doe it saieth the Apostle but that sinne that dwelleth in me That is according to Bell not I in my mind or superior faculties of Reason and Will but my inferior Appetite and affections which doe this euill against my consent So the meaning shal be Concupiscence in that duell in the Apostle committed Sinne but the Apostle himselfe committed it not Which is very absurd As if a cholericke-Man hauing done a mischiefe in his anger should saâ—e It were not he did it but his raging passion or an adulterer that 't was not he committed the Sinne but his sinfull Affection that carried him further then reason would So that if God will punish such a sinne he must not punish him but onely his sensitiue appetite which was in fault This is ridiculous for besides that it crosseth the Romanists Doctrine manifestly in teaching that such disorderly motions of the sensitiue appetite be no sinnes which heere the Apostle contradicts saying plainly that the Sinne which dwelt in him did doe the euill he would not viz Sinne it draweth after it this grosse Error That some faecultie in man may sin and yet the man not sinne himselfe Wherefore the Apostle in that speach 'T is not I doe it but sinne in me doth not oppose one facultie against the other the reasonable will against the sensitiue appetite seeking for a shift to excuse his sinne by putting it off from himselfe to that which was not capable of Sinne but he opposeth grace in euery facultie to Corruption in the same facultie as two contrarie Principles and causes of his actions one mouing to good the other enclining to bad Thence the Apostle saieth that when he doth euill 't is not I that doe it i. e I regenerate according to the Grace that dwelleth in me for that inclines me to doe good but 't is the Sinne dwelling in me which when I would doe well inclines me to doe euill He heere shewes the Roote whence this Euill comes but yet he doth not put off the fault from himselfe As 't is himselfe doth well so 't is himselfâ— doth ill too according as he concludes vers 25. Then I my selfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doe both well and ill well according to Grace in my mind that is regenerate part both of inferior and superior facultie I serue the Law of God but ill according to corruption remaining in me but in my flesh vnregenerate part the Law of Sinne. Much more might be added but 't is not my purpose heere to enter vpon the common place at large I proceed to the second quaestion of our Aduersaries who teach that albeit our Loue of God be imperfect yet this imperfection is not sinne in vs. They grant That no man hath any grace of the spirit but he may encrease in it daily that the Loue of God and our Neighbours may still grow on to farther degrees of affection That no grace nor good worke hath that full perfection which it might haue in this Life or which we shall attaine vnto in Heauen But they deny this defect to be any fault or sinne 2. Defectus Charitatis quod viz non faciamus opera nostra tanto feruore dilectionis quanto faciemus in patriâ defectus quidemest sed culpa peccatum non est saieth Bell. and againe Charitas nostra quamuis comparata ad Charitatem beatorum sit imperfecta tamen absolute perfecta dici potest This is an Error against which we defend this Conclusion in generall touching both Charity and all man Righteousnes The defects or want of Perfection in Mans Righteousnes is Sinne. For the proofe of this point we are to obserue that the Imperfection or Perfection of any thing is to be considered of two waies 1 Comparatiuely When any thing set by another is more or lesse perfect then that other 2 Absolutely When considered in it selfe it hath or wantes that Perfection which it should haue by its proper Nature Betweene these there is great difference For Comparatiue imperfection is not euill absolute imperfection is Euill We may see it in an example The Senses that are in Man being compared with their like in other creatures 't is manifest they are much excelled by them as by an Eagle for sight a spider for touch c. Heere we say that the eie of a man is not perfect as the eie of an Eagle but yet we doe not account this imperfection any Naturall euill of the eie of a man God might haue giuen a stronger and a clearer sight to men but we blame not his workes nor count our sight imperfect because it hath not that singular Temper which is in other Creatures but because it wants at any time that temper which is agreeable to our nature Such a defect only is properly an Euill in Nature when something is wanting to the perfection of any part which by the Course of nature should be there Thus 't is also in Grace Compare we the Righteousnes of man or Angels with the Righteousnes of God we saie that God's is infinitely more perfect then the Creatures But now is this imperfection in Humane or Angelicall righteousnes any Euill and Sinne in them We saie No. Neither are the Angels sinfull because lesse righteous then God nor Adam sinfull because lesse righteous then either God made them both lesse good then himselfe yet very good and without all Sinne. There be degrees of Righteousnes and though the Creature be infinitely below the heighest pitch of goodnes which is God yet he may bee still aboue that lowest descent vnto Sinne and vnrighteousnes In Phylosophie we dispute whether the slackening of any degree in one Quality be the mingling of another that is contrary As heat in eight degrees if it decrease vnto seuen whether there is any degree of cold mingled with it 'T is heard to
of Mans saluation 1 The first is from Adam vntill Abraham Werein God made the promise to Adam anone after his miserable fall and renued it as occasion serued vnto the Patriarches and Holy men of that first Age of the world viz. That the seede of the woman should breake the Serpents head This blessed promise containing the whole substance of mans redemption by Christ was religiously accepted of and embrased by the seruants of God in those times who witnessed their Faith in it by their offering of sacryfice as God had taught them and thier Thankfulnesse for it by their Obedience and holy Conuersation The second is from Abraham to Moses After that men had now almost forgot Gods promise and their owne duty and Idolatry was crept into those Families wherein by succession the Church of God had continued God cals forth Abraham from amongst his Idolatrous kinred with him renues that former promise in forme of a League and Couenant confirmed by word solemne Ceremonies God on the one side promising to be the God of Abraham and of his seed that in his seed all the Nations of the earth should be blessed Abraham for his part beleeuing the promise and accepting the condition of â—bedience to walke before God in vprightnesse This Couenant with Abraham is ratâ—fied by two externall Ceremonies One of a fiâ—e-brand pâ—ssing between the pieces of the Heifer and other Beasts with Abraham according to custome in making of Leagues had diuided in twaine Gen. 15. The other the Sacrament of Circumcision vpon the flesh of Abraham and his posterity Gen. 17. The third period is from the time of Moses vntill Christ. When after the Church multiplyed vnto a Nation and withall in processe of time and continuance among the Idolatrous Aegyptians grew extremely corrupt in Religion and Manners God againe reuiues his former Couenant made with Abraham Putting the Iewes in remembrance of the Couenant of grace in Christ. 1 By adding vnto the first Sacrament of circumcision another of the Passeouer setting forth vnto the Iewes the Author of their deliuerance as well from the spirituall slauery and punishment of sinne as from the bodily bondage and plagues of Aegypt 2 Afterwards by instituting diuers Rites Ceremonies concerning Priests sacrifices c. all which were shadowes of good things to come viz. of Christ the Churches Redemption by his death Which things were prefigured vnder those types though somewhat darkely yet plainely enough to the weake vnderstanding of the Iewes Who in that Minority of the Church stood in need of such Schoolemasters and Tutors to direct them vnto Christ. The fourth period and last is from Christs death to the end of the world Who in the fulnesse of time appearing in our flesh accomplished all the Prophecies and promises that went before of him and by the Sacrifice of himselfe confirmed that Couenant a new which so long before had beene made with the Church Withall hauing abolished whatsoeuer before was weake and imperfect hee hath now replenished the Church with aboundance of knowledge and of grace still to continue and increase till the consummation of all things In all these periods of time the grace of God that brings saluation to man was euer one and the same onely the Reuelation thereof was with much variety of circumstances as God saw it agreeable to euery season In the first t was called a Promise in the second a Couenant in the two last Periods a Testament the Old from Moses till Christs death the New from thence to the worlds end in both Remission of sinnes and Saluation bequeathed as a Legacy vnto the Church and this bequeast ratified by the death of the Testator typically slaine in the Sacrifices for confirmation of the Old Really put to death in his owne Person for the Sanction of the New Testament But notwithstanding this or any other diuersity in circumstance the substance of the Gospel or couenant of Grace is but one the same throughout all ages Namely Iesus Christ yesterday and to day and the same for euer In the next place By the Couenant of Workes we vnderstand that we call in one word the Law Namely That meanes of bringing man to Saluation which is by perfect obedience vnto the will of God Hereof there are also two seuerall Administrations 1 The first is with Adam before his fall When Immortality and Happinesse was promised to Man and confirmed by an externall Symbole of the Tree of Life vpon condition that he continued obedient to God as well in all other things as in that particular Commandement of not eating of the Tree of knowledge of good and euill 2 The second Administration of this Couenant was the renuing thereof with the Israelites at Mount Sinai where after that the light of Nature began to grow darker and corruption had in time worne out the Characters of Religion and Vertue first graued in mans heart God reuiued the Law by a compendious and full declaration of all duties required of man towards God or his Neighbour expressed in the Decalogue According to the Tenor of which Law God entred into Couenant with the Israelites promising to be their God in bestowing vpon them all blessings of Life and Happinesse vpon condition that they would be his people obeying all things that he had commanded Which Condition they accepted of promising an absolute Obedience All things which the Lord hath said we will doe Exod. 19. 24. and also submitting themselues to all punishment in case they disobeyed saying Amen to the Curse of the Law Cursed be euery one that confirmeth not all the words of this Law to doe them and all the people shall say Amen Deut. 27. 26. We see in briefe what these Couenants of Grace Workes are In the second place we must inquire what opposition there is betweene these two Grace and Workes the Gospell and the Law The opposition is not in regard of the End whereat both doe aime They agree both in one common end namely the Glory of God in Mans eternall Saluation The disagreement is in the meanes whereby this End may be attained which are proposed to Men in one sort by the Law in another by the Gospell The diuersity is this The Law offers life vnto Man vpon Condition of perfect Obedience cursing the Transgressors thereof in the least point with eternall Death The Gospell offers Life vnto Man vpon another condition viz. Of Repentance and Faith in Christ promising Remission of sinnes to such as repent and beleeue That this is the maine Essentiall and proper difference betweene the Couenant of workes and of Grace that is betweene the Law and the Gospell we shall endeauour to make good against these of the Romish Apostasy who deny it Consider we then the Law of Workes either as giuen to Adam before the promise or as after the promise it remained in some force with Adam all his posterity For the time before Mans fall It is
apparant that perfect obedience was the condition required for the establishing of Adam in perpetuall blisse Other meanes there was not nor needed any be proposed vnto him But when Man had failed in that Condition and so broken the Covenant of Workes God to repaire Mans ruined Estate now desperate of euer attaning vnto happines by the first means he appoints a second offering vnto Adam a Sauiour that by Faith in him and not by his owne vnspotted Obedience hee might recouer Iustification and Life which he had lost So that what Adam should haue obtained by workes without Christ now hee shall receiue by Faith in Christ without Workes Since the time of Mans fall we must consider that the Law and Gospell though they goe together yet as they still differ in their vse and office betweene themselues so also the Law differs from it selfe in that vse which it had before and which it hath since the Fall To vs now it hath not the same vse which it had in Mans innocency It was giuen to Adam for this end to bring himselfe to Life and for that purpose it was sufficient both in it selfe as an absolute Rule of Perfection and in regard of Adam who had strength to haue obserued it But vnto Man fallen although the Band of Obedience doe remaine yet the End thereof viz. Iustification and Life by it is now abolished by the promise because the Law now is insufficient for that purpose not of it selfe but by reason of our sinfull flesh that cannot keepe it This is most manifest by the renewing of the first Couenant of Workes with the Iewes when God deliuered vnto them the Morall Law from Sinai at which time God did not intend that the Iewes should obtaine Saluation by Obedience to that Law God promised Life if they could obey and the Iewes as their duty was promised they would obey but God knew well enough they were neuer able to keepe their promise and ergo 't was not God's intention in this Legall couenant with the Iewes that any of them should euer attaine Iustification and Life by that meanes As that first the Promise need not to haue bin made vnto Adam if the Law could haue suffised for the attaining of Life so after the Promise was once made the Law was not renewed with the Iewes to that end that Righteousnes and Life should be had by the obseruation of it This is the plaine doctrine of the Apostle Gal. 3. in that his excellent dispute against Iustification by the Law The doubt that troubled the Galatians was this God had made an Evangelicall couenant with Abraham that in Christ he and his faithfull seed should be blessed that is Iustified Afterward 430 yeares he made a Legall couenant with Abraham's posterity that they should liue that is be justified and saued if they did fulfill all things written in the Law The Quaestion now was which of these two couenants should stand in force or whether both could stand together The Apostle answere that the former couenant should stand in force and that the later did not abrogate the former not yet could stand in force together with the former This he expresseth v. 17. 18. And this I say that the couenant that was confirmed afore of God in respect of Christ the Law which was 430 yeares after cannot disanull that it should make the Promise of none effect For if the inheritance viz of Righteousnes and life be by the Law it is not by the Promise but God gaue it to Abraham by Promise Heere now they might object Wherefore then serueth the Law If Men cannot bee iustified by keeping the Law to what end was it giuen so long after the Promise was made To this the Apostle answeres It was added vnto the Promise because of the transgressions Here 's the true vse of the Morall Law since the fall of Man not to justifie him and giue life but to proue him to be vniust and worrhy of death It was added because of transgressions that is 1. To convince Man of Sinne that he might be put in remembrance what was his duty of old and what was his present infirmity in doing of it and what was God's wrath against him for not doing it That seeing how impossible it was for him to attaine vnto life by this old way of the Law First appointed in Paradise he might be humbled and driuen to looke after that new way which God had since that time layed forth more heedfully attending the Promise and seeking vnto Christ who is the End of the Law vnto euery one that beleeues in him Which vse God pointed out vnto the Iewes figuring Christ vnto them in the Mercyseate couering the Arke wherein the Tables of the Couenant were kept and in the Sacrifices appointed for all sorts of Transgressions against this Couenant To admonish the Iewes a further thing was aimed at in giuing them the Law namely the bringing of them to Christ the promised seed in whom Remission of Sinnes and Life Eternall was to bee had 1. To restraine Man from Sinne. That the Law might be a perpetuall rule of Holinesse and Obedience whereby Man should walke and glorifie God to the vtmost of his power That so those Iewes might not thinke that God by making a gracious Promise had vtterly nullified the Law and that now Men might liue as they list but that they might know these bounds prescribed them of God within which compasse they were to keep themselues that so the ouer-flowing of Iniquity might be restrained These most excellent perpetuall and necessary vses of the morall Law God intended in renewing of the Legall couenant with the Iewes ergo the Apostle concludes that God did not crosse himself when first he gaue the Inheritance to Abraham by promise and afterwards made a Legall couenant with the Iewes his posterity Is the Law then against the Promises saith the Apostle God forbid For if there had beene a Law giuen which could haue giuen Life surely Righteousnesse should haue bin by the Law But the Scripture hath concluded all vnder Sinne that the promise by the Faith of Iesus Christ might be giuen to all that beleeue ver 21. 22. Whence it is most cleare that the Law and the Gospell in some things are subordinate and vphold one another in other absolute and destroy one another As the Law by the discouery of Sinne and the punishment of it humbles man and prepares him to receaue the Gospell 2. As the Law is a sacred direction for Holines and Obedience to those that haue embraced the Gospell and all others 3. As the Law requires satisfaction for the Breach of it and the Gospell promiseth such satisfaction thus the Law and Gospell agree well together and establish one another But as the Law giues life to them that perfectly obey it and the Gospell giues Life to them that stedfastly beleiue it thus the Law and Gospell are one against the other and ouerthrow one another And
ergo if God had giuen such a Law to the Iewes as could haue brought Saluation to them through the perfect fulfilling of it 't is apparant that God had made voide his former Couenant vnto Abraham because Righteousnes should haue bin by the Law and not by Christ. But now God gaue no such Law as could be kept by the Iewes as the Apostle proues because all were sinners against it and therefore it followes that notwithstanding the giuing of the Law the Promise standes good for euer and Righteousnes is to be odtained onely by the Faith of Iesus Christ. From hence we conclude firmely That the difference betweene the Law and the Gospell assigned by our Diuines is most certaine and agreable to the Scriptures viz. That The Law giues Life vnto the Iust vpon Conâ—ition of perfect Obedience in all things The Gospell giues Life vnto Sinners vpon Condition they repent and beleiue in Christ Iesus Whence it is plaine That in the point of Iustification these two are incompatible and that therefore our minor Proposition standes verified That Iustification by the workes of the Law makes voide the Couenant of Grace Which Proposition is the same with the Apostles assertion else-where Gal. 2. 21. If Righteousne be by the Law Christ died in vaine and Gal. 5. 4. Ye are abolished from Christ whosoeuer are iustified by the Law yee are fallen from Grace By somuch more iuiurious are these of the Romish Church vnto the Gospell of Christ when by denying this difference they would confound the Law and Gospell and bring vs backe from Christ to Moses to seeke for our Iustification in the fulfilling of the Morall Law They would persuade vs that the Gospell is nothing but a more perfect Law or the Law perfected by addition of the Spirit enabling men to fulfill it That the promises of the Gospell be vpon this Condition of fulfilling the Law with such like stuffe Their Doctrine touching this point is declared vnto vs by Bellarmine Lib 4. de Iustificat cap. 3. 4. Where he comes many distinctions betweene the Law and Gospell but will by no meanes admit of that which our Reformed Diuines make to be the chiefe The cheife distinction which he conceaues to be betweene them he frameth thus The Gospell saieth he is taken in a double sense 1. For the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles by them preached and written 2. For the Grace of the Holy Ghost giuen iu the New Testament which he makes to be the Law written in our Hearts the quickening Spirit the Law of Faith Charity shed abroad in our Hearts in opposition to the Law written in stone to the dead and killing Letter the Law of Workes the Spirit of bondage and feare Vpon this he proceeds to the difference betweene the Law and the Gospell Thus. The Law teacheth vs what is to be done the Gospell if it be taken for the Grace of the holy Ghost so it differs from the Law because it gaines strength to doe it but if it be taken for the Doctrine deliuered by Christ and his Apostles so it agrees with the Law teaching vs as the Law doth what things are to be done This Argument the Iesuite illustrates and proues in three particulars 1. The Gospell containes Doctrinam operum or Leges For Morall praecepts they be the same in the Gospell that be in the Law euen those praecepts that seeme most Euangelicall viz of louing our Enemies witnes of this all the writings of the New Testament wherein euery where we find praecepts exhortations to the same virtues Prohibitions and dehortations from the same vices which the Law forbids or commands So that for Morals the Doctrine of the Gospell is but the Doctrine of the Law newly that is most cleerely and fully expounded Nor is the Gospell in a more perfect substance but in Circumstance a more perspicuous Doctrine Which though a Trueth yet is very ridiculouslie proued by the Cardinall out of Mat. 5. Nisi abundauerit c. Vnlesse your Righteousnes exceed What He saieth not the righteousnes of the Law and Prophets but of the Scribes and Pharisees yee shall not enter c. A profound Glosse Christ would not add to the Burden of the Law but take away from the false glosse of the Scribes and Pharisees Surely good cause had our Sauiour to taxe both the Doctrine of the Pharisees in interpreting and their manners in their hypocriticall practice of the Law in outward matters without inward Obedience But litle Reason was there that Christ should require of man more perfection then Gods Law required and 't is a fancie to dreame of any such meaning in our Sauiours speach 2 The Gospell containes Comminations and threatnings as the Law doth Witnes the many woes from Christ's owne mouth against the Scribes and Pharisees together with those frequent denunciations of Iudgement and Damnation to such as are vngodly that doe not repent and obey the Gospell 3 Thirdly the Gospell containes promises of Life and happines but these Euangelicall promises be not absolute but vpon the same Condition that the Legall are viz Cum conditione implendae Legis Cum conditione Iustitiae actualis operosae quae in perfecta Mandatorum obseruatione consistit Cap. 2. This the Iesuite would proue vnto vs. 1. From that Math. 5. Vnlesse your Righteousnes aboud c. that is in Bellarmines Construction so far as vnto the perfect keeping of the Law you shall not enter into the Kingdome of Heauen 2. From Mat. 19. 17. Mat. 10. 19. Where Christ speakes to the yong man Asking him what he should doe to be saued If thou wilt enter into Life keepe the Commandements And to the Lawyer 10. 28. who asked the like Question he answeres This doe and thou shalt liue That is Fulfill the Law and thou shalt be saued In which wordes they say That Christ did preach the Gospell and shewed vnto these men the very Evangelical way to Saluation 3. From the many places of Scripture Wherein Mortificatiâ—n of Sinne and the studious practice of Holines and Obedience is required of vs. As. Rom. 8. If yee mortifie the deed 's of the flesh by the Spirit yee shall liue So. Ezekiel 18. 21. If the wicked will returne from all his Sinnes that he hath committed and keepe all my statutes and doe that which is lawfull and Right he shall surely liue and not die With a Number such like places 4. From the very Tenor of the Gospell He that belieueth shall be saued but he that belieueth not shall be damned Where we see the Promise of Life is not absolute but conditionall If we doe such and such workes From hence the Romanist concludes That seeing the precepts threatnings and promises of the Gospell be for matter the same that those of the Law are the true difference betweene the Law and Gospell shall be this That the Law nakedly proposeth what is to be done without giuing grace to performe it but the
Gospell not only proposeth what is to be done but withall giueth Grace and strength to doe it and therefore the Law giuen by Moses the Law-giuer cannot iustifie because it was giuen without the grace of fulfilling it but the Gospell giuen by Christ the Redeemer doth justifie because it is accompanied with the grace of the holy Ghost making vs able to keepe the Law For which cause also the Law of Moses is a yoake vnsupportable the Law of feare and bondage because it giues not grace to keepe it but onely conuinceth our Sinne and threatens vs punishment but the Law of Christ the Gospell is a light yoake a Law of loue and liberty because it giues grace to keepe it and of loue to God and man and so by fulfilling frees a man from feared punishment This is the summe of the Romish Doctrine touching the difference betwixt the morall Law and the Gospell in the point of Iustification as it is deliuered vs by Bellarmine the rotten pillar of the antichristian Synagogue Wherein we haue scarce a syllable of distinct Trueth but all peruerted by aequiuocations and grosse Ambiguities as shall appeare by a short surucy of the former discourse Whereas then he distinguisheth the Gospell into the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and into the Grace of the Holy Ghost let vs follow him in these two parts First for Doctrine We grant that the Gospell is often so taken but in this matter about Iustification this acception on is too large and not distinct enough For although by a Synecdâ—che of the chiefest most excellent part the whole Doctrine and Ministry of Christ and his Apostles with their successors be called the doctrine of the Gospell and the Ministery of the Gospell yet all things which they preached or wrote is not the Gospell properly so called But as Moses chiefly deliuered the Law vnto the Iewes though yet with all he wrote of Christ and so in part reuealed vnto them the Gospell so Christ and his Ministers though chiefely they preach the Gospell yet in its place they vrge the law withall as that which hath its singular vse in furthering our Christian faith and practise Wherefore when we speak of the Gospell as opposite to the Law t is a Iesuiticall equiuocation to take it in this large sense For the whole doctrine of Christ and his Apostles preached by them and written for vs in the Booke of the New Testament we follow the Apostle in his dispute of Iustification Gal. 3. 4. 5. And according as he doth take the Gospell strictly for the promise of Iustification and life made vnto man in Christ Iesus This is in proper tearmes the Gospell viz. that speciall Doctrine touching mans Redemption and reconciliation with God by the meanes of Iesus Christ the Reuelation whereof was indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the gladdest tidings that were euer brought to the eare of mortall man Which Gospell in strict teaÌ„rmes the Angels preached Lue. 2. 10. 11. Behold I bring you glad tidings of great ioy which shall be to all people That vnto you is borne this day in the Citie of Dauid a Sauiour which is Christ the Lord. And afterward Christ and his Apostles fully explained the mysteries thereof vnto the world According to this necessary distinction we answer That if we take the Gospell in that large Acception t is true which Bellarmine hath That the Gospell containes in it the Doctrine of workes viz. the Morall Law euen the very same precepts prohibitions threatnings promises which are deliuered in the Law All which as Christ and his Hpostles preached so may all Ministers without blame yea they must if they will auoid blame presse the same vpon their hearers seasonably and discreetly that the Law may make way for the better receiuing and entertainment of Grace in the Gospell But hence it followes not that the Gospell properly so taken is to be confounded as one and the same thing with the Law because the Law is conjoyned with it in the preachings and writings of the Ministers of the New Testament They still are deuided in their Nature and Offices nor hath the Gospell any affinity with the Law in praecepts threatnings or promises Wherefore when Bellarmine teacheth vs. That Euangelicall promises be made with condition of perfect fulfilling the Law T is a desperate errour and that in the very foundation You heard his proofes before recited see now a little how passing weake they be 1 Mat. 5. Except your righteousnesse c. To this wee answere The plaine meaning of the place is this Our righteousnesse must abound more then that of the Pharises that is It must not be outside onely as theirs was but inward Righteousnesse of the heart in inward sanctity of the thoughts and affections as well as of the outward Action or else such our hypocrisie will keepe vs from entring into Heauen But doth it hence follow that because we must be more perfect then these Pharisees we must be as perfect in all things as the Law requires we must exceed them ergo equall the holinesse of the Law in all points Because wee must be syncere without hypocrisie ergo we must be perfect in all things without blame Such consequents as these the Iesuit hath coÌ„cluded out of his own head not out of the text Touching that speech of Christ to the yong man Mat. 19. and the Lawyer Matt. 10. That if they did fulfill the Law they should liue We answere that Christ in so speaking vnto them did not preach the Gospell but shewed vnto them the Legall way to Saluation For these erring that grand error of the Iew in seeking for righteousnesse not by faith but by the works of the Law seuering the Law from Christ the end thereof as the Apostle shewes Rom. 9. 31. 32. 10. 3. and so supposing to be saued by doing some good thing Christ answeres them in their humour as euery one should be answered that swels with high conceits of his own righteousnesse workes That there was a Law to be kept and if they could fully obserue the righteousnes of it they should be saued sending them of purpose to the Law that they might be humbled thereby and see their great folly in seekeing for life by that which they were so vnable to keepe Against which answere the Iesuit hath nothing to rely but stands much in confuting of another answere made by some of our Diuines That Christ spake these things Ironically This Bellar. seeks to confute nor do I labor to confirm it though it might be justified for any thing he brings to the contrary 3 Vnto those those places of Scripture that euery where almost promise life blessednesse the fauour of God vpon condition of holinesse in life and conversation that we mortifie the lusts of the flesh walke in the Spirit ouercome the world c. We answere that Obedience is one thing perfect obedience is another We say that the promises of
the Gospell bee all vpon condition of obedience but none vpon condition of perobedience T is an iniury done vnto vs whē they say we teach that Euangelicall promises be absolute and without condition as if God did promise and giue all vnto vs and wee doe nothing for it on our parts We defend no such dotage The promises of the Gospell be conditionall viz. Namely vpon condition of repentance and amendment of life That we study to our power to obey God in all things but this is such a condition as requires of sincerity and faithfulnesse of endeauour not perfection of obedience in the full performance of euery jot and Tittle of the Law Vnto the last Argument from the tenour of the New Couenant viz. That we must beleeue if we will be saued ergo the promise of the Gospell is with condition of fulfilling the Law This is an Argument might make the Cardinals cheeke as red as his Cap were there any shame in him Faith indeed is a worke and this worke is required as a condition of the promise but to doe this worke To beleeue though it be to obey Gods Commandement yet it is not perfectly to fulfill the whole Law but perfectly to trust in him who brings mercy and pardon for transgressions of the Law CHAP. II. Of Bellarmines erroneous distinction of the word Gospell SO much of the first member of the Iesuits distinction wherin his sophisticall fraud appeares taking the Gospel for the whole doctrine of the New Testament published by Christ and his Apostles and ergo confounding the Law Gospell as one because he findes the Law as well as the Gospell deliuered vnto vs by our Sauiour and his Ministers I proceed to the second branch of it The Gospell saith he is taken for the grace of the holy Ghost giuen vs in the New Testament whereby men are made able to keepe the Law T is so taken But where is it so taken The Iesuit cannot tell you that Vt verum fatear saith he nomen Evangelij non videtur in Scripturis uspiam accipi nisi pro doctrind No good reason for it in as much as t is euident to all me that there is great difference betweene the doctrine of Mans saluation by the Mercy of God through the Merits of Christ which is properly the Gospell and the graces of the Holy Ghost bestowed on man in his Regeneration whereby he is made able in some measure to doe that which is good But the fault is not so much in the name in calling the grace of God in vs by the name of Gospell as in the mis-interpretation of the matter it selfe Wherein two errours are committed by the Iesuite 1 In that he maketh the grace of the New Testament to be such strength giuen to man that thereby he may fulfill the Law 2 In that he saith The Law was giuen without grace to keepe it In both which assertions their is ambiguity and Error For the first We grant that grace to doe any thing that is good is giuen by the Gospell not by the Law The Law commands but it giues no strength to Obey because it persupposeth that he to whome the command is giuen hath or ought to haue already in himselfe strength to Obey it And Ergo we confesse it freely that we Receaue th◠Spirit not by the workes of the Law but by the hearing of Faith preached as it is Gal. 3. 2. The Donation of the Spirit in any measure whatsoeuer of his sanctifying graces is from Christ as a Sauiour not as a Lawgiuer Thus when we agree That all Graces to doe well is giuen vnto vs by the Gospell but next we differ They teach that the Gospell gies such grace vnto man that he may fulfill what the Law commands and so be Iustified by it we deny it and say that Grace is giuen by the Gospell to obey the Law sincerely without hyppocricy but not to fulfill it perfectly without infirmities In which point the Iesuite failes in his proofes which he brings 1 Out of those places where contrary Attributes are ascribed to the Law and Gospell Vnto the Law That it is the ministry of death and Condemnation Killing Letter that it workes wrath that it is a Yoake of Bondage a Testament bringing forth Childeren vnto Bondage But vnto the Gospell that it is The ministry of Life and of Reconciliation the Spirit that quickeneth the Testament that bringeth forth Childeren to Liberty which opposition Bellarmine will haue to bee because The Law giues precepts without affording strength to keepe them but the Gospell giues grace to doe what is Commanded But the Iesuite is here mistaken These opposite attributes giuen to the Law are ascribed to it in a twofold respect 1 Inregard of of the punishment which the Law threatens to offenders viz. Death In which regard principally the Law is said to be the ministry of Death to worke wrath to be not a dead but a Killing Letter in asmuch as being broken it leaues no hope to the Transgresser but a fearefull expectation of eternall Death and condemnation of the Law vnder the Terrors whereof it holds them in bondage But on the Contrary the Gospell is the ministery of Life of reconciliation of the quickening spirit and of Liberty because it reueales vnto vs Christ in whom we are restored to Life from the deserued Death and condemnation of the Law vnto Gods fauour being deliuered from the wrath to come vnto liberty being freed from slauish feare of Punishment This is the cheefe Reason of this opposition of Attributes Secondly the next is in regard of Obedience In which respect the ministry of the Law is said to be the Ministery of the Letter written in tabels of stone but that of the Gospell is called the ministery of the Spirit which writes the Law in the fleshly tables of the heart Because the Law bearely commands but Ministers not power to obey so is but as a dead Letter without the Vertue of the Spirit But in the Gospell grace is giuen from Christ who by the Holy Ghost sanctifieth the heart of his Elect that they may liue to Righteousnesse in a sincere thought not euery way exact conformity to the Law of God The like answere we giue vnto another proofe of his 2 Out of that place Iohn 1. 17. The Law came by Moses but Grace and truth by Iesus Christ. that is saith Bellarmine The Law came by Moses without grace to fulfill it but grace to keepe it by Christ. We answere The true interpretation of these words is this Moses deliuered a twofold Law morall and ceremoniall Opposite to these Christ hath brought a twofold priuiledge Grace for the morall Law whereby we vnderstand not only power giuen to the regenerate in part to obserue this Law which strength could not come by the Law it selfe but also much more Remission of sinnes committed against the Law and so our Iustification and freedome
from the guilt of sinne and course of the Morall Law Secondly Truth for the Ceremoniall Law the substance being brought in and the shadowes vanished wherefore the Iesuite erres greately in this point when he makes the grace of the New Testament to consist in this That strength is thereby giuen us to fulfill the Law The grace of God in the Gospell is chiefely our Iustification and Redemption from the curse of the Law and in the next place strength afforded vs to Obey the Law in some measure not perfectly as our Aduersaries would haue it In the next point he erres as much in saying that the Law of Moses was giueu without grace to obey it A false assertion For although the Law of it selfe giue not grace yet t is certaine that grace was giuen by Christ euen then when Moses published the Law Sufficient for the proofe hereof are 1 These excellent properties ascribed vnto the Law of God as in other places of the old Testament so spetially in the Booke of the Psalmes And amongst them in the 19. and 119. Psalmes Where the Law of God is said to giue light to the eiâ—s to conuert the Soule to reioice the Heart c. which it could not doe of it selfe had not the grace of the Holy Ghost being giuen in these times without which the Law could worke no such sauing Effects 2 Experienee of those times in the Faith Patience and â—bedience and all sorts of graces shining in those ancient Saints who liued before and after the Law was giuen Which graces they receaued from the Holy Ghost shed vpon their hearts by vertue of Christs mediation whereby they receaued strength to liue holily in Obedience vnto the Law of God The difference betweene these times and those vnder the Law is not That we haue grace and they had none but only in the mâ—asure and extent of the same grace bestowed both on vs and them In those times as the Doctrine of the Gospell was more obscurely reuealed so the grace which accoÌ„panies it was more sparingly distributed being confined to to a Church collected of one nation and bestowed vpon that Church in a lesser measure then now though yet suffitiently in that measure But in the times of the New Testament the light shines more brightly and grace is dispenced more liberally being extended indifferently to all Nations and poured vpon the Godly in a larger Abundance according as was promised Ieremiah 31. Though also this comparison must be restrained vnto whole Churches what generally is now done for no doubt in many particulars some men vnder the Law exceede for abundance of Grace many vnder the Gospell Wherefore it is a notable iniury vnto the Bounty of God and the honour of those Saints of old to exclude them from partaking of the Gospell to affirme that they were led only by the Spirit of Feare and not of loue that they receaued not the Spirit of adoption to cry Abba father as well as wee though not plentifully as wee and so that they were not Sonnes though vnder Tutors and gouernors as we confesse they were but very Seruants held in Bondage and excluded from the inheritance of Grace and glory till after Christs Death So that at best their adoptioâ— was but conditionall with regard of Time to come but for the preseÌ„t they were handled as slaues fear'd with temporall punishments allured by temporall rewards like a heard of Swine fed with base achors and huskes These be absurd Errors bred out of Scripture misvnderstood Especially that of Iohn 1. Grace came by Christ. Ergo not before Christs Inâ—arnation A sily Argument Christ is as old as the World and his Grace as ancient as the Name of Man vpon Earth grace alwaies came by Crhist was in its measure giuen by him loÌ„g before he appear'd in the flesh He was euer the head of his Church and that his Body which he alwaies quickned by the blessed influence of his Spirit ministered therevnto Whereby the Godly before as well as since his incarnation were made liuing members of that his misticall Body Wherefore it is apparant that grace is not to be tied to the Times of the Gospell and seuered from the Law Nay as of old the Law was not alwaies without grace so now many times the Gospel it selfe is without grace Christ himselfe being a stumbling stone and rocke of offence the Gospell a Sauiour of Death to those many vpon whome Grace is not bestowed to beleeue and embrace it I conclude then That this difference with our Aduersaries make betweene the Law and Gospell is false and that their Error is pernitious in makind the Gospel to be nothing but a Spirit added to the Law that man may fulfill it to his Iustification That thus a man may be saued by Christ through the perfect fulfilling of the Law Which is a monstrous and vncouth Doctrine laying an vnsupportable burthen vpon the conscience of man and hazarding his soule to â—ternall distruction whiles by this meanes he frustrates the Grace of God in Christ and withall frustrats his owne hopes of life expecting to obtaine it by that Law which he is neuer able to fulfill SECT 5. CHAP. I. Iustification by fulfilling the law ouerthrowes Christian libertie the parts of our Christian libertie SO much of the Third Argument The last followes drawne from the Nature of Christian Liberty Which is this 4. Arg. That which ouerthrowes our Christian Liberty purchased for vs by the death of Christ that 's no Euangelical but an Haereticall Doctrine But Iustification by the workes of the Law ouerthrowes the spirituall Liberty of Man obtained for him by Christ. Ergò 'T is an Haeresie against the Gospell For the proofe of the minor Proposition let vs in briefe consider wherein stands that Liberty wherewith Christ hath made vs free that so we may the better perceiue what part thereof this doctrine of Iustification by works doth nullifie and depriue vs of The Liberty wee haue in Christ is either in regard of the Life to come or of this praesent life The first is the Liberty of Glory consisting in a fuâ—l deliuerance from that state of vanity and misery both sinfull and painfull wherevnto we are now subiect And not we only but the whole Creation which with vs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 groaneth and trauaileth in paine till with vs it also be deliuered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From the bondage of Corruption into the Glorious libertie of the Sonnes of God as the Apostle declares Rom. 8. 19. seq This Liberty we haue in hope not in possession The next we actually injoy in this life and that is the Liberty of Grace This we may diuide not vnfitly into 3 branches 1 Freedome from Sinne. 2 Freedome from the Law 3 Freedome from Men. 1 Our Freedome from Sinne stands in 2 things 1 In our deliuerance from the Punishment of Sinne. For whereas euery Sinne of it's owne Nature brings with it guiltines and
a sure obligation vnto punishment binding ouer the transgressor vnto the paines of God's aeternall wrath by a stroÌ„ger chaine then of Steele or Adamant Christ by his meritorious satisfaction hath broken these bonds and ransomed vs from this fearefull Bondage vnto Hell and destruction He being made a Curse for vs hath redeemed vs from the Curse of the Law Gal. 3. 13. That is By taking on himselfe the punishment of our Sinnes in his owne person suffering and satisfying the wrath and Iustice of God he hath once for euer set vs free from the dreadfull vengeance of God which we deserue should fall vpon vs for our Iniquities 2 In our deliuerance from the Power of Sinne which though it abide in vs in the Reliques of our corrupted Nature yet by the power of the Holy Ghost dwelling in the Hearts of the Regenerate it is subdued and kept vnder that it doth not reigne nor exercise it's commanding authority without Controle So that whereas the Vnregenerate be the Seruants of Sinne wholly at the command of Satan and wicked affections the Regenerate are freed from this slauery being ruled and guided by the Spirit of the Lord which wheresoeuer it is there is liberty as the Apostle speakes 2 Cor. 3. 17. Liberty from that blindnes wherein we are holden by Nature not knowing what the will of God is Liberty from that rebellion and infirmity of our Nature whereby we are nor willing nor able to doe the will of God From which we are freed in part by the Spirit of Christ inlightning our Mindes and changing our Hearts This Liberty from Sinnes dominion and damnation S. Paul joynes together Rom. 8. 2. The Law of the Spirit of Life which is in Christ Iesus hath freed me from the Law of Sinne and of Death And againe Rom. 6. 14. Sinne shall not haue Dominion ouer you for ye are not vnder the Law but vnder Grace 2 Our freedome from the Law is eithr from the Ceremoniall or Moral law The Ceremoniall Law contained in it diuerse Carnall Ordinances 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to endure vntill the time of reformation From all which Christ hath freed the Church of the New Testament as namely 1. From the whole burthen of Legall ceremonies whatsoeuer vsed in the worship of God Those resemblances are of no vse now when the substance it selfe is come in place nor may such beggarly and impotent rudiments be sought after when greater perfection is to be had Gal. 4. 9. 2. From that restraint in things indifferent whereunto the Iewes were tied but we are not bound Such are the obseruations of dayes of Meates and Drinkes of Garments with the like Wherein the Iewes were restâ—ayned but our consciences are left free being taught that euery Creature of God is good being sanctified by Prayer and thankesgiuing 1. Tim. 4. 4. 5. And that to the pure all things are pure Onely this being obserued that we abuse not this our Liberty but that as we are informed by Faith that all things are lawfull for vs so we should be taught by charity to see what are expedient in regard of others That a due regard be had of others infirmity that nothing be done whereby the truly weake may be scandalized as the Apostle commands Rom 14. 21. By which â—eanes Knowledge on the one side still preserues vs that our consciences be not iâ—snared with superstition and charity on the other side shall keepe our Liberty from degenerating into Licentiousnesse and vnchristian contempt of our weake Brethren 2 Our freedome from the Morall law stands in this that whereas the Law requires of euery Man vpon strictest termes of Necessity full and compleate Obedience to all things whatsoeuer contained in it if he will auoide the punishment of Hell fire Christ hath freed all that belieue in him from this heavy and rigorous exaction of the Law taking away from our Consciences this obligation vnto a necessary fulfilling thereof vpon paine that we shall forfeit Heauen if we doe it not As we shall see more anon 3 In the last place our Freedome is from Men namely from all power and authority they may claime ouer our consciences they may hold our persons in subjection but they cannot command ouer our consciences We acknowledge no Iurisdiction of Man or Angel ouer our Consciences but only that of God that created vs and of Christ that hath redeemed vs. Whosoeuer ergo shall impose vpon Man any humane Traditions Opinions or Ordinations whatsoeuer to tye his conscience vnto obedience by vertue of his own authority such a one trenches vpon Gods high Praerogatiue vsurpes tyrannically ouer the soules of Men according as at this day that Man of Sinne doth But here we must obserue that Humane Constitutions be either Ecclesiasticall or Politicall Ecclesiasticall concerne either the matter and substance of God's worship when any thing is invented by Man commanded wherein and whereby to worship God 2 The Manner and externall order of God's worship in the determination of indifferent circumstances tending to decencie and comelinesse For the former we renounce and reiect all humane authority whatsoeuer that shall without warrant from the Scriptures prescribe vnto the Church any doctrine to be receiued as a diuine Trueth or Custome Ceremony or Practise whatsoeuer to be obserued as a proper part of God's most holy worship According as our reformed Churches haue happily recouered their Liberty by breaking asunder those cordes casting away that Yoake of false doctrine of Superstitions â—â—râ—moniall will-worships wherewith not Christ but Anti-Christ had insnared and oppressed the Church And they haue God's owne warrant for so doing Isay. 29. 13. ratified and explained by Christ Mat. 15 9. In vaine they worship me teaching for doctrine Mens precepts which was a thing contrary to God's expresse commandement Ezech. 20. 18. â—â— Walke yee not in the ordinances of your Fathers neither obserue their manners nor defile your selues with their Idoles I am the Lord your God walke in my Statutes and keepe my Iudgements and doe them For the later namely humane Constitutions concerning indifferent Circumstances in God's worship tending to orderly decency agreeable to the simplicity and purity of the Gospell herein wee must acknowledge the authority of the Church though not ouer our Consciences to binde them yet ouer our practises to order limit them Accordingly as also we doe in the other branch of humane Obediences viz. Politicall or ciuill comprising all Law touching lawfull things made for the gouernance of Kingdomes or inferior states by the supreame Magistrate that hath authority so to doe Wherevnto we must be subject not because of wrath onely but also for conscience sake For Conscience sake not because the highest Monarch on Earth hath power ouer the Conscience of his meanest subject to binde it by vertue of his owne authority but because God hath established the Magistrates authority and commanded subjects Obedience in lawfull things and therefore we cannot disobey
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
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.
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