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
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
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
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
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
God in a word in the Renovation of his Facâ—lties Which what is it else but Sanctification or Regeneration or Conuersion Only stiled by that tearme of Vocation in regard of the meanes whereby it is ordinarily effected that is the preaching of the word He must needs coyne vs some new Mystery in Divinity who will perswade vs that some other worke of Grace is meant by Vocation and not that of Sanctification Therefore wee haue neither one Linke snapt out nor two shuffled together in this chaine of our Saluation But foure as distinct as vndivideable Election Sanctification whereto we are called by the Gospell preached 2 Thess. 2. 14. Iustification by Faith which is a fruit of Sanctification and Glorification The fourth place is that in the Epistle to the Hebrewes Chap. 13. 14. For if the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling them that are vncleane sanctifieth as touching the purifying of the flesh how much more shall the blood of Christ who through the eternall Spirit offered himselfe without fault to God purge our consciences from dead workes to serue the liuing God Hence they argue That as Leuiticall Sacrifices and Washings did sanctifie the flesh from outward Legall impurity so the Sacrifice of Christ doth purge the Conscience from inward spirituall vncleanenesse of dead Workes or Sinnes This purging of the conscience is nothing but iustification of a sinner Wherefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be all of one meaning To which I answere That the Apostle in that Chapter and the next disputing of the vertue and efficacy of Christs death far exceeding the force of all Leuiticall Sacrifices the shadowes of it ascribes vnto it what could not be effected by those viz. eternall Redemption verse 12. purging of the conscience from dead workes verse 12. the putting away of sinne verse 26. The Sanctification of the Elect Chap. 10. 7. 10. made Heires according to the hope of eternall life In neither then of those places is our sanctification confounded with our Iustification but both distinctly declared as two seuerall partes of graces and meanes of the Accomplishment of our eternall Happinesse 'T is scarce worth the labour to examine those other Scriptures produced by our Aduersaries whereof some part doe directly crosse and the rest doe but onely in apparance confirme their assertion In generall therefore for them thus much wee confidently affirme that let the Concordance be studied and all those places examined wherein either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is vsed in the Old or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament there will not one be found no not one in which those wordes carry any other meaning then that which we stand for viz. the clearing of a parties innocence questioned as faulty and blame-worthy Take a taste of some places 1 Iustification is sometimes applyed to 1. God when Man iustifies God As Psal. 51. 4. Rom. 3. 4. That thou mightest be iustified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in thy saying and mightest ouercome when thou art iudged Matth. 11. 19. And wisedome is iustified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of her children Luke 7. 35. Luke 7. 29. And the Publicans iustified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God being baptized with the baptisme of Iohn Can there be any other meaning of Iustification hereâ— but this onely That God is then iustified when his workes his wisedome his sacred ordinances being accused by prophane men as vntrue vnequall vnâ—ust and foolish are by the Godly acknowledged or any other meanes evidently cleared vnto all men to be full of all Truth Equity Wisedome and Holinesse 2 Man and that 1 Before Man in things betweene Man and Man When Man iustifies Man Deut. 25. 1. If there be a controversie betweene Men and they come vnto iudgement that the Iudge may iudge them then they shall iustifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the righteous and condemne the wicked Isaiah 5. 23. Woe to them whâ—ch iustifie the wicked for a reward and take away the righteousnesse of the righteous from him Prouerb 17. 15. He that iustifieth thâ— wicked and condemneth the iust euen they both are an abomination to the Lord. 2 Sam. 15. 4. Oh that I were made Iudge in the Land that euery man that hath any suit or cause might come to me and I would doe him Iustiâ—e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In these many the like places to Iustifie is in iudâ— ciall proceeding to absolue a party from fault blame whether it be rightfully or wrongfully done Ezek. 16. 52. Be thou confounded and beare thy shame in that thou hast iustified thy sisters speakes God vnto Ierusalem in comparison of whose abhomination the sinnes of Sodome and Samaria were scarce to be accounted any faults They were Saints to her Of the Pharises Christ speakes Luke 16. 15. Yee are they that iustifie your selues before men but God knoweth your hearts That is You stand vpon the defence and ostentation of outward Holinesse and deeming it sufficient to make it appeare before Men you are holy without regard of acquitting the sincerity of your hearts before God 2 Before God where God iustifies Man Exod. 23. 7. The innocent and the righteous slay thou not for I will not iustifie the wicked by esteeming him as innocent and letting him goe from punishment Isaiah 50. 8. Hee is neere that iustifieth me who will contend with me saith the Prophet in the person of Christ signifying God would make it appeare that he was blamelesse for the rejection of his people the Iewes who perished for their owne and not his fault Rom. 5. 18. As by the offence of one iudgement came on all Men to condemnation So by the righteousnesse of one the free gift came vpon all men to the Iustification of life Rom 8. 33. 34. Who shall lay thing to the charge of Gods Elect It is God that iustifies who shall condemne 1 Cor. 4. 4. I know nothing by my selfe yet in this am I not iustified Hee that iudgeth me is God q. d. I haue kept a good conscience in my Ministery but God is my iudge though my conscience pronounce me innocent yet God is my sole Iudge that iudgeth me and my conscience Acts 13. 38. 39. Through this Man is preached vnto you the forgiuenesse of sinnes and from all things from which yee could not be iustified by the Law of Moses by him euery one that beleeueth is iustifyed By which places not to name more it appeares plâ—inly that Iustification is opposed to Accusation and Condemnation and therefore can signifie nothing else but the defence absolution of a persoÌ„ accused for an offender Which thing is so cleare and euident that it cannot be gaynsayed except by those alone who are wilfully blind and obstinately resolued to coÌ„tradict any truth that makes against their inveterate errors For our selues we may not nor dare not shut our eyes against so cleare Light nor ought we to be so bold wheÌ„ God hath
that he is a God that hateth Iniquity If he do hate it theÌ„ certainly he must punish it God cannot see a fault and hate a fault but he must also punish it to If he punish it then he which is iustified shall yet be condemned which is absurd Vnto these Arguments we answere Vnto the two former thus When we say Sin remaines in a Man regenerate and Iustified we must distinguish the ambiguity of the word Sin In Sin to vse that distinction which is authenticall with ouâ— Aduersaries There are three things 1 The offence of God which is the fault 2 The obligation vnto eternall punishment which is the guilt 3 The staine or pollution of the soule viz the inherent vitious inclination of it vnto euill From whence the fault committed first issued and which by committing of the fault is augmented For euill once committed leaues a further pronnesse in the heart to doe it againe This we call the corruption of Sinne. Thus then we answer Sin doth not remaine in those that are iustified regenerate in the two first respects viz. of the fault and the guilt both which are takeÌ„ away by the death of Christ. But Sin doth remain in the regenerate according to the 3 respect viz. the vitious quality and corruption thereof inherent in the soule We shall explaine these answeres and apply them to the Arguments We say then That the fault guilt of sinne in the regenerate is vtterly abolished by the death of Christ. Which we doe not take in such a sense as this That in a man regenerate there is not at all any one fault or guilt to be found for to say that a man regenerate when he sinnes were neither faulty nor guilty were a grosse vntruth â— seeing t is impossible that man should sinne yet God not be offended that man should sinne and yet not be guilty and deseruing eternall death Wherefore we confesse that in the holiest of men if they sinne there 's a true fault and God is displeased with it there is also true guilt and for it they deserue to goe to Hell But yet this truth also must be acknowledged withall that all faultinesse and guiltinesse are quite abolished and taken away from them by Christ because that both are pardoned vnto them God is offended but yet they feele not the wofull effects of his indignation because in Christ hee is graciously contented to be reconciled with them Againe they haue deserued euerlasting death but they come not to the paines thereof because freed from the punishment by Christs satisfaction Thus then we vnderstand the first part of the answere That the fault and guilt of sinne is vtterly abolished that is totally pardoned vnto the Regenerate by meanes of Christ so that no finall eternall punishment shall befall them therefore The other part That Sinne in the uitious quality and corruption if it remaine in Men iustified we vnderstand with this necessary Limitation That it remaines in them not in its power and strength but in its Being and Life It hath vitam but not Regnum It reignes where there is no Grace at all but it liues euen where Grace is which though it mightily a bate to power of it it cannot vtterly dâ—stroy its being Hence now its easy to vnty the Arguments Sinne is taken away bâ—otted out drowned in the bottome of the Sea in regare of those mischieuous effects which sinne would haue brough on vs God is reconciled the obligation to punishment cancelled and all the power force strength of Sin defeated So that like the dead Egyptians they can no longer pursue the Israelites to annoy them not shall stand vp as an aduersary in iudgment to condemne vs. The Guilt of Sinne is washed away totall by the blood of Christ the filthynesse of corrupted Nature is in part by Degrees clensed by the Spirite of Christ powred on vs in his sanctifieing Grace The Fetters and bonds of Sinne whereby we were held in bondage vnder condemnation these are quite broken asunder but those chaines whereby with Paul Rom. 7 we are led captiue to disobedience are some broken all weakened We are freed from the power of Satan and feare of Hell but not wholly freed from Sinne whereby we are often captiues against our will Sinne is a sicknesse and God is the Phisitian a wound and God is the Chirurgian true but the cures neither perectly yet correct that word He cures our sicknesse and sores perfectly but not suddainely where he begines the worke he will finish it but he will not doe all in a day The cure begins and goes onward to perfection during this life but t is neuer finished till after death He forgiues all our iniquity and that 's done â—utirely and totally and healeth all our infirmities but this is by degrees not all at once In which course God hath no cause to feare the censure of a Iesuite for vnskilfulnesse nor stands he in need of Mans counsaile for prescription nor Mans helpe to hold his hand in working if the Cure goe on more slowly then our foolish hastinesse thinkes fit That 's fit and best what God thinkes so and if we count him faithfull and wise in his art t is our duty to take his aduice but saucy persumption to giue him any Lastly where Sinne is said to be the Spirituall Death of the Soule and so Life being restored in Iustification Death must needes be quite abolished the weaknesse of this Argument appeares streight if the metaphoricall terme be changed in to proper The death of Sinne is either the Separation of all grace from the Soule or the Separation of Gods Fauour from the Soule We are dead in trespasses and Sinnes both waies In regard that in the state of vnregeneration the Soule is vtterly destitute of all Grace and goodnesse and also be cause in that condition it is liable to eternall Death Now the Death of Sinne that is eternall death in the perpetuall Losse of Gods fauour this is cleane taken a way from him that 's regenerate Christ by his death hath purchased to him Life and immortality But touching that other death that is the want of all inherent Grace in the Soule They say That in Regeneration Grace and Holynesse is restored to the Soule yet not so perfectly as to abolish euery degree of Sinnefull Corruption Before Regeneration the Soule had no grace atall and so was vtterly dead but it followes not That therefore in Regeneration it hath all grace giuen it in all perfection and so made perfectly aliue what euer harshnesse there is in the Metaphore the plaine termes in this case are smooth enough A Man may be at once a liue and dead that is at once a Man may bee partly holy and partly sinnefull Our old Man is crucified with Christ vpon whose Crosse it receaued a deadly wound because Christ by his sacrifice hath procured the sending of the Holy ghost into the hearts of the Elect who by
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
from the guilt of sinne and course of the Morall Law Secondly Truth for the Ceremoniall Law the substance being brought in and the shadowes vanished wherefore the Iesuite erres greately in this point when he makes the grace of the New Testament to consist in this That strength is thereby giuen us to fulfill the Law The grace of God in the Gospell is chiefely our Iustification and Redemption from the curse of the Law and in the next place strength afforded vs to Obey the Law in some measure not perfectly as our Aduersaries would haue it In the next point he erres as much in saying that the Law of Moses was giueu without grace to obey it A false assertion For although the Law of it selfe giue not grace yet t is certaine that grace was giuen by Christ euen then when Moses published the Law Sufficient for the proofe hereof are 1 These excellent properties ascribed vnto the Law of God as in other places of the old Testament so spetially in the Booke of the Psalmes And amongst them in the 19. and 119. Psalmes Where the Law of God is said to giue light to the eiâ—s to conuert the Soule to reioice the Heart c. which it could not doe of it selfe had not the grace of the Holy Ghost being giuen in these times without which the Law could worke no such sauing Effects 2 Experienee of those times in the Faith Patience and â—bedience and all sorts of graces shining in those ancient Saints who liued before and after the Law was giuen Which graces they receaued from the Holy Ghost shed vpon their hearts by vertue of Christs mediation whereby they receaued strength to liue holily in Obedience vnto the Law of God The difference betweene these times and those vnder the Law is not That we haue grace and they had none but only in the mâ—asure and extent of the same grace bestowed both on vs and them In those times as the Doctrine of the Gospell was more obscurely reuealed so the grace which accoÌ„panies it was more sparingly distributed being confined to to a Church collected of one nation and bestowed vpon that Church in a lesser measure then now though yet suffitiently in that measure But in the times of the New Testament the light shines more brightly and grace is dispenced more liberally being extended indifferently to all Nations and poured vpon the Godly in a larger Abundance according as was promised Ieremiah 31. Though also this comparison must be restrained vnto whole Churches what generally is now done for no doubt in many particulars some men vnder the Law exceede for abundance of Grace many vnder the Gospell Wherefore it is a notable iniury vnto the Bounty of God and the honour of those Saints of old to exclude them from partaking of the Gospell to affirme that they were led only by the Spirit of Feare and not of loue that they receaued not the Spirit of adoption to cry Abba father as well as wee though not plentifully as wee and so that they were not Sonnes though vnder Tutors and gouernors as we confesse they were but very Seruants held in Bondage and excluded from the inheritance of Grace and glory till after Christs Death So that at best their adoptioâ— was but conditionall with regard of Time to come but for the preseÌ„t they were handled as slaues fear'd with temporall punishments allured by temporall rewards like a heard of Swine fed with base achors and huskes These be absurd Errors bred out of Scripture misvnderstood Especially that of Iohn 1. Grace came by Christ. Ergo not before Christs Inâ—arnation A sily Argument Christ is as old as the World and his Grace as ancient as the Name of Man vpon Earth grace alwaies came by Crhist was in its measure giuen by him loÌ„g before he appear'd in the flesh He was euer the head of his Church and that his Body which he alwaies quickned by the blessed influence of his Spirit ministered therevnto Whereby the Godly before as well as since his incarnation were made liuing members of that his misticall Body Wherefore it is apparant that grace is not to be tied to the Times of the Gospell and seuered from the Law Nay as of old the Law was not alwaies without grace so now many times the Gospel it selfe is without grace Christ himselfe being a stumbling stone and rocke of offence the Gospell a Sauiour of Death to those many vpon whome Grace is not bestowed to beleeue and embrace it I conclude then That this difference with our Aduersaries make betweene the Law and Gospell is false and that their Error is pernitious in makind the Gospel to be nothing but a Spirit added to the Law that man may fulfill it to his Iustification That thus a man may be saued by Christ through the perfect fulfilling of the Law Which is a monstrous and vncouth Doctrine laying an vnsupportable burthen vpon the conscience of man and hazarding his soule to â—ternall distruction whiles by this meanes he frustrates the Grace of God in Christ and withall frustrats his owne hopes of life expecting to obtaine it by that Law which he is neuer able to fulfill SECT 5. CHAP. I. Iustification by fulfilling the law ouerthrowes Christian libertie the parts of our Christian libertie SO much of the Third Argument The last followes drawne from the Nature of Christian Liberty Which is this 4. Arg. That which ouerthrowes our Christian Liberty purchased for vs by the death of Christ that 's no Euangelical but an Haereticall Doctrine But Iustification by the workes of the Law ouerthrowes the spirituall Liberty of Man obtained for him by Christ. Ergò 'T is an Haeresie against the Gospell For the proofe of the minor Proposition let vs in briefe consider wherein stands that Liberty wherewith Christ hath made vs free that so we may the better perceiue what part thereof this doctrine of Iustification by works doth nullifie and depriue vs of The Liberty wee haue in Christ is either in regard of the Life to come or of this praesent life The first is the Liberty of Glory consisting in a fuâ—l deliuerance from that state of vanity and misery both sinfull and painfull wherevnto we are now subiect And not we only but the whole Creation which with vs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 groaneth and trauaileth in paine till with vs it also be deliuered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From the bondage of Corruption into the Glorious libertie of the Sonnes of God as the Apostle declares Rom. 8. 19. seq This Liberty we haue in hope not in possession The next we actually injoy in this life and that is the Liberty of Grace This we may diuide not vnfitly into 3 branches 1 Freedome from Sinne. 2 Freedome from the Law 3 Freedome from Men. 1 Our Freedome from Sinne stands in 2 things 1 In our deliuerance from the Punishment of Sinne. For whereas euery Sinne of it's owne Nature brings with it guiltines and
dispute is heere evident The Galatians may not be circumcised not obserue the Ceremoniall Law why Because if they did Christ should not profit them at all But what reason is there for this that Circumcision the Ceremonies should frustrate the benefit of Christs death The Apostle alleageth a good reason because the obseruation of the Ceremoniall Law tied them also to the fulfilling of the whole Morall Law The Argument is thus framed They who are bound to keep the whole Law haue no profit at all by Christ. But they who are circumcised are bound to keepe the whole Law ergo They that be circumcised haue not profit at all in Christ. The minor in this Argument is the expresse words of the Text and the proofe of it is euident in Reason because the retaining of Legall ceremonies did in effect abolish Christ's comming in the Flesh who by his comming in the Flesh had abolished them And ergo they who in reviving them denied Christ's death had no meanes at all to be saued but only by the fulfilling of the Morall Law Wherevnto they were necessarily bound if they meant not to perish Which reason yet is of no force before Christ his comming and ergo then circumcision and other legall ceremonies did not lay vpon the Iewes such a strict obligation to fulfill the whole Law The Maior Proposition is the very reason of the Apostles Enthymeme thus Men circumcised are bound to keep the whole Law Ergo Christ shall not profit them The Reason of the consequence is this Proposition Whosoeuer are bound to keepe the whole Law Christ profiteth them nothing at all This Argument and the Reason thereof will hardly passe with approbation in the Iesuites Schooles Men are bound to the whole Law ergo Christ shall not profit them Nay will they reply That 's a non sequitur For by that doctrine Christ's death hath cancelled that streight obligation of fulfilling the Law But euery one that beleeues the promise of saluation in Christ is yet notwithstanding obliged to fulfill the whole Morall law For this is say they the very Condition wherevpon he must haue benefit by the promise euen Perfecta Mandatorum â—bservatio and therefore he is so farre from being freed by Christ from this obligation vnto the Law that for a certaine except he fulfill it he shall neuer be saved as Bellarmine peremptorily and bloodily determines These Men when they list are wondrous mercifull toward Sinners and can teach them trickes by very easie meanes to merit Heauen and Remission of Sinnes But their crueltie betrayes their kindnes in other matters in as much as when all comes to the vpshot a Sinner is driuen to this If he wil be saued by Christ he must as he is bound perfectly keepe the whole law else there 's no hope for him This is cold comfort for the poore beleeuer but 't is happy we haue not Iesuites Pharaoh's taske-masters set ouer vs to exact the whole Tale of Bricke but a Iesus who hath freed our soules from this bitter thraldome and deliuered vs from the power of so rigorous and strict commands of the Law We beleeue an Apostle of Christ against all the Sycophants of Rome and tell them that they giue the holy Ghost the lie when they teach that in beleeuers the obligation to keepe the whole Law stands still in full force vertue not discharged by the death of Christ directly contrarie to this Argument of the Apostle Ye are bound to keep the whole law ergo Christ shall not profit you Whence we argue thus Whosoeuer are bound to keepe the whole law to such Christ is vnprofitable But vnto true beleeuers Christ is not vnprofitable Ergo True beleeuers are not bound to keepe the whole law A conclusion most certaine as from these irrefutable praemisses so from most euident Reason For if such as beleeue in Christ Who through the Spirit waite for the hope of Righteousness through Faith as the Apostle speakes here v. 5 if such be yet bound to fulfill the whole Law for their Iustification to what end is it to belieue in Christ vnto Righteousnesse and Iustification If when all is doen we must be saued by doing what profit comes there by beleeuing Can the conscience find any benefit and comfort at all in Christ when we shall come to this wofull Conclusion that notwithstanding there is in Scripture much talke of Faith of Christ of Promises of Grace yet all this will bring vs no commoditie except this condition be performed on our parts that we perfectly keepe the Law of God If any thing in the World this is to imprison the soule in wretchlesse slauerie and to lay the conscience vpon the racke of continuall Terrors if Heauen be not to be had but vpon such hard termes And this is most apparantlie to frustrate all benefit of Christ of Promise of Faith of Grace of the whole worke of Redemption seeing in fine 't is the Law that we must liue by and not by Faith the perfect fulfilling of the Law must make vs righteous in God's sight and not our beleeuing in Christ that we may be justified For he that keepes the whole Law is thereby righteous and by nothing els Here 't is but a bare shift to say Though we be bound to fulfil the Law yet Christ profits vs because he giues vs Grace to performe our Band in exact Obedience This evasion might it stand good Saint Paul were indeed finally confuted as a weake disputant But the Errour of this hath bin touched before and if nothing els were said this Apostolicall Argument is sufficient to refute it I proceed to other Scriptures 2. 1 Tim 1. 9. Ye know that the Law is good if a man vse it lawfully knowing this that the Law is not made for a righteous man but for the lawlesse and disobedient for the vngodly for Sinners for vnholy and prophane c. The Law is not giuen to the Righteous How must this bee vnderstood Is it not giuen quoad directionem as a Rule prescribing what is to be done what is not to be done Yes vve all agree in that Hovv is it then not giuen 'T is ansvvered quoad coactionem maledictionem as it compels to obedience and curseth the Transgressors Thus is it not giuen to the Iust. This ansvver is full of ambiguitie and needes some explication that vve may knovv vvhat is the coaction or compelling force of the Lavv from vvhich the Iust are freed In vnfolding vvhereof our aduersaries and vve differ Whether are in the right we shal see by the proposal of both our Interpretations They say The Law hath no coactiue or compelling power ouer the Iust because the Iust doe obey it spoute libentèer alacritèr ex instinctu charitatis that is vvillinglie out of Loue but it hath a compulsiue force ouer the vniust because they recalcitrant cogi quodammodò debent ad obsequium that is they obey vnvvillinglie being forced to
it by Terrors and Threatnings and therefore The law rules not ouer the iust as seruants who obey for feare but sonnes who obey for Loue. We expound it otherwise The Law hath not coactiue power ouer the just because the just that is true beleeuers in Christ Iesus are freed from the necessity of perfectly fulfilling it for the obtaining of saluation But the Law hath a coactiue power ouer the vnjust vnbeleeuers because they are obliged vnto the perfect fulfilling thereof or else to be certainly accursed And ergo we say the Law command's ouer the just as ouer Sonnes requiring of them a faithfull and willing endeavour but it commands ouer the vnjust as ouer Seruants of whom it exacts the vttermost farthing and vpon the legall default threatens eternall malediction The difference then betwixt them vs is this They make the coaction of the Law to consist in the manner or quality of mans obedience to it The Law compels when men obey vnwillingly We make the coaction of the Law to consist in the quality of the command condition wherevpon Obedience is required The Law then compels when it exacts full obedience vpon poenalty praecisely threatned to the disobedient Wherein the trueth is manifestly on our side For 't is plaine that compulsion in a Law must be taken in opposition to direction not persuation for Lawes persuade not but command For if we speake properly a Law cannot be sai'd to compell those to whom 't is giuen as if by any real and physicall operation it did enforce them to obedience It proposeth what is to be done it setteth before a man the punishment for disobedience but it workes not on the will of man to force it one way or other Wherefore if we know what direction in a Law is we shall soone know what Compultion is Direction as all agree is the bare praescription of what is to be done or left vndone Compulsion that is the exaction of obedience vpon paenalty to be inflicted What other coactiue force there is in a Law no man can imagine Well then to apply this The just are sub directione Legis but not sub coactione This must of necessity be vnderstood thus the just are not vnder the coactiue power of God's Law â—â—cause it doth not exact of them full obedience vpon paenalty of aeternall death to be otherwise inflicted on them As it doth exact of the vnjust For otherwise there will be no difference betweene the just and the vnjust in regard of this coactiue power of the Law if both the one and the other be obliged to yeeld alike perfect obedience vpon the like paenalty In this case the Law will be as coactine to one as the other exacting aequall obedience vpon aequall termes both of the just and vnjust viz obey fully in all things or you shall be cursed The Sonne and Seruant shall be all one and the Law shall still command over the children with as much terrour as ouer the Bondslaue There is no difference in the world in our adversaries doctrine both sorts are bound to obey perfectly or else certainly they shall not be saued So that the Law of itselfe shall be as rigorous towards one as the other But we know the Scriptures offer vnto vs more mercy and that Christ hath discharged vs from this rigour of the Law vnder which euery one that is out of him in the state of vnbeleefe is holden in bondage As to the difference they make the iust obey willingly the vnjust vnwillingly ergo the Law compels these and not those this is nothing to the purpose For it alters not the nature of the Law that it is obeyed with diuers affections The Law is the same for its command authority howsoeuer it be obeyed willingly or vnwillingly that matters not The Law ceaseth not to be coactiue because ti 's willingly obeyed euen as a slaue ceaseth not to be vnder the coaction compelling power of his Master though he loue his master and out of a willing mind be content to abide in thraldome And as Adam though he obeyed the Law willingly yet was vnder the coactiue power of it because he was tyed to obey it or else he should certainly die the death for his transgression of it Wherefore I conclude that the just are not freed from the Laws direction nor from the Lawes compulsion as it compels or enioynes them absolute obedience in all things and for default thereof threatens the vnauoydeable malediction of Gods aeternall wrath 3 Lastly for proofe of this point we haue those places formerly alleaged Rom. 6. 14. We are not vnder the Law but vnder Grace Gal. 5. 18. If we be led by the spirit we are not vnder the Law 2 Cor. 3. 17. Now the Lord is the Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is Liberty Gal. 3. 13. Christ hath redeemed vs from the Curse of the Law being made acurse for vs. All which with other the like doe establish this orthodoxe Doctrine That beleeuers haue ohtained freedome by Christ from the rigour of the Morall Law and are not any longer bound in conscience to the perfect fulfilling thereof vpon this assured perill that if they keepe it not they shall not be saued We might stand longer vpon each Testimony but let that which we haue said suffice for the vindicating of our conscience from that Torture and Bondage wherewith these â—â—opish Doctors would ensnare vs. The knowledge of which our Liberty is not to giue vs occasion of security or licentiousnesse as these Men calumniate but to restore peace spirituall rest vnto our soules knowing that we are now deliuered from the necessity of obeying or of perishing which before we were in Christ lay more heauy vpon our soules then a mountaine of Lead That so being freed from this thraldome we might serue him who hath freed vs thankfully and chearefully obeying him in all duty by whom wee haue obtained this glorious priuiledge that whereas perfect obedience was sometimes strictly exacted of vs now our sincere though imperfect indeauours shal be mercifully accepted at our hands SECT 6. CHAP. I. The reconciliation of that seeming opposition betweene S. Paul and S. Iames in this point of Iustification THus much of this Argument and of the first Branch of mans Righteousnes whereby if it were possible he should be justified viz. His Obedience to the Law of God By which meanes we haue shewed no flesh shall be justified in Gods sight We are to proceed vnto the text branch heereof viz. Mans satisfaction for his transgression of the Law Wherein we haue also to proue that a Sinner cannot be acquitted before god's judgment seat by pleading any satisfaction that himselfe can make for his offences But in our passing vnto that point we are to giue you warning of that stumbling stone which St. Iames as it may seeme hath layed in our way lest any should dash his Faith vpon it and
fall as our adnersaries haue done into that Errour of Iustification by workes That blessed Apostle in the second Chapter of his Epistle seemes not only to giue occasion but directly to teach this doctrine of Iustification by workes For in the 21. ver c. He sayeth expressly that Abraham was justified by workes when he offered his sonne Isaack vpon the altar and also that Rahab was in like manner justified by workes when she entertained the spies Whence also he sets downe ver 22. a generall Conclusion That a Man is justified by workes and not by faith alone Now in shew nothing can be spoken more contrary to St. Paule his Doctrine in his Epistle to the Romans and else-where For in the fourth chap. speaking of the same example of Abraham he saieth cleane contrary that Abraham was not justified by workes for then he might haue boasted ver 2. And in the 3 chap. treating generally of mans Iustification by faith after a strong dispute he drawes forth this conclusion That a man is justified by Faith without the workes of the Law v. 28. Which Conclusion is in appearance contradictory to that of St. Iames. This harsh discord betweene these Apostles seemes vnto some not possible to be sweetned by any qualification who knowing that the Holy Ghost neuer forgets himselfe haue concluded that if the spirit of trueth spake by St. Paul it was doubtlesse the spirit of error that spake by the author of this Epistle of Iames. For this cause most likely it was doubted of in ancient times as Eusebius and Hierâ—me witnes But yet then also publiquely allowed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in many Churches and euer since receaued in all Out of which for the same cause Luther and others of his followers since him would againe throw it forth accounting the author of it to haue built not gold and siluer but straw and stubble vpon the foundation Erasmus assents to Luther And Musculus agrees with them both who in his Commentaries vpon the fourth to the Romans speakes his mind simply that he sees not how Iames and Paul can agree together and therefore he turnes out St. Iames for the wrangler supposing that this Iames was one of the Desciples of Iames the Apostle the brother of Christ who vnder pretence of his Master's name and authority continually snarled at the Apostle Paul and opposed his Doctrine Howbeit his Epistle got credit in after times cum veritas paulatim inualescente mendacio proculcari caeperit That is When error by degrees praevailed against the trueth But this medicine is worse then the disease and is rather violence then skill thus to cut the knot where it cannot bee readily vntied A safer and milder course may be holden and some meanes found out for the according of this grand difference without robbing the Church of somuch pretious Treasure of diuine knowledg as is stored vp in this Epistle Wherefore both they of the Romish and we of the reformed Churches admitting this Epistle for canonical doe each of vs search after a fit reconciliation betweene the Apostles But they and we betweene our selues are irreconcileable in our seuerall reconcileations of them They reconcile them thus By distinguishing 1. of Iustification 2 of Workes Iustification say they of two sortes 1. The first when a man of vnjust is made just and holy by the Infusion of Grace or the Habit of Charitie 2. The 2. When a man of just is made more just by the augmentation of the Habit of Grace first giuen vnto him Againe they diuide workes into two sortes 1. Some goe before Faith being performed by the meere strength of nature and free-will without the helpe of grace and such workes as these are not meritorious 2. Some follow Faith being performed by the aide and assistance of grace giuen vnto man and such workes as these be meritorious These distinctions praepared the worke is now ready for the soddering which they finish artificially glewing togeather the proposition of the two Apostles in this sorte St. Paul saieth that Abraham and all men are justified by Faith without workes This say they is to be vnderstood of the first Iustification and of workes done before Faith without grace by the strength of nature So that the meaning of Paule's proposition Abraham and all men are justified by faith without workes is this Neither Abraham nor any other can deserue the Grace of Sanctification whereby of vnjust and vnholy they be made just and holy by any workes done by them when they are Naturall Men destitute of Grace but only by Faith in Christ Iesus or thus No Man merits Grace to make him a good Man of a Bad by any thing he doth before he beleeue in Christ but by beleeuing he obtaineth this On the other side S. Iames saith that Abraham and all others are iustified by Workes not by Faith only This say the Romanists is meant of the second Iustification and of such workes as are done after Faith by the aide of Grace So the meaning of the Proposition shal be this Abraham and other Men being once made good and just deserue to be made better and more just by such good workes as they performe through the helpe of Grace giuen vnto them not by faith only Being once sanctified they deserue the increase of SanctificatioÌ„ through that merit of their Faith and good workes out of Faith and Charity Is not this difference between these Apostles finely accorded think you They will now walke together being in this sort made friends through the mediation of the Schoole-men But it is otherwise They are so far from reconciling them that they haue abused them both and set them farther asunder making them speake what they neuer meant Neither in S. Paul nor S. Iames is there any ground at all whereon to raise such an interpretation of their words And therefore we respect this reconcilement as the shifting quercke of a Scholeman's braine that hath no footing at all in the text Which we doe vpon these Reasons 1. That distinction of Iustification that is of Sanctification into the first giuing of it and the after increase of it howsoeuer tolerable in other matters is vtterly to no purpose as it is applied vnto the doctrine of these Apostles Who when they speake of Iustification of a sinner in God's sight doe vnderstand thereby the Remission of Sinnes through the imputation of Christ's Righteousnes and not the infusion or increase of inherent Sanctity in the soule of man This confusion of Iustification with sanctification is a prime error of our adversaries in this article as hath bin shewed in clearing the acceptions of the word Iustification and shall be shewed more at large in handling the forme of our Iustification 2. The distinction of Iustification taken in their owne sense is falselie applied to St. Iames as if he spake of the 2. Iustification and to St. Paul as if he spake of the first For first Bellarmine himselfe being
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
remaines yet to be suffered For although it be true that God in some causes doth pardon both fault and punishment wholy as in cause of Martyrdome which sweepes all cleane and makes aâ— l reckonings euen and although God might if it had so pleased him alwaies for Christ's sake haue pardoned the whole debt yet Holy Mother Church hath dâ—tâ—rmined that he doth not so vse to doe But after that in mercy he hath forgiuen the faulâ—â— yet there 's an after reckoning and we must come to Coram for the punishment by which his Iustice is to receaue satisfaction But ye must know the punishment of Sinne is two fold â— Eternall in the destruction of Soule and body in Hell-fire to endure for euer Heere now Christ's satisfaction comes in againe By whose merits alone they grant we are deliuered from the eternity of the punishment of Sinne. Which must be noted that Christ's satisfaction hath not eased vs of the substance of the punishment it selfe but only in the continuance of it 2. Temporall to endure onely for a time whereof there are also two degrees 1. One in this life as namely all calamities and afflictions vpon the Body Soule Name Goods c. together with death the last and greatest of euills All which are inflicted vpon mâ—n as punishments of â—inne Of these some come vpon vs inuiâ—â—bly as death vpon all men or as death in the wildernes on the Children of Israel with the like punishments certainly and irreuocably denounced Now here 's no remedy but patience and that 's an excellent remedy too For as the ghostly Fathers of Treâ—t informe vs If they be borne willingly with patience they be satisfactions for Sinnes but if vnwillingly they be God's just revenge vpon vs. Other some come Euitably And heere such a course may be taken that we need not suffer the punishment it selfe but we may buy it out and make satisfaction for it vnto God by other meanes Which meanes are principally foure 1. By the vehemency of Contrition or inward sorrow Which may be so intensiue as to satisfie for all punishments both in this life and also in Purgatory 2. By other outward laborious workes Whereby we may buy out the obligation to temporall punishments Such Workes are these 1. Praier with Confession Thankesgiuing c. For if we beleeue the Catholâ—que Doctors 't is a very good satisfaction to a Creditour if the debter pray vnto him for the forgiuenes of his dept According to that text Psal. 50. 15. Call vpon me in the day of trouble and I will dâ—liuer thee Ergo Praier is a satisfaction for the punishment of sinne 2. Fasting vnder which is comprehended the sprinkling of Ashes wearing of haire cloth whippings goeing bare-foote and such other paenall workes These also satisfie for sinnes as 't is written 2. Sam. 12. Dauid fasted lay vpon the ground and wept all night Therefore he satisfied for his Sinnes of Murther and Adultery And againe Paul saieth 1. Cor. 9. 27. I beat downe my body That is I whippe and cudgell my selfe to satisfie for my sinnes And againe Luk. 18. 13. The Publican smote vpon his breast Ergo. Corporall chastisement is a good satisfactions for sinnes 3. Almesdeedes comprehending all kind whatsoeuer workes of mercy These also buy out the punishments of sinne according to the text Dan. 4. 24. Breake off thy sin by Righteousnes and thine iniquity by mercy towards the poore that is By almesdeeds satisfie for the temporall punishmens of thy Sinnes And againe Luk. 11. 41. Giue almes of that which you haue and behold all things shall be cleane vnto you That is to say in the language of Babell The temporall punishment of sin shall be taken away Now all such workes as these are either 1. Voluntarily vndertaken of our owne accord as voluntary Pilgrimage Scourgings Fastes Sackloth Weepings and Praiers of such a number and measure with the like rough punishments which we take vpon our selues to pacifie God All which being done with an intent to satisfie for the punishment of our Sinnes must needs be accepted of God almighty for good payment because in so doeing we doe more then he hath required of our hands Now 't is very pleasing to God to doe what he bids vs not or what he bids vs to doe to another end of our devising He therefore that voluntarily vndertakes such needlesse paines giues God high satisfaction According to the Text. 1. Cor. 11. 31. If wee would iudge our selues we should not be iudged 2 Inioyned by the Priest Who by vertue of the Keies committed vnto him might iudicially absolue the paenitent from the whole debt were it not thought fit vpon speciall considerations to keepe backe a part Wherefore when he hath absolued him from the fault and aeternall punishment he binds him vnto satisfaction for the temporall punishment and therefore he enjoynes him what he shall doe to buy it out Let him goe visit the shrine of such and such a Saint say so many Aues Paternosters before such an Image whip himselfe so many times fast so many daies giue so much almes with such like paenalties And when he in humble obedience hath done these things commanded by the Preist then 't is certaine his sinnes be satisfied for For 't is to be noted that in enioyning this Canonicall satisfaction as 't is called the Priest and God almighty be just of the same mind Looke how much the Preist enioynes for satisfaction God must be content to take the same or else the paenitents conscience will not be quiet because it may be God expected more to be done for satisfaction then the party hath done by the Priests iniunction But it is to be supposed that as the Pope so euery Priest in his Chaire of confession hath an infallible spirit whereby he is able exactly to calculate the just propoâ—tion betweene the sinne and the punishment and the price of the punishment that so he may enjoyne just somuch penance as will buy it out neither more lest the paenitent be wronged nor lesse lest God be not satisfied All which is trimly founded vpon that text which saieth Whatsoeuer yee binde on Earth shall be bound in Heauen and whatsoeuer yee loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heauen Mat 16 19. 18. 18. That is Priests may forgiue the fault and retaine the punishment and what satisfaction they enioyne on Earth to expiate the punishment that will God accept in Heauen Or else they be deceaued This is the second meanes to satisfie for temporall punishments The 3. Meanes is by Pardons and Indulgences Wherin the superabundant merits of Christ and the Saints are out of the treasury of the Church granted by speciall grace of the Bâ— of Rome vnto such as are liable to suffer the temporall punishment of their Sinnes So that they hauing got by his grant a sufficient portion of satisfactory workes out of the common stocke they are freâ—d thereby from satisfying Gods Iustice by their owne workes Which
But a Man may doe more then the Law requires Ergo He may doe as much The minor Bellarmine proues by the example of the young Man Mat 〈◊〉 9. who telling Christ that he had obserued all the commandements and that from his youth our Sauiour bids him doe one thing more and then he should be perfect If thou wilt be perfect go sell that thou hast and giue to the poore and follow me ver 20. Now if the young Man had done this he had done more then the Law required In as much as whatsoeuer the Law required he had obserued formerly For do you not beleeue him that he spake true All these things haue I obserued from my youth verse 9. Whereto we answere That we doe not beleeue the Testimony of that vaine young Man touching his owne Righteousnesse Who boosted of keeping the 2. Table in the outward duties thereof when as yet he wanted inward Charitie towards his Neighbuor and Loue towards God He auouâ—hed that he had kept all perfectly fulfilling that commandment Thou shalt loue thy neighbour as thy selfe and there vpon is so bould as to aske Christ. what lacke I yet Christ to conuince him of his pride and wants put him to the Triall If thou hast such perfect Charity towards Man then certainely if God command thee to bestow that a part but all thy goods vpon the poore vpon promise of better things to thy selfe thy duty vnto God and singular Charity to Men will make thee doe so Goe then sell all that thou hast and giue to the poore Vpon this speciall Commandment this couetous mind shews it selfe Nay 't is plaine he loued not his Neighbour so well as his riches He is neither so dutifull to God nor charitable to the poore as for either of their sakes to part with his possessions But might he say what will not ordinary almes or a little more then ordinary serue the turne Must I giue away all Indâ—ede the Law requires that I be mercifull to the poore but where 's any Law that bids me sell my whole estate and distribute to them that want Christ layes an vnnecessary burden vpon me if I cannot be perfect without vndoâ—ing my selfe I will content my selfe as I am and not seke after such perfection Heere a Papist will say he speake reason seeing Christs speech was but acounsaile of more perfection then the Law required Now a Man is not to be blamed if he chuse only to be as perfect as the Law commands him and so this young man was if you 'le beleeue him or them But the Scripture makes it plaine that he did euill in disobeying Christ and that if he had obeyed him in that particular he had done no more then the Law required at his hands For obedience to euery speciall Commandment is included in the generall The Law indefinitely commands vs to giue almes now if God by a speciall commandment limite how much we shall giue whether halfe or all our Estates to obey such a perticular precept is not to do more then the generall Law requires vs. Such a particular Commandment was this of Christ vnto the young Man wherein he sets him a spell according to that conceit of perfection which he had of himselfe putting him to the practise of the highest duty which the Law of Liberality can possible require of a Man viz. to part with all This he ought to haue done vpon Christs particular commandment in not doing of it he brake the Law and proclaimed his heart to be full of couetousnesse deuoide of faith in God and true Charity towards his Neighbour From this place then our aduersaries cannot proue that this young Man might haue doen more then the Law required or that wee are bound at any time to doe as Christ bid him Christs command was for his particular Triall not for our Imitation They that take it otherwise be a generation of men that professe Beggery and possesse Kingdomes who were willing enough to part with that little they had of there owne that so they may liue the more Largely and plentifully vpon other Mens Wee goe forward to the next argument 4 If the Law were impossible to be kept it were no Law for there is no Law of things impossible Yea God were more cruel and foolish then any Tyrant too command vs to doe that which is impossible for vs to doe To this wee answere That the consequences were true if God had giuen a Law which Men neuer had strength to performe But now the Law written in tables on Mount Sina was but a reuiuing and repetion of the same Law which was written in Adams heart the Characters whereof were now defaced in his sinnefull Posterity Adam had strength sufficient to fulfill it which as he receaued for himselfe and vs so he lost it for both Neuerthelesse though Strength to obey be lost yet the obligation to Obedience remaines We are no more discharged of our duties because we haue no strength to doe it then a debter is quitted of his Bands because he wants money to make payment Nor is this cruelty or folly in God that when he published this Law vnto the Isralites he did not qualifie the exactnesse thereof fitting the precepts to there abilities commanding theÌ„ to do iust as much as they could or would do Had God made a Law in that sort in fauour of mans sinfull nature they might with better reason haue layd folly to his charge for bending the rule to the crokednesse of mans heart and not leuelling it according to the streightnesse of the Rule God was to set forth a Law of Liberty that should not flatter but freely rebuke Man of all vnrighteousnesse a perfect Law containing in it a full description of Holynesse and Iustice which Man ought to haue and performe towards God and his Neighbour in this case God had iust reason to haue respect vnto mans duty not his ability which once he had but now had forfited and lost The next Argument is 5 Euery Prayer made in Faith according to Gods will is heard and granted But we pray that we may fulfill the Law perfectly For we pray that we may doe Gods will in Earth as it is in Heauen Ergo God heares vs and giues vs such grace that we can doci Hereto we answere That this prayer shewes vs what we are bound too and what is our duty continually to endeuour That we may doe Gods will euery day more perfectly cheerefully and constantly then other And so farre God heares the faithfull prayers of his louing children enabling them to better performance the longer they liue But that such perfection of Obedience is giuen to vs in this life as the Saints enioy in Heauen will not be graunted by our Aduersaries themselues Wherefore they must also grant that that Prayer is heard and granted vs by degrees In this Life we attaine such perfection as God sees fit for vs afterwards that which is