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
true Faith we are now by the same help to goe forward to the third generall head namely concerning the Consequents of Faith which were two our Iustification in regard of God our Obedience in regard of our selues The former will shew vs how to iudge of the dignity and excellent worth of Faith being so farre honoured in Gods gracious acceptance as to be made the blessed Instrument of our spirituall peace and comfort flowing from our Iustification The later will direct vs how to make triall of the truth of our faith in the discouery of that vnseparable Vnion which there is betweene beleeuing and obeying Let vs begin with the former our Iustification the doctrine whereof I shall endeauour to deliuer vnto you as briefely and plainely as so large and difficult a subiect will giue leaue Wherein because the opening of the word will giue vs some light for the vnderstanding of the matter wee are in the first place to see what is meant by these words Iustification and Iustice or Righteousnesse Iustice therefore or Righteousnesse that I meane which is created for of vncreated Righteousnesse wee haue not to speake is nothing but a perfect conformity and agreement with the Law of God For Gods will being originally essentially and infinitely righteous must needs be the patterne â—ule of all derivatiue finite righteousnesse Now this righteousnesse though but one in its substance neuer thelesse admits a double consideration being called either 1 Legall and of Workes which stands in that conformity vnto Gods law which is inherent within our selues when in our owne persons and workes we possesse and practise that righteousnesse which is required of the Law This Legall Iustice is also double 1 Of Obedience when all such things are done as the Law commandeth or left vndone which it forbids Hee that doth so is a iust man 2 Of Punishment or Satisfaction when the breach of the Law is satisfied by enduring the vtmost of such penalties as the rigour of the Law required For not onely hee who doth what the Law commandeth but euen he also that suffereth all such punishments as the Law-giuer in Iustice can inflict for the breach of the Law is to be accounted a lust man and reckoned after such satisfaction made as no transgressor of the Law The reason of this is plaine from the name of penall Lawes For first where the penalty is suffered there the will of the Law-giuer is satisfied for as much as his will was either that the Law should be obserued or the punishment vndergone If therefore he to whom the Law is giuen doe either he satisfies the will of the Law-giuer Had his will beene absolute so that nothing else could haue contented him but onely obedience then it had beene a vaine thing to haue prescribed a determinate penalty But when as a penalty is limited in case of disobedience 't is manifest that though the intent of the Law-giuer was in the first place for Obedience yet in the next place it should suffice if there were satisfaction by bearing of the penalty Secondly the good and benefit of the Law-giuer is hereby also satisfied For it is to be supposed in all penall lawes that the penalty limited is euery way proportionable and equivalent vnto that good which might accrew by the obseruation of the Law Else were the wisedome of the Law-maker iustly to be taxed as giuing an apparant encouragement to offenders when they should see the penalty not to be so much hurtfull to them as their disobedience were gainfull He therefore that suffers the penalty is afterward to be reckoned as if he had kept the Law because by his suffering he hath aduanced the Law-giuers honour or benefit as much as he could by his obeying 2 Euangelicall and of Faith which is such a conformity to Gods Law as is not inherent in our owne persons but being in another is imputed vnto vs and reckoned ours The righteousnesse of the Law and of the Gospell are not two seuerall kindes of righteousnesse but the same in regard of the matter and substance thereof onely they differ in the Subiect and Manner of application The righteousnesse of workes is that holinesse and obedience which is inherent in our owne persons and performed by our selues the righteousnesse of Faith is the same holinesse and obedience inherent in the person of Christ and performed by him but imbraced by our faith and accepted by God as done in our stead and for our benefit These are the diuers acceptions of this word Iustice or Righteousnesse so farre as it concernes the point in hand In the next we are to enquire of this word Iustification which being nothing but the making of a person iust or righteous may be taken in a double sense For a person is made iust either by Infusion or Apology Wee will take it in these tearmes for want of better Iustification by Infusion is then when the habituall quality of Righteousnesse and Holinesse is wrought in any person by any meanes whatsoeuer whether it bee created infused into him by the worke of another or obtained by his owne art and industry Thus Adam was made iust Eccle 7. 29. God hauing giuen vnto him in his creation the inherent qualities of Iustice and holinesse Thus also the regenerate are made Iust in as much as by the holy Ghost they are sanctified through the reall infusion of grace into their soules in the which they increase also more and more by the vse and exercise of all good meanes 2 Iustification by Apology is when a person accused as an offender is iudicially or otherwise acquitted and declared to be innocent of the fault and so free from the punishment When the innocency of a party accused is thus pleaded and declared he is thereby said to bee iustified or made iust according as on the contrary by Accusation and Condemnation a party is said to be made vniust As 't is plaine by that of Isaiah 5. 23. They iustifie the wicked for a reward and take away the righteousnesse of the righteous from him that is they condemne the righteous which is a making of them vnrighteous in the sight estimation of men So in 1 Ioh. 5. 10. He that beleeueth not God hath made him a lyer because vnbeleeuers do in their hearts call Gods truth into question and accuse him to be false of his word So againe Psal. 109. 7. When he is iudged let him be condemned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let him goe out a wicked person For so his condemnation makes him that is declares him to be But here further it must be obserued that this Iustification of a person by pleading to and absolution in Iudgement is of two sorts according as the Persons to be iustified are likewise of two seuerall conditions 1 Some are truely and inherently iust being no Transgressors of the Law either at all or not in that whereof they are accused In this case if any crime or
acquainted vs with his meaning as to follow another of our owne making And there fore according to the Scriptures we acknowledge and maintaine that as in other places where mention is made of the Iustification of a sinner before God so in the 2 and 4 Chapters of the Ep. to the Rom. and third Chapter of the Gal. where the Doctrine there of is directly handled by Iustification nothing else is meant but the gracious Act of Almighty God whereby hee absolues a beleiuing sinner accused at the Tribunall of his Iustice pronouncing him iust and acquitting him of all punishment for Christs sake CHAP III The Confutation of our Aduersaries cauils against our acception of the word Iustification OVR Adversaries haue little to reply against these so plaine places Somthing they answere namely 1 That it cannot be denied but that Iustification doth many times beare that sense we stand for But with all they would haue vs obseru this rule that Quotiescunque in Scripturis Deus dicitur iustificare impium semper intelligendum est ex impio facere iustum God cannot declare a man to be iust but of vniust he must make him iust And they giue the Reason Because the Iudgment of God is according to Trueth Rom. 2. 2. We embrace this Rule and the Reason of it acknowledging that where euer there is Iustification there must be Iustice some way or other in the party Iustified But the Question stands still in what manner God makes a sinner iust whom hee in Iudgemenr pronounceth so to be They say by bestowing on him the grace of Sanctification perfect Righteousnesse inherent in his own Person We affirme that it is by imputing vnto him the perfect Righteousnesse of Christ accepting Christs obedience for his In which diuersity let vs come as neere them as Trueth will giue leaue Thus â—arre we goe along with them 1 That there is inherent Righteousnesse bestowed vpon a Sinner whereby of vnholy impure vniust he is made holy cleane and iust We all confessed this worke of the Holy Ghost renewing Man in the spirit of his mind restoring in him the Image of God in Knowledge Righteousnesse and Holinesse That the Holy Ghost dwelles in the Elect as in Temples dedicated to his service which he adornes by communicating vnto them his Heauenly graces That hee makes them Liuing Members of Christs Body and fruitfull Braunches of that true Vine That this grace infused is a fountaine of Living water springing vp to eternall Life These things we beleeue and teach Wherfore whereas the Popish Doctors fall foule on our reformed writers charging Calvin others for denying all Inherent Righteousnesse in Beleeuers maintaining only an Imputed Righteousnesse without them We tell them 't is a grosse Calumny forged by perverse Minds that list not to vnderstand Mens playnest writings Nor Calvin nor any that euer maintained the trueth with him euer denied the Righteousnes oâ— Sanctification But this he denies we also with the Scriptures that the Righteousnesse which iustifies vs in Gods Iudgment is not in our selues but all in Christ. That inherent Righteousnesse or sanctification allway keepe company with Iustification in the same Person Severed they are never in their common Subiect viz a True Beleeuer as appeares Rom. 8. 30. But that therefore they must be confounded for one and the same Grace and worke of God may be affirmed with as good Reason as that in the Sunne Light and Heate are all one because alwaies ioyned to geather That by this grace of Inherent Righteousnesse a Man is in some sort iustified before God That is so farre as a Man by the grace of God is become truly holy and good so farre God esteemes him holy good God taketh notice of his owne graces in his Children he approues of them and giues Testimony of them in case it be needfull as appeares by the Righteousnesse of Iob Dauid Zachary and other holy Men who were good and did good in Gods sight Yea in the Life to come when all corruptions being vtterly done away the Saints shall be invested with perfection of Inherent Holinesse by the Righteousnesse of their owne and not by any other shall they then appeare iust in Gods fight Thus farre we agree with them But herein now wee differ that although by the grace of Sanctification infused God doe make him righteous and holy in some measure that was before altogether vnholy and wicked neuerthelesse we affirme that by and for this Holynesse the best of Saints living never were nor shall be Iustified in Gods sight that is pronounced iust and innocent before the Tribunall of his Iustice. For we here take vp the forenamed Rule layed downe by our adversaries Whomsoeuer God pronounceth to be perfectly iust he must needs be made perfectly iust For Gods Iudgment is according to trueth Now that no man in this life is made perfectly iust by any such inherent Holinesse in him as is able to outstand the severe and exact triall of Gods Iudgment is a Trueth witnessed by the Scripture and confessed alwaies by the most holy Saints of God Our Aduersaries indeed stiffly pleade the contrary teaching that sinne and Corruption in the Iustified is vtterly abolished The error and pride of which Imagination we shall shortly haue occasion more at Large to Discouer vnto you Meane while let that much stand for good that Man being not made perfectly iust in himselfe cannot thereby be declared perfectly iust before God and therefore some other Righteousnesse not that of Sanctification is to be sought for whereby a sinner may be Iustified in Gods sight To that argument of ours from the Opposition of iustification to Accusation and Condemnation confirmed by so many places of Scripture They answere That this hinders nothing at all Both may agree to God who of his mercy iustifies some that is makes them inherently Iust of his Iustice condemns other that is punisheth them To which slight Answeres wee make this short reply That where words are opposite as they acknowledg these to be there according to the Lawes of opposition they must carry opposite Meaning But vnto Accusation Comdemnation and punishment nothing is opposite but defence Absolution and Pardon Where therefore Iustificare is coupled with these words it must needes beare this and no other meaning of a bad man to make a good is not opposite to Accusation Condemnation or punishment of him Accused he may be Condemned and punished iustly and after made good I should but trouble you to alleadge more of their Cavills Let thus much suffice for the clearing of this point That Iustification and Sanctification are to be Distinguished and not confounded The Righteousnesse of the one is in vs in its Nature true and good but for its degree and measure Imperfect and alwaies yoaked with the remaynder of naturall Corruption And therefore if a sinner should plead this before the Iudgment seate of God offering himself to be
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere dico imputari in iustitiam idque sensu proprio non metonymice The same is the opinion of his fellowes the Remonstrants of Vorstius of Peter Bertius of Episcopius and the rest With whom Bellarmine agrees pat Liber â— de Iust. cap. 17. When vpon that Rom 4. His faith is imputed for righteousnesse he saith thus Vbiipsa fides censetur esse Iustitia ac per hoc non apprehendit fides iustitiam Christi sed ipsa fides in Christum est iustitia In summe their opinion runnes thus God in the Legall Couenant required the exact obedience of his Commandement but now in the Couenant of grace he requires faith which in his gracious estimation stands in stead of that obedience to the Morall Law which wee ought to performe Which comes to passe by the Merit of Christ for whose sake God accounts our imperfect saith to be perfect obedience This Assertion we reiect as erronious and in place thereof we defend this Proposition God doth not iustifie a man by Faith properly impuring vnto him faith in Christ for his perfect obedience to the Law and therefore accounting him iust and innocent in his sight Which we proue by these Reasons 1 We are not Iustified by any worke of our owne But beleeving is an Act of our owne Therefore by the Act of beleeving we are not Iustified The Maior is most manifest by the Scriptures which teach that we are saued by grace Ephes. 2. 5. and therefore not by the workes of Righteousnesse which we had wrought Tit. 3. 6. For if it be of Works then were grace no more grace Ro. 11. 6. The Minor is likewise evident That Faith is a worke of ours For though Iohn 6. 29. it bee said This is the worke of God that ye beleeue in him whom hee hath sent yet will not our adversaries conclude thence that Faith is Gods worke within vs and not our worke by his helpe For so should they runne into that absurdity which they would fasten vpon vs. viz. That when a Man beleeues t is not man beleeues but God beleeues in him To beleeue though it be done by Gods aide yet 't is we that doe it and the Act is properly ours And being so we conclude that by it we are not iustified in Gods sight Here two Exceptions may be made 1 First that we are not iustified by any worke of our owne viz which we our selues doe by our owne strength without the help of grace But yet we may be iustified by some worke which we doe viz by the aide of Grace and such a worke is Faith Wee answere This Distinction of workes done without Grace and workes done by Grace was devised by one that had neither Wit nor Grace being a Tâ—icke to elude the force of such Scriptures as exclude indefinitely all workes from our Iustification without distinguishing either of Time when they are done before or after or of the ayde helpe whereby they are done whether by Nature or by Grace Wherefore it is without all ground in Scripture thus to interpret these Propositions A man is not iustified by workes that is by workes done by worth of Nature before and without Grace A Man is iustified by Grace that is by workes done by aide of Grace These Interpretations are meere forged inventions of froward Minds affirmed but not proved as we shall more hereafter declare 2 That we are not Iustified by any workes of our own that is by any works of the Law but by a worke of the Gospell such as faith is we may be iustified Male res agitur vbi opus est tot Remedijs saith Erasmus in another case T is a certaine signe of an vntrue opinion when it must be bolstered vp with so many distinctions Nor yet hath this distinction any ground in Scripture or in Reason for both tell vs that the workes commamded in the Law and workes commanded in the Gospell are one and the same for the substance of theÌ„ What worke can be named that is enioyned vs in the New Testament which is not also coÌ„manded vs in that summary precept of the Morall Law Thou shalt loue the Lâ—rd thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soule and with all they strength and with all thy mind and thy neighbour as thy selfe Luc. 5. 27. Deut. 6. 5 What sinne is there against the Gospell that is not a transgression of the Law If the Gospel coÌ„mand Charity is it any other then that which the Law commands If the Gospell coÌ„mand Faith doth not the Law enioine the same you will say No. It doth not command Faith in Christ. I answere yea it doth For that which commands vs in generall to Beleeue what euer God shall propose vnto vs commands vs also to beleeue in Christ assoone as God shall make knowne that t is his will we should beleeue in him The Gospell discouers vnto vs the Obiect the Law commands vs the obedience of beleeuing it Wherefore Faith for the Substance of the Grace and works done by vs is a worke of the Law and so to be Iustified by the Action of beleeuing is to be Iustified by workes and by our owne Righteousnesse contrary to the Scriptures and that Phil 5. 9. That I may be found not c. This of the first Reason 2 God accounts that only for perfect Righteousnâ—sse of the Law which is so in deed and truth But Faith is not the perfect fulfilling of the Law Therefore God doth not account it â—or such The Minor is granted by our adversaries That Faith is not the exact Iustice of the Law such as can stand before the severity of Gods Iudgments The Maior must be proued That God accounts not that for perfâ—ct Iustice which is not perfect indeed This appeares by that Rom. 2. 2. The iudgement of God is according to trueth Where therefore any thing is not truly good and perfect there God esteemes it not so Here also twil be excepted That God some time Iudgeth Iudicio iustitiae according to exact Iustice and then he â—udgeth nothing perfectly iust but that whiâ—h hath true perfection of Iustice in it Sometimes he iudgeth iudicio misericordâ—ae according to mercy and so he may esteeme a Man perfectly righteous for that which is not perfect righteousnesse in it selfe namely for his Faith Surely this is a trimme distinction thus applyed that sets Gods Mercy and Truth together by the Eares As who would say When God iudgeth out of Mercy hee then doth not iudge according to truth The Scriptures doe not acquaint vs with any such mercifull iudgement of God This they doe acquaint vs with That God iudgeth according to mercy not when he doth pronounce and cleare a Sinner to be perfectly righteous for that righteousnesse which is truely imperfect but when he iudgeth a Sinner to be righteous for that righteousnesse which is perfect but is not his owne In this Iudgement there is both Truth
that such a good worke be done so and so what then we dispute now touching particulars in euery Mans reall practice The enquiry is not for the generall What euill is there in such and such a good worke done thus and thus according as the Circumstances are framed in an Imagined Case As to aske what Sinne is their in an Almes-deede done out of Faith and Charity to Gods glory This is a fond question thus framed vpon generall termes we say their is no Sinne in it But the enquiry is in particular what Euill their is in such a worke done by this or that Man according to all Circumstances that were at that time incident to the worke as What sinne was there in Zacheus or Cornelius almes-deeds This question we admit and answere to it That some Sinne there was for which those holy Men as wel as others would not haue beene willing that God should enter into iudgement with them strictly to iudge them Yea but will the Iesuits reply name what Sinne this was or else you wrong them Now this is meere impudency For who is judge of their actions Are we or is it God and their owne Consciences we can be no judges who at furthest can judge but accordrng to outward appearance We know not their Hearts nor are we priuy vnto euery particular Circumstance that did accompany those actions of theirs Circumstances in euery particular action differ infinitely one Man may offend in this point another in that nor haue we a generall Rule whereby to judge alike of all And therefore it is a childish quaere to aske on Man whether another Man offendes who may doe euill a 1000 times not only secret from others but vnwitting to himselfe If then the Iesuite will haue an answere to his question he must resort to particular mens Consciences and to God for only the spirit of Man and the spirit of God know the things of Man Let him aske a Cornelius when he giues almes whether he doe thinke this worke so well done that no fault can bee found with it Doubtlesse he will answere that he cannot excuse himselfe from all faultinesse though he knew nothing by himselfe yet he dares not stand to Gods judgment His confession and prayer would in this case be the same with Nehemiahs Nehem. 13. 22. Remember me O my God concerning this also and spare mee according to the greatnesse of thy mercy at once begging fauorable acceptance of his obedience and gratious pardon of his infirmities If this suffice not in the next place the Iesuite is to repaire to God almighty and question him where the Sinnes in such and such a good workes who no doubt can shape him an answere that will sore confound his pride and folly and make it quickly appeare vnto him that sinnefull Man when he pleades with God is not able to answere him one obiection of a 100 that God shall make against him This of the third Argument That Man hath sufficient meanes to doe well and not Sinne. The last followes drawne from such absurdities as they say doe follow vpon our Doctrine Thus. 4 If say they our Doctrine be true that the best workes of Men be Sinfull then these absurdities be likewise true doctrine That to be iustified by faith is to be iustified by Sin That no man ought to beleeue because the worke Beleeuing is Sinne. That all good works are forbidden because all Sinne is forbidden That God should command vs to commit Sinne because he commands vs to doe good workes That God bidding vs be zelous of goâ—d workes should in effect bid vs be zealous of mortall Sinne. That to pray for the pardon of Sinne were a damnable Sinne. These and such other absurd Positions would be true if the protestants doctrine concerning the sinfulnesse of good workes may stand for good Hereunto we answere That these absurdities issue not out of our Doctrine but out of our Aduersaries malitious Imaginations Who like the ragine Sea casting vp mire and Dirt from its owne Bottome would faine throw all this filth in the face of the Reformed Churches to make them odious and hatefull to the world The best is Truth cannot bee disgraced though it may be belyed These foule Absurdities touch vs not but follow vpon that Doctrine which is none of ours Namely That the good works of the Regenerate are in their very Nature altogether sins and nothing else but sordes inquinamenta merae iniquitates Such an absurd assertion would indeed yeeld such an absurd consequence But we defended it not they abuse vs grosly wheÌ„ in their writings they report of vs the contrary that we doe mainetaine This onely we teach That mens good workes are in part sinfull Much good they haue in them but with all some euill mingled therewith Amongst the gold some drosse also will be sound that will not be able to abide the fire of Gods seuere Tryall Imperfections will appeare in our best workes so long as humane infirmity and mortality hangs vpon vs. This we teach and from this Doctrine all that haue reason may see that no such vnreasonable conclusions can be collected And let thus much suffice for the clearing of this third Proposition touching the imperfection of our obedience to the Morrall Law of God euen in the good workes which we performe From whence euery godly heart should leâ—rne both Christian Humilitie and also Industry First Humility not to boast in the flesh and glory in its owne Righteousnesse thinking that God must highly account off and reward largely that which is very little worth Secondly Industry in a faithfull indeauour after perfection That what cannot be done well as it ought wee may yet euery day be done better then before it was CHAP. IIII. Three generall exceptions against the truthes deliuered in this third Section THus we haue stood long in the confirmation of our second Argument touching the impossibility of Mans fulfilling of the Law in this Life and so consequently of iustification by the Law Against all that haue bin sayed for the profit of this point our Aduersaries haue three Common and generall Exceptions Which are these 1 That Concupiscence or Naturall Corruption in the first and second act of it is no sinne 2 That imperfection in our Charity and Obedience is no sinne 3 That smaller faults or as they tell them Veniaâ—â— sinnes doe not hinder the Iustice and goodnesse of any good worke To these three Positions they haue continually recourse For whereas they cannot deny but that their is in the Regenerate both a pronesse of Nature vnto Euill and also many inordinate Sinnefuâ—l motions arising thence they first deny that either these Naturall Corruptions or disordered Motions of the Heart be any sinnes Againe they confesse that no man hath such perfect loue of God and Man but that he may increase in charity nor be his good workes so perfectly good but that they ought still to striue to doe them
Gospell not only proposeth what is to be done but withall giueth Grace and strength to doe it and therefore the Law giuen by Moses the Law-giuer cannot iustifie because it was giuen without the grace of fulfilling it but the Gospell giuen by Christ the Redeemer doth justifie because it is accompanied with the grace of the holy Ghost making vs able to keepe the Law For which cause also the Law of Moses is a yoake vnsupportable the Law of feare and bondage because it giues not grace to keepe it but onely conuinceth our Sinne and threatens vs punishment but the Law of Christ the Gospell is a light yoake a Law of loue and liberty because it giues grace to keepe it and of loue to God and man and so by fulfilling frees a man from feared punishment This is the summe of the Romish Doctrine touching the difference betwixt the morall Law and the Gospell in the point of Iustification as it is deliuered vs by Bellarmine the rotten pillar of the antichristian Synagogue Wherein we haue scarce a syllable of distinct Trueth but all peruerted by aequiuocations and grosse Ambiguities as shall appeare by a short surucy of the former discourse Whereas then he distinguisheth the Gospell into the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and into the Grace of the Holy Ghost let vs follow him in these two parts First for Doctrine We grant that the Gospell is often so taken but in this matter about Iustification this acception on is too large and not distinct enough For although by a Synecdâ—che of the chiefest most excellent part the whole Doctrine and Ministry of Christ and his Apostles with their successors be called the doctrine of the Gospell and the Ministery of the Gospell yet all things which they preached or wrote is not the Gospell properly so called But as Moses chiefly deliuered the Law vnto the Iewes though yet with all he wrote of Christ and so in part reuealed vnto them the Gospell so Christ and his Ministers though chiefely they preach the Gospell yet in its place they vrge the law withall as that which hath its singular vse in furthering our Christian faith and practise Wherefore when we speak of the Gospell as opposite to the Law t is a Iesuiticall equiuocation to take it in this large sense For the whole doctrine of Christ and his Apostles preached by them and written for vs in the Booke of the New Testament we follow the Apostle in his dispute of Iustification Gal. 3. 4. 5. And according as he doth take the Gospell strictly for the promise of Iustification and life made vnto man in Christ Iesus This is in proper tearmes the Gospell viz. that speciall Doctrine touching mans Redemption and reconciliation with God by the meanes of Iesus Christ the Reuelation whereof was indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the gladdest tidings that were euer brought to the eare of mortall man Which Gospell in strict teaÌ„rmes the Angels preached Lue. 2. 10. 11. Behold I bring you glad tidings of great ioy which shall be to all people That vnto you is borne this day in the Citie of Dauid a Sauiour which is Christ the Lord. And afterward Christ and his Apostles fully explained the mysteries thereof vnto the world According to this necessary distinction we answer That if we take the Gospell in that large Acception t is true which Bellarmine hath That the Gospell containes in it the Doctrine of workes viz. the Morall Law euen the very same precepts prohibitions threatnings promises which are deliuered in the Law All which as Christ and his Hpostles preached so may all Ministers without blame yea they must if they will auoid blame presse the same vpon their hearers seasonably and discreetly that the Law may make way for the better receiuing and entertainment of Grace in the Gospell But hence it followes not that the Gospell properly so taken is to be confounded as one and the same thing with the Law because the Law is conjoyned with it in the preachings and writings of the Ministers of the New Testament They still are deuided in their Nature and Offices nor hath the Gospell any affinity with the Law in praecepts threatnings or promises Wherefore when Bellarmine teacheth vs. That Euangelicall promises be made with condition of perfect fulfilling the Law T is a desperate errour and that in the very foundation You heard his proofes before recited see now a little how passing weake they be 1 Mat. 5. Except your righteousnesse c. To this wee answere The plaine meaning of the place is this Our righteousnesse must abound more then that of the Pharises that is It must not be outside onely as theirs was but inward Righteousnesse of the heart in inward sanctity of the thoughts and affections as well as of the outward Action or else such our hypocrisie will keepe vs from entring into Heauen But doth it hence follow that because we must be more perfect then these Pharisees we must be as perfect in all things as the Law requires we must exceed them ergo equall the holinesse of the Law in all points Because wee must be syncere without hypocrisie ergo we must be perfect in all things without blame Such consequents as these the Iesuit hath coÌ„cluded out of his own head not out of the text Touching that speech of Christ to the yong man Mat. 19. and the Lawyer Matt. 10. That if they did fulfill the Law they should liue We answere that Christ in so speaking vnto them did not preach the Gospell but shewed vnto them the Legall way to Saluation For these erring that grand error of the Iew in seeking for righteousnesse not by faith but by the works of the Law seuering the Law from Christ the end thereof as the Apostle shewes Rom. 9. 31. 32. 10. 3. and so supposing to be saued by doing some good thing Christ answeres them in their humour as euery one should be answered that swels with high conceits of his own righteousnesse workes That there was a Law to be kept and if they could fully obserue the righteousnes of it they should be saued sending them of purpose to the Law that they might be humbled thereby and see their great folly in seekeing for life by that which they were so vnable to keepe Against which answere the Iesuit hath nothing to rely but stands much in confuting of another answere made by some of our Diuines That Christ spake these things Ironically This Bellar. seeks to confute nor do I labor to confirm it though it might be justified for any thing he brings to the contrary 3 Vnto those those places of Scripture that euery where almost promise life blessednesse the fauour of God vpon condition of holinesse in life and conversation that we mortifie the lusts of the flesh walke in the Spirit ouercome the world c. We answere that Obedience is one thing perfect obedience is another We say that the promises of
prouing the trueth of it The Argument stands thus That Faith which is truely Christian may be shewen and proued so to be But a Faith without workes cannot be demonstrated to be a true faith Ergo. A Faith without workes is no true Faith The major is omitted as most euident of itselfe Because there is no morall vertue or grace of the Holy Ghost truely planted in the heart but it may be knowne by some externall Actions which it is apt to bring forth Euen as life is knowne by breathing or beating of the Pulse The trueth of an inuisible Grace hath it's demonstration in visible workes But now for the Minor S. Iames proues that Faith without Obedience cannot appeare by any proofe to be true faith Which he doth in a Dialogue betweene a true beleeuer and a Hypocrite Yea a man may say thou hast Faith and I haue Workes shew me thy faith without workes and I will shew thee my faith by my workes That is Thou saiest thou hast a true Faith though thou hast no workes I say I haue true faith because I haue workes Come wee now to the triall and let it appeare who saieth true thou or I. If thou saiest true proue thy Faith by something or other to be true Shew me thy Faith without thy wotkes Workes thou hast none whereby to shew thy faith make it then appeare by something else But that 's impossible Where workes are wanring ther 's no demonstration else whereby to justifie the trueth of faith And therefore thou art driuen to confesse that thou vainely boastest of that which thou hast not But on the otherside saieth the true Beleeuer I can make good that which I say prouing that my faith is true by my workes I will shew thee my faith by my workes My sincere Obedience is a reall demonstration that my beleife is no verball ostentation and vaine bragg This proofe of S. Iames is very conâ—incing and gripes the Consciences of Hypocrites smiting them with shame and confusion when they come to this triall and so haue their false and fraudulent hearts laied open But heere it will be asked what workes doe demonstrate the trueth of faith and also how they doe proue it Whereto wee answere Workes are of two sortes 1. Ordinary such workes of Sanctity Obedience as are required to a holy Conuersation 2. Extraordinary viz Miracles We say S. Iames vnderstands the former and those onely our aduersaries conclude both But erroneously for asmuch as S. Iames speakes not of the doctrine of faith but of the Grace of faith The Grace requires good workes of Piety and Charity as perpetually necessary for the conmirmation of it's Trueth So doeth not the doctrine of Faith alwaies require Miraculous workes for the confirmation of it's divinity But oney at the first publication thereof Wherefore Lorinus is very ridiculous who vpon this place tels vs that they may justly demaund of vs Haeretiques For so they bedust vs Miracles for the confirmation of our new and false Doctrine Indeed were it new and false their request were not vnreasonable that we should make our doctrine credible by doing of Miracles But sure the Iesuite iudgeth of our doctrine by his ovvne vvhich did he not suspect for a nevv Error vvee see no reason they should still require Miracles for confirmation of an olde Truth For our selues we seeke not the aide of a lying Wonder to vphold a true doctrine nor doe we count it any disgrace at all to our Religion that we cannot by our Faith so much as cure a lame Horse as the Iesuite out of Erasmus scoffes at vs. Now surely if such a beast as Bellarmine's deuout Mare want helpe to set her on all foure we cannot be yet so well perswaded of that vertue of Romish Faith as to thinke that a Frier will doe more good at such a jadish miracle then a Farrier But whereas the Iesuite goes forward to require of vs the other sort of good workes of Piety and Charity for the demonstration of our Faith hee hath reason so to doe though not so much as he imagines when hee chargeth vs with neglect of good Workes and vnbridled licentiousnesse Would to God we could cleere our practise from such neglect as well as we can our doctrine from teaching it But yet by their fauour if we come to comparisons we know no Reason why we should runne behind the dore as more ashamed of our practises then they may justly be of theirs in which case we boldly bid him amongst them that is without sinne to cast the first stone at vs. To proceed Seeing Workes of Obedience are the proofâ—s of a true Faith it must be considered in what sort they proue it For may not good Workes be counterfeited as well as Faith I answere That in this triall the judgment of verity infallibility belongeth vnto God who only knowes the heart and conscience being able to discerne euery secret working of the Soule and so to judge exactly whether or no all outward appearances come from inward syncerity But for the judgement of Charity that belongs to vs. If we behold in any man the Workes of Obedience to God's will of such a Man we are to judge that he hath true Faith Though yet herein we must as farre as humane frailtie will giue leaue iudge also not according to appearance but iudge righteous iudgment Mens practises must be examined if hypocrisie bewray it self as 't is hard for a Counterfeit not to forget himself at some one time or other if he be duly obserued there Charity must not be blinde it must see and censure it 'T is not a charitable but a peruerse Iudgment to call euill good nor is it any offence to call that a barren or bad Tree that beares either no fruit at all or none but bad And thus of this second Argument of the Apostle that these Hypocrites Faith was vaine because when it comes to the proofe it cannot be iustified to be found and good 3 The Argument is v. 19. from the example of the diuels themselues in whom there is a Faith without Workes as well in hypocrites and ergo it is in neither of them a true Faith The Argument is brought in to confute a Cauill with the hypocrite might make against the former reason True might he say I cannot shew my Faith by my Workes yet for all that I haue a true Faith And why Because I beleeue the Articles of Religion that there is one God with the rest Hereto the Apostle replies That such a beliefe is not a true Christian Faith because it is to be found euen in the diuels The Argument runnes thus That faith which is in the diuels is no true Christian faith But a bare assent to the Articles of Religion without Obedience is in the Diuels Ergo A bare assent without Obedience is no true Christian faith The Maior of this Argument will easily be granted That the diuels haue not