and Mercy Truth in that he esteemes me perfectly righteous for that righteousnesse sake which is euery way perfect and mercy that he accepteth for sinne that righteousnesse which is performed for me by Christ my surety but is not mine owne Other mercifull Iudgement of God besides this we acknowledge none 3 We are not iustified by two righteousnesses existing in two diuers subiects But if wee be iustified by the worke of Faith we shall be iustified partly by that righteousnesse which is in vs viz. of Faith partly by the righteousnesse of Christ without vs. Ergo we are not iustified by Faith properly The Minor is apparant The Righteousnesse of Faith is â—nherent in vs. and by it we are iustified say our Aduersaries The righteousnesse of Christ is inherent in him and by it are we iustified say the Scriptures Being now iustified by his blood we shall be saued from wrath through him Ro. 5 9. v. 19. By the obedience of one many shall be made iust Wherefore either we are properly iustified by both or there is an errour and one part must stand out We cannot be properly iustified by both for our own faith and Christs obedience too for if we be perfectly iust in Gods sight for our own Faith what need the Imputation of Christs obedience to make vs iust If for Christs righteousnes we be perfectly iustified how can God accouÌ„t vs perfectly iust for our faith Arminius and his friends seeing these things cannot stand together haue according to the good will which they beare toward the righteousnesse of Christ kept in our faith and thrust out Christs obedience denying vtterly that it is imputed vnto vs for righteousnesse But my Brethren which I hope make a better choice seeing it cannot part with ours part with our owne righteousnesse leaning wholy vpon the righteousnesse of Christ and seeking for the comfort of our Iustification in his perfect obedience and not in our weake and imperfect saith These Reasons may suffice to shew the errour of that Assertion We are iustified by Faâ—â—h sensu propâ—rio God accepting the Act of beleeuing for the perfect obedience of the Law And therefore that in those places where 't is said Faith is imputed for righteousnesse the Phrase is to be expounded metonymice that is Christs righteousnesse beleeued on by Faith is imputed to the beleeuer for righteousnesse Whereas our Aduersaries say that faith of its owne dignity and desert doth not obtaine this fauour of God to be esteemed for the perfect righteousnesse of the Morall Law but this comes to passe onely by the Merits of Christ who hath procured this grace vnto vs that God should thus accept of our Faith wee answere that this is affirmed but 't is not prooued They speake a little more fauourably then the Romanists who make faith of it selfe to merit Iustification these will haue it not to merit it but to be graciously accepted for righteousnesse But wee find not in Scripture any such Doctrine as this Christ hath merited that wee should bee iustified for our faith or Christ hath merited for our faith that faith should be esteemed by God for that perfect Iustice of the Law whereby we are iustified in Gods sight These things the Scriptures teach not they teach that Christ is our righteousnesse and that we are iustified by his blood and obedience But that he hath merited by his obedience that we should be iustified by our owne obedience and righteousnesse is a peruerse assertion of men that loue to runne about the bush and leauing the streight to runne in crooked and froward wayes And it differs little from the like shift of the Disciples of Rome who to maintaine Merit of our workes and of Christ too salue it with this tricke Christ hath merited that wee might merit But we acknowledge as no other merit but that of Christ so no other righteousnesse to Iustification but his alone Thus much of the second Assertion CHAP. III. The confutation of Popish Doctrine that other graces doe iustifie vs and not faith alone THe third and last followes wherein the Controuersie is betweene vs and those of Rome whose Assertion is that 3 A sinner is not iustified by faith alone but also by other vertues and graces as Hope Loue Repentance Feare of God c. This we also reject as an error contrary to the Scriptures wherby we are taught That a man is iustified by faith alone For opening the truth of which point you must call to minde the different acception of the word Iustifie wherein it is taken by vs and by our Aduersaries With them to Iustifie is all one as to Sanctifie of vnjust and vnholy to make inherently iust and holy With vs to Iustifie is to absolue an offender quitting him from blame and punishment According to these different Acceptions this proposition A man is iustified by faith alone hath a double meaning one thus A man by faith alone is inherently sanctified another thus A man by faith alone obtaines absolution in Gods Iudgement from all faultinesse and punishment This latter meaning onely is true and t is that onely which is defended by vs of the Reformed Churches Namely that faith onely is the grace of God whereby a sinner beleeuing the promise and resting himselfe vpon the righteousnesse of Christ receiues mercy from God in absoluing him from the fault and punishment of all his Transgressions and to be accounted Righteous for Christs sake Which gracious priuiledge God hath annexed vnto faith as vnto the Condition of the New Covenant and not vnto Loue Hope Feare Repentance or any other grace For not these but Faith onely respecteth the promise of the Gospell The former sense of that Proposition is false and absurde viz. A Man by faith alone is inherently sanctified nor doe any of the Reformed deteine such a Construction thereof Wherefore when Bellarmine and his Complices dispute eagerly against Iustification by faith alone those Arguments wherewith they suppose to smite through the Truth of our Assertion are let flye at a wrong Marke being all aymed at this Butte viz to proue That a man is sanctified by other inherent Graces as well as faith Which point we easily yeeld them confessing that inherent righteousnesse consists not of one but of the manifold graces of Gods Spirit wrought in the heart of such as are Regenerate Neuerthelesse for the shewing of some points which may be doubted of Let vs briefely take a view of the chiefe passages of Bellarmines long discourse which he maintaines from the twelfth Chapter of his first booke de Iustificatione to the end For to proue that a Man is iustified not by faith alone Of his Arguments which are few I shall name three onely which are materiall 1 If other vertues Iustifie as well as Faith then not faith alone But other vertues doe Iustifie Therefore c. The Minor he prooues out of the Councell of Trent Sess. 6. cap. 6. where seauen preparatory graces to
judge St. Iames in the example of Rahab speakes of the first Iustification because as he saieth she was then at the first made a beleeuer of an infidell a righteous woman of an harlot And againe Paul he speakes of the 2. Iustification in the example of Abraham which is alleaged by both the Apostles Heere 's then a confusion insteed of a distiction Paul speakes of the first Iames speakes of the 2. and yet both do speake of both Iustifications Againe when they say Iames speakes of the second Iustification whereby of just a man becomes more just ti 's a groundlesse imagination for asmuch as it was to no purpose for the Apostle Iames to treat of the second Iustification whereby men grow better when those Hypocrites with whom he had to doe had erred from their first iustification whereby they were not as yet made good as the learned Iackson obserues Nay there is not in all St. Iames his dispute any sâ—llable that may giue any just suspicion that by Iustification he meanes the increase of inhaerent Iustice. Bellarmine catcheth at the clause v. 22. By workes Faith was made perfect which is in the Iesuites construction Abraham's inhaerent justice begun by faith receiued increase and perfection by his workes But this is onlie the Iesuites phrensie Abraham his faith and his Righteousnes whereof his Faith is but a part was not made but declared to be perfect by so perfect a worke which it brought forth as euen Lorinus another of that sect expounds it orthodoxly 3 Thirdly that distinction of workes done before Faith without grace and after Faith by grace is to as litle purpose as the former in this matter of our Iustification Heretofore we haue touched vpon that distinction and shewed the vanitie thereof in limiting St. Paul to workes done without grace when simplie he concludes all workes from our Iustification And St. Iames though he require workes of grace to be ioyned with that Faith which must justifie vs yet he giues them not that place and office in our Iustification from which Paul doth exclude them and wherein our adversaries would establish them as it shall appeare anon Leauing then this sophisticall reconcilement coined by our aduersaries I come to those reconciliations which are made by our diuines wherein we shall haue better satisfaction vpon better grounds Two waies there are whereby this seeming difference is by our Men reconciled 1. The 1. by distinguishing the word â— Iustification which may be taken either 1 For the absolution of a Sinner in Gods iudgement 2 For the declaration of a mans Righteousnes before men This distinction is certaine and hath its ground in Scripture which vseth the word Iustifie in both acceptions for the quitting of vs in Gods sight and for the manifestation of our innocency before man against accusation or suspicion of faultines They applie this distinction for the reconciling of the two Apostles Thus. St. Paul speakes of Iustification in foro Dei S. Iames speakes of Iustification in foro hominis A man is justified by faith without workes saieth S. Paul that is in God's sight a man obtaines remission of Sinnes and is reputed just only for his Faith in Christ not for his workes sake A man is justified by workes and not by Faith onely saieth S. Iames that is in mans sight we are declared to be just by our good workes not by our Faith onely which with other inward and invisible Graces are made visible vnto man onely in the good workes which they see vs performe That this application is not vnfit for to reconcile this difference may be shewed by the parts 1. For S. Paul ti 's agreed on all sides that he speakes of mans iustification in God's sight Rom. 3. v. 20. 2. For S. Iames we are to shew that with just probability he may be vnderstood of the declaration of our Iustification and righteousnes before men For proofe whereof the Text affords vs these reasons 1. Verse 18. Shew me thy Faith without thy Workes and I will shew thee my Faith by my workes Where the true Christian speaking to the Hypocriticall boaster of his Faith requires of him a declaration of his faith and Iustification thereby by a reall proofe not a verball profession promising for his part to manifest and approue the trueth of his owne Faith by his good workes Whence it appeares that before man none can justifie the soundnes of his Faith but by his workes thene proceeding 2. V. 21. Abraham is saied to be justified when he offered vp his sonne Isaak vpon the Altar Now ti 's manifest that Abraham was justified in Gods sight long before euen 25. yeares Gen. 15. 6. Therefore by that admirable worke of his in offering his Sonne he was declared before all the world to be a just man and a true Beleeuer And for this purpose did God tempt Abraham in that triall of his Faith that thereby all beleeuers might behold a rare patterne of a liuely and justifying Faith and that Abraham was not without good cause called the Father of the Faithfull 3. V. 22. It is saied that Abrahams faith wrought with his worke and by workes was his faith made perfect Which in the iudgement of popish Expositors themselues is to be vnderstood of the manifestation of Abrahams faith by his workes His Faith directed his workes his workes manifested the power and perfection of his Faith It is not then without good probability of Reason that Caluin and other Expositors on our side haue giuen this solution vnto this doubt Bellarmine labours against it and would faine proue that justification cannot be taken heere pro declaratione Iustitiae But his Argument cannot much trouble any intelligent reader and therefore I spare to trouble you with his sophistry This now is the first way of reconciling the places Howbeit the trueth is that although this may be defended against any thing that our aduersaries objected to the contrary yet many and those very learned divines chose rather to tread in another path and more neerely to presse the Apostles steps whom also in this point â— willingly follow 2 The second way then of reconciling these places is by distinguishing of the word Faith which is taken in a doubled sense 1. First for that Faith which is true and liuing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Faith which worketh through loue and is fruitfull in all manner of Obedience 2. Secondly for that Faith which is false and dead being onely a bare acknowledgment of the trueth of all Articles of Religion accompanied with an outward Formality of Profession but yet destitute of sincere Obedience This distinction of this word Faith is certaine by the Scriptures as hath heretofore bin shewed in handling of that Grace Our Men now apply it thus S. Paul when he affirmes that we are justified by Faith onely speakes of that Faith which is true and liuing working by Charity S. Iames when he denies a Man is justified by
to assent vnto and apprehend diuine Reuelations without further helpe then of their owne naturall Abilities Man in his fall sustained greater losse in the spirituall powers of his soule therefore stanâ—s in need of helpe Which helpe is afforded euen vnto the vngodly but this is by ordinary illumination not by speciall infusion of any sanctifying Grace Enlightned they are aboue the ordinary pitch of naturall blindnes but not aboue that whereto a meere naturall vnderstanding may be aduanced Yea were Mans Vnderstanding raised vp to that perfection which is in diuels this were more then Nature yet lesse then Grace This common gift of Illumination bestowed on wicked Men but not on diuels is no proofe that their Faith is of a diuerse kinde As to the last difference we are not so far studied in Moralities as to conceiue wherein the dishonestie of the diuel 's Faith and the honestie of Hypocrites Faith doth lie To ordinarie vnderstanding it seemes euery way as honest commendable a matter for a wicked fiend as for a wicked Man to beleeue what God reueales vnto him If not we must expect to be further informed by these Iesuites Men that are better read in that part of Ethickes whether diabolicall or hypocriticall 4. This of the Apostle's third Argument we come to the fourth The 4. Argument is contained in the 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25 verses Before which the Apostle repeates his maine Conclusion That Faith without Obedience is a false and dead Faith But wilt thou know O vaine Man or hypocrite that Faith without workes is dead v. 20. For the convincing of him further he proceeds to a new Argument to proue it vnto him The Argument is this That Faith which will not iustifie a Man is a false and dead Faith But the Faith which is without workes will not iustifie a Man Ergo 'T is a dead and a false Faith The Maior the Apostle omits as most evident of it selfe The Minor he proues by an induction of two Examples Thus. If Abraham and Rahab were instified by a working faith thou that Faith which is alone without workes will not iustifie But Aâ—raham and Rahab were so iustified viz. by a working Faith Ergo Faith without workes will not iustifie a man The Reason of the Consequence is manifest Because as Abraham and Rahab so all other must be justified The meanes of justification and Life were euer one and the same for all men Which also the Apostle intimates in that clause v. 21. Was not our Father Abraham c. implying that as the Father so also the children the whole stocke and generation of the Faithfull were and are still justified by one vniforme meanes The two instances the Apostle vrges that of Abraham v. 21. 22. 23. that of Rahab v. 25. The conclusion with aequally issues from them both he interserts in the middest after the allegation of Abrahams Example v. 24. I shall goe ouer them as they lie in the Text. In the example of Abraham the Apostle v. 21. sets downe this proposition That Abraham was justified by a working Faith For this interrogatiues Was not our Father Abraham justified by workes must be resolued into an affirmatiue Abraham our Father was justified by workes That is a working Faith Which proposition the Apostle confirmeth by it's parts 1. Shewing that Abrahams Faith was an operatiue faith declared and approued by his workes Secondly prouing that by such a working Faith Abraham was justified in God's sight That the faith of Abraham was operatiue full of life and power to bring forth Obedience vnto God the Apostle alleageth one instance insteed of all the â—est to proue it And that is that singular worke of Obedience vnto God's command When he offered vp his sonne Isaak vpon the Altar Many other workes there were performed by Abraham abundantly justifying the trueth of his Faith But the Apostle chooseth this aboue all other as that worke which was of purpose enjoyned him by God for a triall of his faith Wherein Abraham mightily ouerâ—oming all those strong temptations to disobedience and infidelity made it appeare that his faith was not an idle dead and empty Speculation but an actiue and working Grace Wherefore the Apostle adds ver 22. Seest thou how faith wrought with his workes and by workes was faith made perfect That is as in other workes of that holy Patriarch so specially in that sacrificing his sonne all that can see may plainely behold the strength and life of his faith Faith wrought with his workes That is His faith directed and supported him in the doing of that worke as the Apostle Paul expounds it Heb. 11. 17 By faith Abraham offered vp Isaack that worke had not binne done if faith had not wrought it In euery circumstance thereof faith did all in all from the beginning of the worke to the end This interpretation is most simple and generally receaued Faith wrought with That is In or by his workes vnto the performance whereof the force of faith was in spaeciall manner assesting Pareus reads the words by a tmesis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 scilicet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Faith being with his workes wrought What his Iustification But this construction seemes somewhat hard and not necessary for this place The other sense is much plainer shewing vs by or with what vertue Abraham's workes were wrought viz. By the vertue of his faith which in most powerfull manner incited and inabled him to obey The Apostle goes forward And by workes was faith made perfect That is declared to be perfect For workes did not perfect Abrahams Faith essentially in asmuch as long before this time it was perfect as is plaine in that Abraham was justified by it 25 yeares before the oblation of his sonne Isaack and also by the strength of his Faith had done many excellent workes and obtained great blessings at the hand of God So that the offering vp of Isaack was not the cause but a fruite of the perfection of Abrahams Faith the great difficulty of that worke shewed the singular petfection of that Grace which was able so to encounter and conquer it The goodnes of the fruit doth not worke but declare the goodnes that is in the tree the qualities of the fruits alwaies depending vpon the nature of the Tree but not on the contrary Thus then the first part of the Proposition is plainly proved by the Apostle That Abrahams Faith was a liuely and working Faith declaring and approuing it's owne trueth by the workes of his Obedience The next part Namely That Abraham was justified in God's sight by such a working Faith he proueâ— 1. By a Testimony of Scripture 2. By an effect or consequent thereof Both are expressed in the 23. v. The first in these words And the Scripture was fulfilled which sayeth Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed vnto him for Righteousnes The application of this testimony is very heedfully
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
forbid For if there had beene a Law giuen which could haue giuen Life verily righteousnesse should haue beene by the Law But the Scripture hath concluded all vnder sinne that the promise by the faith of Iesus Christ might be giuen by them that beleeue Ephe. 2. 8. 9. For by grace ye are saued through Faith and that not of your selues It is the gift of God Not of workes least any man should boast Phil 3. 8. 9. Yea doubtlesse and I count all things but losse for the excellency of the Knowledge of Christ Iesus my Lord. For whom I haue suffered the losse of all things and doe count them but dung that I may winne Christ. And be found of him not hauing mine owne righteousnesse which is of the Law but that which is through the faith of Christ the Righteousnesse which is of God by Faith Out of which places not to name more expresly touching this point of our Iustification we argue thus A Man is iustified either by the workes of the Law or by faith in Christ. But hee is not Iustified by the workes of the Law Ergo He is iustified onely by faith in Christ. In this disiunctiue Syllogisme they cannot find â—ault with vs for adding the word onely in the Conclusion which was not in the Praemises For Reason will teach them that where two Tearmes are immediately opposite if one bee taken away the other remaines alone So that in euery disjunctiue Syllogisme whose Maior Proposition standeth vpon two Tearmes immediately opposite if one be remoued in the Minor the Conclusion is plainely equivalent to an exclusiue Proposition As if we argue thus Eyther the wicked are saued or the godly But the wicked are not saued Thence it followes in exclusiue Tearmes Therefore the godly onely are saued Our Aduersaries cannot deny but that the Proposition A Man is iustified by workes or by Faith consists of Tearmes immediately opposite For else they accuse the Apostle Paul of want of Logicke who Rom. 3. should conclude falsely A man is iusitified by faith without workes if he be iustified either by both together or else by neither Seeing then he opposeth Faith aÌ„d workes as incompatible and exclude workes from Iustification wee conclude infallibly by the Scriptures That a man is iustified by faith alone This Argument not auoidable by any sound aÌ„swere puts our aduersaries miserably to their shifts Yet rather then yeeld vnto the truth they fall vnto their distinctions whereby if t were possible they would shift off the force of this Argument Whereas therefore the Scriptures oppose Workes and Faith the Law of Workes and the Law of Faith Our owne righteousnesse which is of the Law and the Righteousnesse of God by Faith manifestly telling vs that we are Iustified Not by Workes by the Law of Workes nor by our owne Righteousnesse which is of the Law but that we are iustified by Faith by the Righteousnesse of God by Faith Our Aduersaries haue a distinction to salue this Matter withall They say then Workes are of two sorts 1 Some goe before Grace and Faith and are performed by the onely strength of free-will out of that Knowledge of the Law whereunto Men may attaine by the light of Nature or the bare Reuelation of the Scriptures These workes or this obedience vnto the law which a meere naturall man can performe is say they that Righteousnesse which the Scripture cals our owne By this kinde of Righteousnesse and Workes they grant none is Iustified 2 Some follow Grace and Faith which are done by Mans free-will excited and aided by the speciall helpe of Grace Such Obedience and Righteousnesse is say they called the Righteousnesse of God because it is wrought in vs of his gift and grace And by this Righteousnesse a man is iustified By this Invention they turne of with a wet finger all those Scriptures that we haue alleadged Wee are Iustified not by the workes of the Law that is by the Obedience of the Morall Law which a man may performe without Gods Grace But we are Iustified by Faith of Christ that is by that obedience of the Morall Law which a man may performe by faith and the helpe of Gods grace Boasting is excluded saith the Apostle by what Law By the Law of workes that is by the Law performed by the strength of Nature Nay For he that performes the Law by his owne strength hath cause to boast of it By what Law then By the Law of Faith that is by faith which obtaines Gods grace to fulfill the Morall Law Now he that obeyes the Law by Gods helpe hath no cause to boast Israel which followed the Law of righteousnesse could not attaine vnto the law of righteousnesse Wherefore Because they sought it not by Faith that is they sought not to performe the Law by Gods Grace But as by the workes of the Law that is by their own strength Thus Paul desires to be found in Christ not hauing his owne righteousnesse which is of the Law that is that righteousnesse he performed without Gods grace before his Conversion But the righteousnesse of God which is by faith i.e. That righteousnesse which he performed in obeying the Law by Gods grace after his Conversion For confirmation of this distinction and the Interpretations thereon grounded Bellarmine brings three reasons to shew that when workes and faith are opposed all workes of the Law are not excluded 1 It s manifest Faith is a worke and that there is a Law of Faith as well as workes If therefore Rom. 3. all workes and all Law be excluded from Iustification then to be iustified by Faith were to bee iustified without faith 2 It s plaine the Apostle Rom. 3. intends to proue that neither Iewes by the naked obseruation of the law of Moses nor the Gentiles for their good workes before they were conuerted to the faith of Christ could obtaine righteousnesse from God 3 The Apostle shewes Rom. 4. 4. what workes he excludes from Iustification viz. such whereto wages is due by debt not by grace Now workes performed without Gods helpe deserue reward ex Debito but workes performed by his helpe deserve wages ex gratia I doubt but notwithstanding these seeming Reasons the fore-named distinction and expositions of Scripture according thereto appeare vnto you at the first sight strange vncouth farr besides the intent of the Holy Ghost in all those fore-reckoned passages of Scripture Let vs examine it a little more narrowly and yee shall quickly perceiue that in this Schoole distinction there is nothing but fraud shifting By workes done by the strength of Nature wee are not iustified By workes done with the helpe of grace wee are iustified This is the distinction resolue it now into these tearmes which are more proper it runs thus A man is not sanctified by those workes of the Moraâ—l Law which he doth without grace but a man is sanctified by those workes of the Morall Law he doth by
grace hath enabled vs to performe the condition of beleeuing then doe we beginne to enioy the benefit of the Couenant then is the sentence of absolution pronounced in our consciences which shall be after confirmed in our death and published in the last iudgement Secondly our faith and no other grace directly respects the promises of the Gospell accepting what God offers sealing vnto the truth thereof by assenting thereto and imbracing the benefit and fruit of it vnto it selfe by relying wholly vpon it This interpretation of that proposition the Reformed Churches do admit none other reiecting as erronious and contrary to the Scriptures such glosses as ascribe any thing to the dignity of faith or make any combination betweene Faith and Workes in the point of our Iustification Amongst which there are three erronious assertions touching mans Iustification by Faith which we are briefly to examine and refute 1 That faith iustifieth vs Per modum Causae efficientis meritoriae as a proper efficient and meritorious cause Which by it's owne worth and dignity deserues to obtaine Iustification Remission of sinnes and the grace of well-doing This is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which Bellarmine labours to proue in his 17. Chap. lib. pr. de Iustificatione where disputing against Iustification by faith alone hee tels vs. If we could be perswaded that faith doth Iustifie impetrando promerendo suo modo inchoando Iustificationem then we would neuer deny that loue feare hope and other vertues did iustifie vs as well as faith Whereupon he sets himselfe to prooue that there is in faith it selfe some efficacy and merit to obtaine and deserue Iustification His Arguments are chiely two From those places of Scripture wherein a man is said to be iustified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or absolutely without Article or Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per fidem ex fide or fide Wherein these Prepositions signifie saith he the true cause of our Iustification Which he proues 1 By the contrary when a man is said to be iustified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This notes the true efficient deseruing cause of his Iustification Secondly By the like in other places where we are said to be redeemed saued sanctified Per Christum per sanguinem per mortem per vulnera and in the whole 11. to the Heb. The Saints are said to doe such and such things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by faith All signifying the proper cause From those places of Scripture which sayth he plainly shew Faith doth impetrare remissionem suo quidem modo mereri Such are those Thy Faithâ— hath saued thee or made thee whole A speech that Christ vsed often as to the woman that washed his feet To her that had an issue of Blood To the blind man recovered of his sight And that to the Cananitish woman O woman great is thy Faith now see what the merit of this Faith was For this saying go thy way the Diuel is gone out of thy Daughter Thus Abraham being strenghened in Faith glorified God who therefore iustified him for the Merit of his Faith And againe in the eleuenth to the Heb. by many examples we are taught that by Faith that is by the merit and price of Faith Enoch and other men pleased God For answeare here vnto 1 Vnto the Argument from the Proposition we reply That if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be needs strictly taken in the same kind of Causality then the Iesuits should doe well to stand to that and make the similitude betweene Faith and workes runne thus A Man is iustified by workes that is for the proper and only Merits of his obedience so a Man is iustified by Faith that is for the only merit of his Beleeving in Christ aud by that meanes both shall be true and effectuall causes of Iustification But if Bellarmine dare not thus presse the similitude for feare of being found guilty of despising the blood of the New Couenant attributing that to the Merit of Faith which belongs only to the Merit of Christ he must then giue vs that leaue to distinguish which he takes to himselfe and if he fall to his Qualifications and quodammodo's he must pardon if we also seeke out such an Interpretation of those places as may not crosse other Scriptures Which for asmuch as they testifie that We are Iustified by his grace through the Redemption that is in Christ that All sinne is purged by the blood of Christ that By the sacrifice of himselfe he hath put away Sinne and With offering hath consecrated for ouer them that are sanctified we dare not without horrible sacrilege ascribe the grace of our Iustification vnto the worke and worth of any thing whatsoeuer in our selues but wholy and only to the Righteousnesse of Christ. And therefore when the Scriptures say we are iustified by Faith we take not the word By in this formall and legall sense we are iustified by the efficacy of our Faith or for the worth of our Faith according as 't is vnderstood in Iustification by workes but we take it Relatiuely Instrumentally We are Iustified by Faith that is by the Righteousnesse of Christ the benefit whereof vnto our Iustification we are made partakers of by Faith as the only grace which accepts of the promise and giues vs assurance of the performance He that looked to the Brasen serpent and was cured might truly be sayd to be healed by his looking on though this Action was no proper cause working the cure by any efficacy or dignity of it selfe but was only a necessary condition required of them that would be healed vpon the obedient observance whereof God would shew them favor so he that looketh on Christ beleeuing in him may truly be sayed to be saued and Iustified by Faith not as for the worth and by the â—fficacy of that act of his but as it is the Condition of the promise of grace that must necessarily go before the performance of it to vs vpon our Obedience where vnto God is pleased of his free grace to iustifie Nor is this Trope any way harsh or vnusuall to put Oppositum pro opposito Relatum pro Correlato Habitum pro Obiecto In Sacramentall locutions 't is a generall Custome to put the signe for the thing signified and the like is vsed in other passages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the word of God grew c. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mystery of faith and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the words of Faith and Rom. 8. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Spe seruati sumus id est Christo in quem speramus Hope that is seene is not hope that is res visa non sperata est That of Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Like to that Christ our Ioy Anni spem
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
the eye onely sees say our Men yet the Eare is in the Head too Yea reply they But the eie could see well notwithstanding the Eare were deafe T is the Heate onely of the fire or Sunne that warmes though there be light ioyned with it True say they But if there were no Light yet if heate remained it would warme for all that as the Heate of an Ouen or of Hell burnes though it shine not Thou holdest in thy hands many seedes T is the old comparison of Luther on the 15 of Gen. I enquire not what t is together but what is the vertue of each one single Yea reply our Aduersaries that 's a very needelesse question indeed For if among them many seedes there be some one that hath such soueraigne vertue that it alone can cure all diseases then t is no Matter whether thou haue many or few or none at all of any other sort in thy hand Thou hast that which by it owne vertue without other ingredients will worke the Cure Nor haue we ought to make answere in this case If as the Eye sees heate warmes seeds and other simples doe cure by their owne proper Vertue so Faith alone by its owne efficacy did sanctifie vs. But there is the Errour Faith works not in our sanctification or Iustification by any such inward power vertue of its own from whence these effects should properly follow For Sanctification Faith as we haue seene is part of that inherent Righteousnesse which the Holy Ghost hath wrought in the Regenerate and t is opposed to the Corruption of our Nature which stands in Infidelity Faith sanctifies not as a cause but as a part of insused grace and such a part as goes not alone but accompanied with all other Graces of Loue Feare Zeale Hope Repentance c. Inasmuch as Mans regeneration is not the infusion of one but of the Habit of all graces Againe 't is not the Vertue of Faith that iustifies vs The grace of Iustification is from God he workes it but t is our Faith applies it and makes it ours The Act of Iustification is Gods meere worke but our Faith onely brings vs the Benefit and Assurance of it Iustification is an externall priuiledge which God bestowes on beleeuers hauing therein respect onely to their Faith which grace onely hath peculiar respect to the Righteousnesse of Christ and the promise in him Whereby t is manifest that this argument is vaine Faith alone is respected in our Iustification therefore Faith is or may be alone without other graces of Iustification Bellar would vndertake to proue that true saith may be seuered from Charity and other Vertues but wee haue heretofore spoken of that Point and shewed that true Faith yet without a Forme true Faith dead and without a soule be Contradictions as vaine as A true Man without reason A true Fire without heate We confesse indeed that the faith of Iesuites the same with that of Simon Magus may very well bee without Charity and all other sanctifying graces a bare assent to the truth of Divine Reuelations because of Gods Authority As t is in Diuels so t is in Papists and other Heretickes But we deny that this is that which deserues the name of true Faith which whosoeuer hath hee also hath eternall life As it is Iohn 6. 47. 3 Argument That which Scripture doth not affirme that is false doctrine But the Scripture doth not affirme that wee are Iustified by Faith alone Ergo so to teach is to teach false Doctrine This Argument toucheth the quicke and if the Minor can be prooued we must needs yeeld them the Cause For that the Iesuites conceiue that this is a plaine case for where is there any one place in all the Bible that saith Faith alone Iustifies They euen laugh at the simplicity of the Heretickes as they Christen vs that glory they haue found out at last the word Onely in Luc. 8. 50. in that speech of Christ to the Ruler of the Synagogue Feare not beleeue onely and shee shall be made whole And much sport they make themselues with Luther That to helpe out this matter at a dead lift by plaine fraud hee foysted into the Text in the 3. to the Romans the word Onely When being taught with the fact and required a Reason He made answere according to his Modesty Sic volo sic iubeo stet pro ratione voluntas T is true that Luther in his Translation of the Bible into the Germane tougue read the 28. verse of that Chapter thus We conclude that men are iustified without the workes of the Law onely through Faith Which word onely is not in the Originall Where in so doing if he fulfild not the Office of a faithfull Translator yet he did the part of a faithfull Paraphrast keeping the sense exactly in that Alteration of words And if he be not free from blame yet of all men the Iesuites are most vnfit to reproue him whose dealing in the corrupting of all sort of Writers Diuine and humane are long since notorious and infamous throughout Christendome What Luthers Modesty was in answering those that found fault with his Translation we haue not to say Onely thus much That the impudent Forgeries of this Generation witnesse abundantly that it is no rare thing for a Lie to drop out of a Iesuites or Fryers penne But be it as it may be T is not Luthers Translation Nor that place in the 8. of Luke that our Doctrine touching Iustification by Faith alone is founded vpon We haue better proofes then these as shall appeare vnto you in the confirmation of the Minor of this Syllogisme Whatsoeuer the Scriptures affirme that 's true doctrine But the Scriptures affirme a man is iustified by Faith alone Therefore thus to teach is to teach according to the word of whole-some doctrine Our Aduersaries demaund proofe of the Minor We alleadge all those places wherein the Scriptures witnesse that we are Iustified by faith without the workes of the Law Such places are these Rom. 3. 28. Therefore we conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the Law Rom. 4. 2. 3. If Abraham were iustified by workes hee hath whereof to glory but not before God For what saith the Scripture Abraham beleeued God and it was counted to him for righteousnesse And vers 14. 15. 16. For if they which are of the Law be heires faith is made void and the promise made of none effect Because the Law worketh wrath for where no Law is there is no transgression Gal. 2. 16. Knowing that a man is not iustified by the workes of the Law but by the Faith of Iesus Christ Euen we haue beleeued in Christ that we might be iustified by the Faith of Christ and not by the workes of the Law For by the workes of the Law shall no flesh be iustified Gal. 3. 21. 22. Is the Law then against the promises of God God
haue done whether God by his absolute omnipotency could not haue freed Men from Hell by some other Meanes without taking satisfaction for Sinne from Christ whether God ought not to haue the same priuiledge which we giue vnto any mortale King freely to pardon a Rebell and receaue him to fauour without consideration of any goodnesse in him or satisfaction made by him or anoâ— for him Or whether Sinne doe make such a deepe wound in Gods Iustice and Honour that he cannot with the safegard of either passe by it without amendes Such question as these are vaine and curious prosecuted by idle and vnthinkfull Men who not acknowledging the Riches of Gods 〈…〉 and grace in that course of their Redemption which god hath followed would accuse God of Indiscretion for making much adoe about nothing teach him to haue goâ—e a more compendious way to worke then by sending his owne sonne to 〈◊〉 for vs. 〈…〉 stand what God hath not tell him what he might or should haue done According to which course of his now reuealed will we know that God hath declared his euerlasting hatred against Sinne as that thing which most directly and immediately opposeth the Holynesse of his Nature and the Iustice of his Commandments We know that for this hatred which God beareth to Sin no sinfull creature can be able to stand in 〈…〉 And therefore before reconciliation it was needefull Satisfaction should be made where offence had bin giuen Which seeing man could not effect by himselfe God thought it good to prouide a Mediator who should in make peace betweene both So that what euer may be imagined of possibility of other meanes to bring man to Life yet now wee know that sicioportuit Thus Christ ought to suffer Luc. 24. 26. and that it Behoued him to be like vs that being a Faithfull high Priest he might make Reconciliation for our Sines Heb. 2. 17. Leauing then this new way to Heauen neuer frequented but by Imagination let vs follow the old wayes of Iustification that the Scriptures haue discouered vnto vs which are two and no more Either by our owne Righteousnesse and workes or by the Righteousnesse workes of another viz Christ. The former is that way whereby Man might haue obtayned Iustification and life had hee not bin a Sinner But now Man that is a Sinner cannot be Iustified and saued but onely in the later way viz. by the Righteousnesse of Christ the Mediator This Duine trueth is of most infallible certainty and soueraigne consolation vnto the conscience of a Sinner as shall appeare in the processe of our Discourse wherin we shall first remoue our owne Righteousnesse that so in the second place we may establish the Righteousnesse of Christ as the onely Matter of our Iustification in Gods sight By our owne Righteousnesse we vnderstand as the Apostle doth Rom. 10 The Righteousnesse of the Law or of workes which is twofold 1. The fulfilling of the Law whether by the Habituall Holynesse of the Heart or by the Actuall Iustice of good workes proceeding thence For the Law requires both That the Pâ—rson be Holy endued with all inward qualities of Purity and Iustice and that the workes be Holy being performed for Matter and all the Circumstances according to the Commandment 2 The satisfying for the Breach of the Law For he that makes full satisfaction to the Law which is broken is afterward no debter to the Law but to be accounted Iust and no Violater thereof We must now enquire touching these two whether a Man can be Iustified by his owne O-Obedience to the Morall Law Secondly Whether he can be iustified by his owne Satisfaction for Transgression of the Morrall Law Concerning which two Quaeres we lay downe these two Conclusions which are to be made good 1 No Man that is a Sinner is Iustified by his owne Obedience to the Morrall Law 2 No Man is Iustified by his owne satisfaction for his Transgression For the former It is the Conclusion of the Apostle Rom. 3. 20. Therefore by the workes of the Law shall no flesh be Iustified in his sight which we proue by these Arguments The first shall be that of the Apostle in the forenamed place which stands thus Whosoeuer is a Transgressor of the Morall Law he cannot be Iustifiâ—d by his Obedience thereto But euery Man is a Transgressor of the Morall Law ergo No Man can be Iustified by his obedience thereto The Maior is an vndeniable Principall in Reason It being a thing Impossible that a party accused as an offender should be absolued and pronounced innocent by pleading Obedience to that Law which he hath plainely disobeyed Wherefore the Apostle takes this Proposition for granted in these words of his For by the law commeth the Knowledge of Sinne v. 20. That which conuinceth vs to be sinners by that t is impossible we should be declared to be righteous that plea wilneuer quit vs which proues vs guilty Yea t were not onely folly but madnesse to alledge that for ones iust excuse which it selfe is his very fault whereof hee is accused The Maior then is certaine The minor is no lesse viz. That euery man is a transgressor of the Morall Law If any Sonne of Adam will deny this his owne conscience will giue his tongue the Lie and the Scriptures will double it vpon him Which hauing concluded all vnder Sinne averre That If we an Apostle not excepted say We haue no sinne we deceaue our selâ—es and the truth is not in vs. Yea If we say we haue not sinned we make God a her and his word is not in vs The conclusion then is vnfallable That by the Obedience of the Morall Law no Man shall be iustified that is quitted pronounced innocent before Gods iudgment seate This Aposticall argument vtterly ouerthrowes the pride of Man in seeking for Iustification by the Law and it is of so cleare euidence that the Aduersaries of this Doctrine cannot tell how to avoide it But for asmuch as many exceptions are taken and shifts sought out for the further manifestation of the force hereof against gainsayers of the truth it will be requisite to examine there euasions Which we shall doe in the next argument Which is this 2 Whosoeuer hauing once broken the Law can neuer after perfectly fullfill it he cannot be Iustified by his obedience thereto But Man hauing once broken Gods Law can 〈◊〉 after that perfectly fullfill it Ergo Man cannot be Iustified by Obedience of the Law The Maior of this Argument is framed vpon another ground then the former opposed vnto that erronious tenent of our Aduersaries That howsoeuer a man be a sinner against the Law yet neurthelesse afterward be may be iustified by his obedience of the Law Because God for the time following giues him grace perfectly to fulfill it Which opinion is directly contrary to the reason of the Apostle which is That once a sinner and alwayes
my selfe in my minde serue the law of God but in my flesh the law of sinne Euen Paul serues God in the better halfe of him doe what he can sinne will haue a place in his heart a part of his seruice though he be vnwilling to yeeld it If any will compare and preferre himselfe to this holy man he may prooue himselfe prouder but better then him he cannot T is arrogance for a simple Fryer to claime perfection when so great an Apostle disauowes it He that will not acknowledge that corruption in himselfe which Paul in the name of all confesseth in his owne person t is not because such a one is more holy then the Apostle but because he is ignorant and sees it not or high-minded and scornes to be knowne of it Furthermore Reason confirmes what Scriptures and experience doe witnesse viz. that sinfull corruption will hang fast vpon vs vnto our dying day for if we suppose an vtter abolishment of sinne and corruption in our Nature it must needes follow there will neuer be any sinfulnesse at all in our workes and liues Where the Habit is perfect the Action is so too and a sweet Fountaine cannot send forth bitter waters Wherefore seeing not the best of men can liue without manifold actuall sinnes It it apparent that this ill fruit comes from a bad humour in the tree and this defect of actuall obedience comes from the imperfection of habituall holinesse This is sufficient for Iustification of the truth of our first Preposition That inherent holinesse in this life is not perfect Because t is alwayes coupled with some sinfull corruption But here our Adversaries cry out with open mouth that we maintaine moastrous propositions Namely That there is nâ— inherent holinesse in a man that 's iustified that after Iustification a man still remaines a sianer and vniust That in Iustification sinne is not abolished but onely couered with Christs mantle Thence they fall to their Rhetoricke That all Calvinists are but painted Sepulchers faire without full of rottennesse within Like foolish Virgins that haue no oyle of their owne But thinke to be supplyed by that of other folkes Like Wolues in a Lambes skinne which hides but takes not away their rauening and fierce nature Like a leprous person in fine cloathes that lookes to be fauoured and imbraced by his King because his is well apparelled For this is say they to teach That a Man iustified is yet a sinner in himselfe That corruption filthinesse and vncleannesse remain in him when yet in Gods sight he is accounted pure and cleane because hee hath hid himselfe vâ—der the cloake of Christs righteousnesse Whence also they tell vs it well follow Wee make Christs body monstrous a holy beautifull head ioyned to filthy leprous members Christs marriage polluted A most holy and faire Bridegroome coupled to a foule deformed Spouse To this we say Truth is modest yet shee will not bee out-faced with bigge words Their eloquence hath slandered partly vs partly the truth Vs in that they affirme we deny all inherent righteousnesse in a person iustified which is an impudent calumny The truth in condemning that for an error which is sacred verity taught vs by God in the Scriptures viz. That a person iustified is yet after that in himselfe in part sinfull This we still teach and maintaine for a truth firme as the foundation of the earth that cannot bee shaken namely That although a Iustified person is by the grace of the Holy Ghost dwelling in him made inherently holy yet this sanctity is not that perfect purity of the heart which the Law requires because some degrees of impurity and corruption doe dwell in him till death And therefore the most iustified person liuing is yet in himselfe partly sinfull and vniust but the sinfulnesse is pardoned vnto him in CHRIST Against this the Râ—manists contend labouring to proue that in him that is iustified Sinne doth not remaine at all but is vtâ—erly abolâ—shed They proue it by such Arguments as these 1 The Scriptures testifie That Christ is the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world That Hee was offered to take away the sinnes of many That in Repentance our sinnes are blotted out That God will subdue our iniquities and cast our sinnes into the bottome of the Sea in allusion to the drowning of the Aegyptians in the red Sea Wherefore if sinne be taken away blotted out drowned in the Sea like the Aegyptians then sure it is abolished and remaines no longer 2 They prooue it from the Properties which are ascribed to Sinne as namely these 1 Sinne is compared to spotts staines and filthynesse but from thence we are washed by the powring on of cleane water vpon vs and by the Blood of Christ. 2 Sinne is compared to Bonds Fetters the Prison whereby we are holden captiue vnder the power of Satan Now Christ hath broken these Chaines and opened these prison doores hauing deliuered us from the power of darknesse and redeemed us from all iniquity made us free from Sinne to be come the seruants of Righteousnesse 3 Sinne is compared to sicknesses diseases wounds Now God is the best Phisition the most skilfull Chirurgian and where he vndertakes the Cure he doth his worke throughly he cures all diseases and each on perfectly He doth not spread on a sick Man a faire Couerlid or couer a festred wound with a faire cloth as Caluin imagines but by a purgatiue potion he expelles the disease by a healing plaister he cures the wound So that there is not left nor corrupt matter nor dangerous sore that can proue deadly according to that Rom. 8. 1. There is no condemnation to those that are in Christ Iesus that is There is no matter at all for which they deserue Condemnation as those expound 4 Sinne is likned to death nay it is the spirituall Death of the Soule Now he that is iustified is restored to Spirituall Life and where Life is there death is quite taken away seing a Man cannot be aliue and dead both together Wherefore the Apostle saith Rom. 6. 6. Our old Man is crucified with him that the Body of Sinne might be destroyed that hence forth We might not serue Sinne and v. 11. We are dead vnto Sinne. Hence they conclude If the filthinesse of sinne be washed away the Chaines of sinne broken the Diseases and hurts of Sinne healed the Death of Sinne abolished then it followes that Sinne is quite exstinguished and remaines no more in those that are iustified 3 They argue thus If Sinne remaine in those that are iustified and be onely couered then God either knowes of the sinne or knowes it not To say he were ignorant of it were blasphemy all things being naked and bare before his eyes If he know it then either he hates it or he hats it not If he doth not hate it how doth the Scriptures say true
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
Faith only he disputes against that Faith which is false and dead without power to bring forth any good workes So that the Apostles speake no contradictions where Paul teacheth we are iustified by a true Faith and S. Iames affirmes we are not justified by a false Faith Againe S. Paul saith we are not iustified by workes S. Iames saith we are justified by Workes Neither is here any contradiction at all For S. Iames vnderstands by Workes a working Faith in opposition to the idle and dead Faith before-spoken of by a Metonymie of the Effect Whence it is plaine that these two Propositions Wee are not iustified by Workes which is Pauls and We are iustified by a working Faith which is Iames doe sweetly consort together Paul seuers Works from our Iustification but not from our Faith Iames ioyned Workes to our Faith but not to our Iustification To make this a litle plainer by a similitude or twaine There is great difference betweene these two sayings A Man liues by a Reasonable soule and A Man liues by Reason The former is true and shewes vs what qualities and power are essâ—ntiall vnto that soule whereby a Man liues But the later is false because we liue not by the quality or power of Reason though we liue by that soule which hath that quality necessarily belonging to it without which it is no humane soule So also in these Propositions Planta vivit per animanâ— auctricem and Planta vivit per augmentationem each Puny can tell that the former is true and the other false For although in the Vegetatiue soule whereby Plants liue there be necessarilie required to the Being of it those 3 faculties of Nourishment Growth and Procreation yet it is not the facultie of growing that giues life vnto Plants for they liue when they grow not In like manner These two Propositions we are iustified by a working Faith We are iustified by Workes differ much The first is true and shewes vnto vs what qualities are necessarilie required vnto the Being of that Faith whereby the Iust shall liue Namely that beside the power of beleeuing in the Promise there be also an Habituall Pronnesse and Resolution vnto the doing of all good Workes joined with it But the later Proposition is false For although true Faith be equallie as apt to worke in bringing forth Vniuersall Obedience to God's will as it is apt to beleeue and trust perfectlie vnto God's promises yet neuerthelesse we are not justified by it as it brings forth good Workes but as it embraceth the promises of the Gospel Now then Iames affirmes that which is true that We are iustified by a working Faith and S. Paul denies that which is false viz. That we are iustified by workes CHAP. II. The confirmation of the Orthodoxe reconciliation of S. Paul and S. Iames by a Logicall Analysis of S. Iames his disputation in his second Chapter THis Reconciliation is the fairest and hath the most certaine grounds in the text It will I doubt not appeare so vnto you when it shall be cleered from these Cavils that can be made against it There are but only two things in it that may occasion our Aduersaries to quarrell The first is touching the word Faith we say that S. Iames speakes of a false and counterfeit Faith They say he speakes of that which is true though Dead without Workes This is one point The second is touching the interpretation of the word Workes vsed by S. Iames when he saith We are iustified by Workes This we interpret by a Metonymie of the Effect for the Cause We are justified by a working Faith by that Faith which is apt to declare and shew it selfe in all good Workes This interpretation may happily proue distastefull to their nicer Palates who are very readie when it fits their humour to grate sore vpon the bare words and letter of a Text. These cauils remoued this reconciliation will appeare to be sure and good For the accomplishment of this I suppose nothing will be more commodious then to present vnto you a briefe resolution of the whole dispute of S. Iames touching Faith that by a plaine and true exposition thereof we may more easily discouer the cauils and sophisticall forgeries wherewith our Adversaries haue pestered this place of Scripture The disputation of S. Iames beginnes at the 14. v. of the second Chapt. to the end thereof The scope and summe whereof is A sharpe reprehensâ—ion of hypocriticall Faith of vaine Men as they are called v. 20 Which in the Apostles time vnder pretence of Religion thought they might liue as they list Two extremes there were whereunto these Iewes to whom the Apostle writes were mis-led by false teachers and their own corruptions The 1. That notwithstanding Faith in Christ they were bound to fulfill the whole Law of Moses Against which Paul disputes in his Epistle to the Gal. who also were infected with that Leven The other was that Faith in Christ was sufficient without any regard of Obedience to the Law so they beleeued the Gospell acknowledging the Articles of Religion for true made an outward profession all should be well albeit in the meane Time Sanctitie and syncere Obedience were quite neglected The former Errour brought them in Bondage this made them licentious pleasing haeresie if any other whereof there were and will be alwayes store of sectaries who content themselues to haue a forme of Godlines but deny the power thereof Against such hypocrites vain Boasters of false Faith and false Religion S. Iames disputes in this place shewing plainly that such men leaned on a staffe of Reed deceiuing their owne selues with a counterfeit shadow of true Christian Faith insteed of the substance The reproofe with the maine Reason is expressed by way of interrogation in the 14. v. What doth it profit my Brethren though a Man say he haue as many then did and alwaies will say boasting falselie of that which they haue not in truth And haue not workes that is Obedience to God's Will whereby to approue that Faith he boasts of Can that Faith saue him so that Faith vvithout Workes a sauing Faith that vvill bring a Man to Heauen These sharpe Interrogations must be resolued into their strong Negations And so vve haue these tvvo Propositions 1 Containing the maine summe of the Apostle's dispute The other a generall Reason of it The is this Faith without Obedience is vnprofitable The second prouing the first is this Faith without Obedience will not saue a Man The vvhole Argument is That Faith which will not saue a man is vnprofitable of no vse But the Faith which is without Obedience will not saue Ergo Faith without Obedience is vnprofitable The Maior of this Argument vvill easilie be granted Thâ—t it is an vâ—proâ—itable Faith which will not bring a Man to life and Happines But hovv doth S. Iames proue the Minor That a Faith without workes will not doe that though it scarse need any
proofe yet because hypocrisie is euer armed vvith sophistrie for a plainer Conviction the Apostle proues it by this manner of Argumentation That Faith which saues a Man is a true Faith But a Faith without workes is not a true Faith Ergo A Faith without workes will not saue a Man The Maier is euident to all that haue Reason The Minor S. Iames proues by diuerse Arguments 1. dravvneâ— pari from comparison vvith another like vertue Namely Charity tovvards the poore The Argument is thus If Charity towards the poore professed in Words but without workes be counterfeit then Faith in God professed in like manner without Obedience is also counterfeite not true But Charity towards the poore in words professed without deeds is a counterfeit Charity Ergo Faith in God without Obedience is a counterfeit and false Faith The Reason of the maior Proposition is euident from the similitude that is betweene all Vertues and Graces There is no vertue but men may counterfeit and falsely arrogate it to themselues as they may boast of a false Faith so also as Salomon and experience speakes of a false Liberality false Valour false Prudence c. Now there is but one way to discouer this counterfeiting in any kind and that is to goe from words to workes from praesumptions and boastings to actions This way all count most certaine nor will any man beleiue words against workes or be persuaded by faire speaches that the habites of vertues and graces be truly seated in his mind whose tongue tells vs they be so but his doeings confute his sayings Wherefore the Apostle in his comparison proceedes on an vndeniable ground Now for the minor that the Charity which is rich in good words and poore in almesdeeds is not true but counterfeit pitty the Apostle shewes by an ordinary instance If a brother or sister be naked and destitute of daily food that is If a beleiuing Christian want food and raiment or other necessaries and one of you say vnto them depart in peace and be ye warmed and filled If he giue him kind words Alas poore soule I pitty thee and wish thee well I Would I had to giue thee goe in God's name where thou mayest be releiued and so let him passe with a few pittifull Complements notwithstanding yee giue them not those things which are needfull for the body what doth it profit Is the poore man's backe euer the warmer or his belly the â—â—ller with a few windy complements Can such a man persuade any that he hath in him indeed the bowells of mercie and compassion towards the needy when they find such cold entertainment at his Gates 'T is manifest that this is but a meere mockery and that such pittifull words come not from a heart that 's truely mercifull The Apostle now applies this touching Charity vnto Faith v. 17. Euen so Faith if it haue not workes is dead being alone As that Charity so also that Faith which men professe without Obedience is false and fained and therefore vnprofitable to saue a man It is dead How must this be vnderstood Faith is a quality of the soule and qualities are then saide to be dead when they are extinguished As if we should say such a man's Charity is dead it is because he hath lost it that which was in him is abolished But this is not the meaning For then when St. Iames saieth that Faith is dead being alone his meaning should be that Faith seuered from workes is no Faith at all but quite extinguished Now this is not so For there 's a Faith seuered from workes in Hypocrites Haeretiques Reprobates and Deuills Which Faith is a generall assent to all diuine truthes and this Faith in them hath a true being but no sauing vse Wherefore it is called â— dead faith in regard of the effect because 't is nothing availeable to bring them in whom it is to Life and Saluation as a true and liuâ—ng Faith is Heere our Aduersaries haue much strange Contemplation telling vs that Faith without workes though it be a dead Faith yet 't is a true Faith Euen as an Instrument is a true Instrument though it be not vsed So that in their Philosophy ti 's one and the same true Faith which is dead without and liuing with workes Euen as 't is one and the same Body which liues with the Soule and is dead without it or as water is the same whether it stand still in a Cisterne or runne in a Riuer Whence they proceed to discourse that Charity is the forme of Faith and conclude that it is not the inward and Essentiall forme of it as the Soule is the forme of a man for that workes are not essentiall to Faith nor the accidentall forme as whitenes is of Paper because Faith according to their Schooles is in the vnderstanding and Charity in the will But it is the externall Forme of it because it giues to Faith a merit and worthines for the deserving of Heauen These fond speculations of the Forme and merit of Faith I passe by now hauing touched vpon them heeretofore To that which they say That a liuing Faith and a dead Faith is one and the same true Faith 't is vtterly false they differ asmuch as Light and Darknes 1. In their subject a dead Faith is in the Reprobate Men and Deuills A liuing Faith only in the Elect. 2. In their Object A dead Faith assents to diuine Reuelations as barely true or good onely in the generall a liuing Faith assents to them as truer and better in themselues then any thing that can be set against them 3 in their Nature A dead Faith is no sanctifying Grace but a common gift of Creation as in the deuill of ordinary illumination as in Reprobate Men. A liuing Faith is a sanctifying Grace a part of inhaerent holines wrought in the heart by the speciall power of the Holy Ghost All which haue bin heeretofore cleared in handling the Nature of Faith Wherefore vnto those arguments or Sophismes rather which Bellarmine brings to proue that Iames speakes of a true diuine infused Catholique Christian Faith though it be dead faith I answere breifely That we grant a dead Faith to be a true Faith but it is in its kind Because it hath a true being in men and deuils in whom it is and ti 's directed toward true objects But it is not that true Faith which is Catholique Christian sauing This is of another kind and in comparison of this that other is but a meere shadow and counterfeit resemblance of true Faith Wherefore when those Hypocrites accounted themselues to haue that faith which is truely Christian and sauing S. Iames shewes them that this their faith which was alone naked of Obedience was nothing so but a Faith of another kind a dead faith hauing onely a false shew of a true and liuing faith This of the first Argument 2 The Argument is contained v. 18. being drawne from an impossibility in
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
that true Faith which is required of a Christian Man to his saluation The Minor is also euident That the diuels doe belieue the Articles of Christian Religion S. Iames instances in one for the rest namely the Article of the Godhead whereto the Diuels assent aswell as Hypocriticall Men. Thou beleeuest that there is one God saith the true beleeuer to the hypocrite pleading that he beleeued the Articles of Faith Thou doest well 'T is a laudable and good thing to acknowledge the Truth of Religion But vvithall thou must knovv that the diuels deserue as much commendation for this beleefe as thou doest The diuels also beleeue Euen they confesse the Truth of that and the other Articles of Religion An euident proofe vvhereof is this that they tremble at the povver vvrath and iustice of God and the remembrance of the last iudgment vvhich did they not beleeue they vvould not feare but novv they expect it vvith Horrour because they knovv it vvill come vpon them Whence 't is plain that the Faith of Hypocrites and diuels is all one neither better then other both vnfruitfull to bring forth Obedience both vnprofitable to bring vnto saluation and therefore neither of them that true Faith vvhich is Christian and sauing This Argument of the Apostles pincheth our Aduersaries sore vvho stiffly maintaine that S. Iames speakes of a True though of a dead Faith For they can not for shame say that there is a true Faith in the diuels and damned Spirits But yet S. Iames hath concluded that they haue that dead Faith which hypocrites boast of What then Then a dead Faith is no true faith as our Adversaries affirme it is Wherefore to helpe themselues they deny that it is one and the same dead Faith which is in hypocrites and euill Spirits Indeed ex parte obiecti they grant that the Faith of diuels is as true and catholique as that of wicked Men because they both beleeue the the same things And also in regard of the effects they grant their Faith to be alike because both be vnfruitfull But not ex parte subiecti so they say there 's much difference The Faith of diuels is of one sort and the Faith of hypocrites of another But heere they make a litle to bold with the blessed Apostle ouerturning the force of his argument to vphold their owne fancie The Apostle proues against Hypocrites that their idle Faith without Obedience is not true sauing Faith Why Because the diuel 's idle Faith destitute of Obedience is no true sauing Faith But now Is the Faith of diuels hypocrites of the same kinde and Nature Yea or no No they be not they be of a diuerse nature say the Adversaries Let it be then considered what force there is in the Apostle's Argument Faith without workes in Deuils saues them not Ergo Faith without workes in wicked Men saues them not Might not one prompted by a Iesuite reply vpon the Apostle Nay by your leaue your Argument is inconsequent because you doe not dispute ad idem Faith in the diuels is of one kinde Faith in Hypocrites is of another therefore though Faith without works cannot saue diuels yet Faith without works may saue Men. Thus were the Apostle's Argument laide in the dust if these Mens Opinions may stand for good But would you know what distinction these Men make betweene the faith of diuels and wicked Men which St Iames takes for the same 'T is thus First the Faith of Euill Men is free the Faith of diuels is compelled and extorted from them by a kinde of force So Bellarm. Fides hominum malorum libera est captivante nimir ùm piâ voluntate intellectum in obsequium Christi Fides vero Daemonum est coacta extracta ab ipsà rerum Evidentiâ Quod insinuavit idem Iacobus dicens Daemones credunt contremiscunt Nos enim non credimus contremiscentes id est inviti coacti sed spontè libentèr Wicked Men beleeue freely and willingly Why Because their pious and godly Will captiuates their vnderstanding to the Obedience of Christ so causing it to assent vnto the Truth The diuels beleeue vpon compulsion being forced to it by the Euidence of the things themselues Which Saint Iames intimates They beleeue and tremble that is they beleeue against their Wills Is not this a shamelesse Iesuite that will say any thing to patch vp a broken cause For be not these absurd Contradictions to say that wicked Men haue godly Wills that by a pious Motion of the Will their vnderstanding is captiuated to the Obedience of Christ and yet they be hypocrites and wicked Men still No Man can relish such assertions who knowes how averse and fromward the will of Men is to embrace any thing that is of God till such time as it be regenerate by sanctifying Grace It is therefore without all reason to affirme that wicked Men beleeue willinglie and 't is against all experience which shewes that vngodly Men are vtterly as vnwilling to beleue any truth that makes against them in any kinde whatsoeuer as a beare is to be brought to the stake Indeed in matters that like them or such as be of an indifferent Nature neither fauouring nor crossing their Corruptions they 'll be apt to beleeue though not out of a pious affection as the Iesuite dreames but out of selfe-loue and other selfe-considerations But take them in any other point of Religion that doth any way grate vpon their wicked affections all the perswasion and instruction in the World cannot worke them to a beleefe of it till the Conscience spite of their hearts be convicted by some notable Euidence of the Trueth Now what else can be said of the diuels who will as willinglie beleeue what makes for them if any thing did or what makes not against them as any wicked man can doe And they are as vnwilling to beleeue any thing that makes against them as any wicked Man is Nor would they beleeue it did not the cleerenes of diuine Reuelations convince them of the certaine Truth thereof So that there is no difference at all in this respect as the one so the other beleeue vnwillingly as diuels so wicked Men beleeue with trembling The diuels indeed with greater horror as their beleefe and knowledge is alwaies more distinct then Mans but yet Men with horror too when their Consciences by fits are awakened to behold the woes that are comming vpon them Vnto this difference of Bell. others adde two more Namely 1 That the Faith of diuels is naturall that of wicked Men supernaturall and infused 2 That the Faith of Diuels is dishonest the Faith of wicked Men is an honest Faith Whereto we say thus much That touching the first difference we grant indeed that the Faith of the diuels is not supernaturall except it be in regard of the obiect The faculties which they receiued in their creation are not so farre corrupted in them but that they are able
to be obserued because it serues excellently for the clearing of the Apostles meaning when he saieth we are justified by workes And the Scripture was fulfilled saieth S. Iames. When At the time that Isaack was offered But was it not fulfilled before that time Yes Many yeares when the promise of the blessed seed was made vnto him as appeares Gen. 15. 6. Whence this testimony is taken How was it then fulfilled at the oblation of Isaack Thus. The Trueth of that which was verified before was then againe confirmed by a new and euident experiment Well Thus much is plaine enough But heere now the difficulty is how this Scripture is applyed vnto the Apostles former dispute In the 21. v. He saieth that Abraham was justified by Workes when he offered Isaack How proues he that he was so justified why by this testimony Because the Scripture was fulfilâ—ed at that time which saieth Abraham beleeued God c. Marke then the Apostle's Argument When Abraham offered Isaack the Scripture was fulfilled which saieth Abraham was iustified by faith For that 's the meaâ—ing of that Scripture Ergo Abraham when he offered Isaacâ— was justified by workes This at first sight sâ—emeth farre set and not onely besides but quite contrary to the Apostles purpose to proue he was then justified by workes because the Scripture saieth he was then iustified by Faith But vpon due consideration inâ—erence appeares to be euident and the agreement easie The Apostle and the Scripture alleaged haue one and the same meaning the Scripture saieth He was iustified by Faith meaning as all confesse a working Faith fruitefull in Obedience S. Iames affirmes the very same saying that he was justified by workes that is Metonymically by a working Faith And therefore the Apostle rightly alleageth the Scripture for confirmation of his assertion the Scripture witnessing That by Faith he was iustified the Apostle expounding what manner of Faith it meanes Namely a Faith with workes or a working Faith So that the application of this Testimony vnto that time of offering vp of Isaack is most excellent because then it appeared manifestly what manner of Faith it was wherefore God had accounted him just in former times Without this Metonymie it appeares not that there is any force in the application of this Scripture and the Argument from thence The Scripture witnesseth that Abraham was then justified by Faith Ergo 'tis true that he was then justified by Workes What consequence is there in this Argument except we expound S. Iames by that metonymie Workes that is a working Faith And so the Argument holdes firme Take it otherwise as our aduersaries would haue it or to speake trueth according to the former interpretation of our diuines it breeds an absurd construction either way Abraham in offering Isaack was justified by workes that is secundâ Iustificatione of good he was made better How is that proued By Scripture Because the Scripture saieth That at that time he was justified by faith That is primâ Iustificatione of bad he became good Is not this most apparent Non-sence Againe according to the Interpretations of our diuines Abraham at the offering vp of Isaack was iustified by workes that is say they declared iust before men How is that proued by Scripture Because the Scripture saieth That at that time he was justified by Faith that is accounted just in God's sight In which kind of arguing I must confesse I apprehend not how there is any tolerable consequence Wherefore we expound S. Iames metonymically putting the effect for the cause workes for a working Faith as the necessary connexion of the text enforced vs. Nor is there any harshnes at all nor violent straining in this figure when two things of necessary and neere dependance one vpon the other as workes and a working Faith are put one for another Neither haue our aduersaries more cause to complaine of vs for this figuratiue interpretation of workes then we haue of them for their figuratiue interpretation of faith For when we are saied to be justified by faith they vnderstand it dispositiuè meritoriè not formaliterè Faith in itselfe is not our sanctification nor yet the cause of it But it merits the bestowing of it and disposeth vs to receaue it Let reason iudge now which is the harsher exposition Theirs faith iustifies that is Faith is a disposition in vs deseruing that God should sanctifie vs by infusion of the habit of Charity Or ours Workes justifie that is the Faith whereby we are acquited in God's sight is a working Faith Thus much of this Testimonie of Scripture prouing that Abraham was justified by a true and working faith In the next place the Apostle shewes it by a visible effect or Consequent that followed vpon his Iustification expressed in the next words And he was called the freind of God A high prerogatiue for God the Creator to reckon of a poore mortall Man as his familiar freind but so entire and true was the faith of Abraham so vpright was his heart that God not onely gratiously accounted it to him for Righteousnes but also in token of that gratious acceptance entered into a league with Abraham taking him for his especiall freind and confederate A League ofâ—ensiue and defensiue God would be a Freind to Abraham Thou shalt be a blessing and a freind of Abrahams Freinds I will blesse them that blesse thee and an Enemy of Abrahams enemies I will curse them that uâ—se thee Which League of freindship with Abraham before the offering vp of Isaack was therevpon by solemne protestation and oath renued as we haue it Gen. 22. v. 16. c. Thus we haue this first example of Abraham From thence the Apostle proceeds to a generall conclusion in the next verse 24 Yee see then how that by workes a man is iustified and not by Faith only That is Therefore it is euident That a man is iustified by a working faith not by a faith without workes Which Metonymicall interpretation is againe confirmed by the inference of this conclusion vpon the former verse The Scripture saieth That Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed vnto him for Righteousnes Ergo saieth â— Iames Yee see how a man is iustified by workes and not by Faith onely A man might heere say Nay rather Wee see the contrary That a man is iustified by faith onely and not by workes For in that place of Scripture there is no mention at all made of Workes Wherefore of necessity we must vnderstand them both in the same sense And so the conclusion followes directly That euery man is iustified by an actiue not an idle Faith because the Scripture witnesseth that Abraham was instified by the like Faith Our Aduersaries collection then from this place That Faith and Workes be compartners in Iustification we are 〈◊〉 partly by faith partly by workes is vaine inconsequent For when the Apostle saies A Man is iustified by workes and not by faith only his meaning is not that
manner of their Connection is the same that just in euery point as the Soule is to the Body or the Body to the Soule so Workes are vnto Faith and Faith vnto Works It sufficeth to his intent that as in the absence of the Soule the Body so in the absence of Obedience Faith is dead But thence it followes not that workes by their presence doe the same thing to Faith as the Soule to the Body by it's presence or that Faith in the absence of Workes remaines the same as the Body doth in the absence of the Soule If we must needs be tied to the strict termes of the Similitude let vs a little examine the comparison and we shall see our Aduersaries all flye off first from it Let the comparison be first thus Betweene the Body and the Soule Faith and Workes as the termes be in the Text. As the Body without the Soule is dead because the Soule giues life i. e sense breathing and all other Motion to the Body So Faith without Workes is dead because Workes giue life vnto Faith But now this Comparison will not runne on all foure For Workes are not vnto Faith as the Soule is to the Body but as sense and motion is to the Body Seeing Workes are externall acts not internall habits and so are proportionable not to the Soule but to the liuing actions thence issuing Wherefore 't is as absurd to say that Workes giue life vnto Faith as 't is ridiculous to affirme that Sense Motion giue life to the Body which are not Causes but Effects signes of Life Therefore when Faith without Workes is dead 't is not spoken in that sense because Workes giue life to Faith as the Soule doth to the Body Lâ—â— then the Comparison bee thus Between the Body and the Soule Faith and Charity As the Body without the Soule is dead because the Soule is the forme of the body and giues life to it So Faith without Charity is dead because Charity is the Forme of Faith and giues life to it But neither will the Comparison hold vpon these termes For 1. our Adversaries here put in Charity the habit for Workes the act which is more then themselues ought to doe seeing they will tye vs at short Bitts to the very letter of the Text. For though we can be content to admit that interpretation would they admit of the Apostle's plaine meaning not straine for querkes yet seeing they argue so precisely from the Words of the Comparison they must not now haue libertie from vs to goe from them but be content to take the Words as they lie in the Text and make their best of them Yet seeing 't is most senselesse to make Workes that is externall Actions the Forme of Faith an internall habit let them take Charity insteed of them an internall habit likewise Wil it be any better now belike so TheÌ„ 't is thus As the Soule is the Forme of the Body so Charity is the forme of Faith and as the Soule giues life and action to the Body so Charity vnto Faith Will they stand to this No. Here againe they fly off in both Comparisons Charity is one habit Faith another distinct betweene themselues and therefore they deny as there 's good reason that Charity is either the Essentiall forme of Faith as the Soule of the liuing Body or the accidentall Forme as whitenes of Paper They say 't is onely an externall Forme But this now is not to keepe close to the Apostle's comparison but to runne from it at their pleasure when they fall vpon an absurdity in pressing of it so strictly The Soule is no externall but an internall essentiall Forme therefore Charitie must be so if all runne round Againe doth Charitie giue life or liuing actions vnto Faith as the Soule doth vnto the Body Neither dare they hold close to this Comparison For the proper worke or action of Faith is to assent vnto the Trueth of diuine reuelations because of Gods authoritie as themselues teach Whence now comes this assent From the Habit of Faith or of Charity They grant that it comes immediatlie from the Habit of Faith which produceth this action euen when it s seuered from Charity Then 't is plain that it is not Charitie that giues life to Faith which can performe the proper action that belongs to it without it's helpe How then doth Charity giue life vnto Faith For this they haue a sillie conceit Charity giues Life that is Merite vnto Faith The beleefe or assent vnto diuine Trueth is meritorious if it be with Charity If without then 't is not meritorious This is a fine toy wherein againe they runne quite from the Comparison of the Apostle For the Soule giues liuing Actions to the Body not only the Qualifications of the Actions and so Charitie is not like the Soule because it giues only the qualification of Merit vnto the Action of Faith not the action it selfe Beside A most vaine interpretation it is without any ground from Scripture to say a liuing Faith that is a meritorious Faith when euen in common sense the life of any habit consists onelie in a power to produce those actions that naturallie and immediatlie depend vpon that Habit. And what Reason is there in the World why the Habit of Charity should make the actions of Faith meritorious or why Charity should make Faith meritorious rather then Faith make Charity meritorious seing in this life there is no such praeeminency of Charity aboue Faith Wherefore we despise these speculatiue Sophismes which with much faire glozing our Aduersaries draw from the Text but yet when all comes to the Triall themselues will not stand to the strict application of the similitude because it breeds absurdities which euen themselues abhorre Now if they take liberty to qualifie and interpret they must giue vs leaue to doe so too or if they will not we shall take it To shut vp all Their other Collection is as weake as the former namely A dead body is a true body ergo a dead Faith is true Faith This Argument forceth the Similitude and so is of a Force In materiall things which haue a diuerse being from different Causes it may hold But 't is not so in Vertues and Graces Trueth and Life are both essentiall to such qualities True Charity is a liuing Charity i. e. actiue as the Apostle himselfe proues v. 15. True Va Valour And so of euery vertuous quality if it be true 't is liuing and stirring in Action if it be otherwise 't is counterfeit some other thing that hath onely a shadow of it All these Trickes are pin vpon the Apostle to pervert his plaine meaning viz That as it is necessary to the being of a liuing body that it be coupled with the â—oule so 't is necessary to the being of a liuing true Christian Faith that it bring forth Workes of Obedience SECT 7. CHAP. I. None can be iustified by their owne satisfaction
vs vnto the Iustice of God For confirmation of this sacred Trueth deliuered vnto vs in the word and generally embraced by the Reformed Churches yea by our Aduersaries themselues when the Agonies of Consciences the appâ—ehension of Death and of Gods Iudgement doe cleere vp their eyes a litle to behold the vanity of their poore satisfactions obserue we these Reasons First the innumerable Testimonies of Scripture ascribing the Remission of Sinne onely to the mercy of God in Christ crucified That Christ hath borne our Sinnes His bloud hath purged vs of all Sinne His death redeemed vs from all iniquity His Stripes healed vs That he hath paied the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or price of our Ransome That God for his sake hath for giuen vs our trespasses Blotted out our sinnes Cast them behind his backe Forgotten them with store of the like sayings ascribing the doeing away of all Sinnes to the Grace of God through the Satisfaction of Christ without limiâ—ing it to any Sinne or mentioning any satisfactorie workes of ours Now what say our Aduersaries to this By a shift they turne of all Scriptures tending to this purpose Thus Christ hath satisfied for the fault of our Sinnes and so reconciled vs vnto God and for the aeternity of the Punishment but he satisfied not for temporall punishment We must endure Torment's though but for a while This is a meere Cavill without any apparant ground from such Texts of Scripture or necessary deduction from other We deny it therefore as they affirme it And that it may appeare to be but a forged devise Let vs inuert the distinction and we shall hold it with as good probability the other way Christ satisfied for the fault not for the punishments say they We will goe contrary and say Christ satisfied for the punishment but not for the fault We by our owne satisfaction must procure Gods fauour Now let them object what they can against this if we list to caâ—ill as they doe it may be shifted off with as faire probabilitie as they doe our Arguments on the other part Let them name all the places that say Christ hath reconciled vs to God his Father This is easily put off Christ hath reconciled vs. that is Christ deserued such Grace for vs that we by our workes may reconcile ourselues Iust as they say Christ hath satisfied that is procured Grace for vs that we by our workes might satisfie Let them object Our workes can be of no worth to appease Gods anger We will say True Of themselues they are not but Christ hath merited that they should be of sufficient worth Iust as themselues say vnto vs objecting that our workes be not of value to satisfie Gods Iustice. True say they Of themselues they be not but Christ hath deserued for them to make them satisfactorious Thus if euery idle distinction not fortified by necessary deduction from Scripture might passe for a good answere the certainty of diuine Doctrine were soone shaken to pieces and no Position so absurd but would be defended with much facility 2. That Assertion of theirs Namely That the fault is forgiuen and the punishment required is most false and absurd euen in common sense To pardon a fault and be friends and yet require full satisfaction to forgiue the debt yet to exact the payment be not these trimme kindnesses Bellarmine tels vs there be some offences of so grieuous Nature that satisfaction cannot be made but in a long time Now in this case the partie wronged may pardon the other and be reconciled to him yet the offender remaine still bound to make entire satisfaction for the wrong But now the Iesuite doth not name any such case neither indeed can doe For suppose a subject hath offended his Prince and the fault deserued 7. yeares close imprisonment for satisfaction If the Prince should say vnto him I pardon your offence you haue my loue but yet you shall lie by it to the last daie were it not a mockerie would any man thank him for such a kindnes It is to be thought the Iesuites the incendiaries of Christendome would not thanke Christian Princes for such a courtesie if they should pardon them their fault and hang them vp The like absurditie there is in this when they say That after the fault pardoned yet in this Life and in Purgatory the temporall punishment must be suffered For wherefore must it be suffered For satisfaction say they To what To God's Iustice. For what now Is it for the fault and offence committed No That 's pardoned For what then For just nothing Againe this Assertion is contrary to good reason For God's Friendship and his Iustice may not be diuided in this sort as if he were reconciled and well pleased with that Creature which hath violated his Iustice and not made satisfaction for it God's friendship with Man followes satisfaction to his Iustice euen as his Enmity with Man is a consequent of the breach of his Iustice. His righteous will is transgressed therefore he is offended His righteous will must be satisfied before he be pleased So that it is a vaine speculation to thinke Christ hath appeased God's anger but not satisfied his Iustice for as much as his fauour is purchased onely by satisfaction to his Iustice offended 3. This doctrine of humane satisfactions obscures the dignity and ouerthrowes the Force of Christ's satisfactions If we haue a share he hath not all the glory Nay he hath scarse any at all For aske wee For what hath Christ satisfied They say to procure God's Loue to vs. But that cannot be vnlesse he hath satisfied his Iustice. Hath he done this or no Yes he hath satisfied for the Aeternity of the punishment Yea. But how know they that What if we vpon their grounds say That he hath not satisfied for the Aeternity of it but only merited that our sufferings and satisfactions should be aequivalent to the aeternity of the Punishment Especially considering that our Workes according to Bellarmine haue a certaine kinde of infinite value in them Againe Aeternity is but an Accident of punishment of Sinne the Essentials of it are the Losse of Ioy and the sense of Paine if therefore Christ haue satisfied only for that he hath done but the least part Neuerthelesse our Adversaries will needes perswade vs that humane satisfactions doe not so much eclipse as illustrate the glory of Christ's satisfactions in as much as thereby he hath not only satisfied himself but made vs able also to satisfie A great matter doubtlesse But where saith the Scripture any such matter that Christ hath merited that we might merit and satisfie And moreouer by this Tricke whilest Christ makes vs able to merit and satisfie his owne satisfaction is plainly excluded For come to the point and aske Who is it satisfies God's Iustice for Sin Christ or wee Heere Bellarmine stumbles like a blind horse and of three answeres takes the