iudged according to this Righteousnesse and Innocency oh how soone his mouth would be stopped And this confession wrung out from out his Conscience All my Righteousnesse is as filthy Raggs And againe Vilis sum I am vile what shall I answere thee But that other Righteousnesse of Iustification is without vs in Christs possession but ours by Gods gratious gift and acceptation and this euery way perfect and vnreproued in the seuerest Iudgment of God And therefore when a sinner is drawne before the Barre of Gods Iudgment accused by the law Satan his Conscience conuicted by the euidence of the Fact and to be now sentenced and deliuered to punishment by the vnpartiall Iustice of God In this case he hath to alleadge for himself the al-sufficient righteousnesse of a Mighty redeemer who onely had Done and suffered for him that which hee could neuer doe nor suffer for himselfe This Plea alone and no other in the world can stop vp the Mouth of hell confute the accusations of Satan chase away the Terrors that haunt a guilty conscience and appease the infinite Indignation of an angry Iudge This alone will procure fauour and absolution in the presence of that Iudge of the whole world This alone brings downe from Heauen into our Consciences that blessed peace which passeth all vnderstanding but of him that hath it Whereby we rest our selues secure from feare of Condemnation being provided of a defence that will not faile vs when after death wee shall come into Iudgment SECT 2. CHAP. I. The Orthodoxe opinion concerning the manner of Iustification by Faith and the confutation of Popish errours in this point HAuing thus cleared the meaning of this word Iustification and shewed that the Scriptures when they speake of the Iustification of a sinner before God doe thereby vnderstand the absolution of him in Iudgement from sinne and punishment Wee are now vpon this ground to proceede vnto the further explication of this point to enquire by what Meanes and in what Manner this Iustification of a sinner is accomplished That we may goe on more distinctly I will reduce all our ensuing discourse of this point into three heads First touching the condition required in them that shall be iustified Secondly the matter of our Iustification viz. What righteousnesse is it wherefore a sinner is Iustified Thirdly touching the forme of Iustification in what the quality of this iudiciall Act of God iustifying a sinner consisteth Concerning the first at this time The condition required in such as shall be partakers of this grace of Iustification is true faith wherunto God hath ordinarily annexed this great priuiledge That by faith and faith onely a sinner shall bee iustified This the Scriptures witnesse in tearmes as direct and expresse as any can be Rom 3. 28. We conclude a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the Law and Rom. 4. 9. For we say that faith was imputed vnto Abraham for righteousnesse and Rom. 5. 1. Then being iustified by faith we haue peace towards God through Iesus Christ our Lord. With other the like places Whence it is agreed vpon on all sides that a sinner is iustified by faith but touching the manner how he is said to be iustified by faith there is much controuersie and brawle betweene the Orthodoxe of the reformed Churches and their Aduersaries of Rome and Holland the Arminians and the Papists The sentence of the reformed Churches touching this point consisteth of two Branches First that a sinner is iustified by faith not properly as it is a quality or action which by it's owne dignity and merit deserues at Gods hands Remission of sinnes or is by Gods fauourable acceptance taken for the whole and perfect righteousnesse of the Law which is otherwise required of a sinner but onely in relation vnto the obiect of it the righteousnesse of Christ which it imbraceth and resteth vpon Secondly that a sinner is iustified by faith in opposition vnto the Righteousnesse of workes in the fulfilling of the Law Whereby now no man can be iustified In this relatiue and inclusiue sense doe the Reformed Churches take this proposition A man is iustified by faith They explaine themselues thus There are two Couenants that God hath made with man By one of which and by no other meanes in the world saluation is to be obtained The one is the Couenant of workes The tenor whereof is Doe this and thou shalt liue This Couenant is now vtterly void in regard of vs who through the weaknes of our sinfull flesh cannot possibly fulfill the condition of Obedience required therby and therfore we cannot expect Iustification Life by this means The other is the Couenant of grace the Tenor whereof is Beleeue in the Lord Iesus and thou shalt be saued The condition of this couenant is Faith the performance whereof differs from the performance of the condition of that other Couenant Doe this and Liue is a compact of pure Iustice wherein wages is giuen by debt so that he which doth the worke obeying the Law may in strict Iustice for the worke sake claime the wages eternall life vpon iust desert Beleeue this and liue is a compact of freest and purest Mercy wherein the reward of eternall life is giuen vs in fauour for that which beares not the least proportion of worth with it so that he which personnes the condition cannot yet demand the wages as due vnto him in seuerity of Iustice but onely by the grace of a freer promise the fulfilling of which hee may humbly sue for By which grand difference betweene these two Couenants clearely expressed in Scriptures it appeares manifestly that these two Propositions A man is iustified by workes A man is iustified by Faith carry meanings vtterly opposite one to the other The one is proper and formall the other Metonymicall and Relatiue In this Proposition A Man is iustified by workes we vnderstand all in proper and precise termes That a righteous man who hath kept the law exactly in all points is by and for the dignity and worth of that his obedience iustified in Gods sight from all blame and punishment whatsoeuer because perfect obedience to the morall Law in it selfe for it owne sake deserues the approbation of Gods seuere Iustice and the reward of Heauen But in that other Proposition A man is iustified by Faith We must vnderstand all things relatiuely thus A sinner is iustified in the sight of God from all sinne and punishment by faith that is by the obedience of Iesus Christ beleeued on and embraced by a true faith Which Act of Iustification of a sinner although it be properly the onely worke of God for the onely merit of Christ yet is it rightly ascribed vnto faith and it alone for as much as faith is that mayne condition of that new Couenant which as we must perform if we will be iustified so by the performance thereof we are said to obtaine iustification and life For when God by
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
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
forbid For if there had beene a Law giuen which could haue giuen Life verily righteousnesse should haue beene by the Law But the Scripture hath concluded all vnder sinne that the promise by the faith of Iesus Christ might be giuen by them that beleeue Ephe. 2. 8. 9. For by grace ye are saued through Faith and that not of your selues It is the gift of God Not of workes least any man should boast Phil 3. 8. 9. Yea doubtlesse and I count all things but losse for the excellency of the Knowledge of Christ Iesus my Lord. For whom I haue suffered the losse of all things and doe count them but dung that I may winne Christ. And be found of him not hauing mine owne righteousnesse which is of the Law but that which is through the faith of Christ the Righteousnesse which is of God by Faith Out of which places not to name more expresly touching this point of our Iustification we argue thus A Man is iustified either by the workes of the Law or by faith in Christ. But hee is not Iustified by the workes of the Law Ergo He is iustified onely by faith in Christ. In this disiunctiue Syllogisme they cannot find â—ault with vs for adding the word onely in the Conclusion which was not in the Praemises For Reason will teach them that where two Tearmes are immediately opposite if one bee taken away the other remaines alone So that in euery disjunctiue Syllogisme whose Maior Proposition standeth vpon two Tearmes immediately opposite if one be remoued in the Minor the Conclusion is plainely equivalent to an exclusiue Proposition As if we argue thus Eyther the wicked are saued or the godly But the wicked are not saued Thence it followes in exclusiue Tearmes Therefore the godly onely are saued Our Aduersaries cannot deny but that the Proposition A Man is iustified by workes or by Faith consists of Tearmes immediately opposite For else they accuse the Apostle Paul of want of Logicke who Rom. 3. should conclude falsely A man is iusitified by faith without workes if he be iustified either by both together or else by neither Seeing then he opposeth Faith aÌ„d workes as incompatible and exclude workes from Iustification wee conclude infallibly by the Scriptures That a man is iustified by faith alone This Argument not auoidable by any sound aÌ„swere puts our aduersaries miserably to their shifts Yet rather then yeeld vnto the truth they fall vnto their distinctions whereby if t were possible they would shift off the force of this Argument Whereas therefore the Scriptures oppose Workes and Faith the Law of Workes and the Law of Faith Our owne righteousnesse which is of the Law and the Righteousnesse of God by Faith manifestly telling vs that we are Iustified Not by Workes by the Law of Workes nor by our owne Righteousnesse which is of the Law but that we are iustified by Faith by the Righteousnesse of God by Faith Our Aduersaries haue a distinction to salue this Matter withall They say then Workes are of two sorts 1 Some goe before Grace and Faith and are performed by the onely strength of free-will out of that Knowledge of the Law whereunto Men may attaine by the light of Nature or the bare Reuelation of the Scriptures These workes or this obedience vnto the law which a meere naturall man can performe is say they that Righteousnesse which the Scripture cals our owne By this kinde of Righteousnesse and Workes they grant none is Iustified 2 Some follow Grace and Faith which are done by Mans free-will excited and aided by the speciall helpe of Grace Such Obedience and Righteousnesse is say they called the Righteousnesse of God because it is wrought in vs of his gift and grace And by this Righteousnesse a man is iustified By this Invention they turne of with a wet finger all those Scriptures that we haue alleadged Wee are Iustified not by the workes of the Law that is by the Obedience of the Morall Law which a man may performe without Gods Grace But we are Iustified by Faith of Christ that is by that obedience of the Morall Law which a man may performe by faith and the helpe of Gods grace Boasting is excluded saith the Apostle by what Law By the Law of workes that is by the Law performed by the strength of Nature Nay For he that performes the Law by his owne strength hath cause to boast of it By what Law then By the Law of Faith that is by faith which obtaines Gods grace to fulfill the Morall Law Now he that obeyes the Law by Gods helpe hath no cause to boast Israel which followed the Law of righteousnesse could not attaine vnto the law of righteousnesse Wherefore Because they sought it not by Faith that is they sought not to performe the Law by Gods Grace But as by the workes of the Law that is by their own strength Thus Paul desires to be found in Christ not hauing his owne righteousnesse which is of the Law that is that righteousnesse he performed without Gods grace before his Conversion But the righteousnesse of God which is by faith i.e. That righteousnesse which he performed in obeying the Law by Gods grace after his Conversion For confirmation of this distinction and the Interpretations thereon grounded Bellarmine brings three reasons to shew that when workes and faith are opposed all workes of the Law are not excluded 1 It s manifest Faith is a worke and that there is a Law of Faith as well as workes If therefore Rom. 3. all workes and all Law be excluded from Iustification then to be iustified by Faith were to bee iustified without faith 2 It s plaine the Apostle Rom. 3. intends to proue that neither Iewes by the naked obseruation of the law of Moses nor the Gentiles for their good workes before they were conuerted to the faith of Christ could obtaine righteousnesse from God 3 The Apostle shewes Rom. 4. 4. what workes he excludes from Iustification viz. such whereto wages is due by debt not by grace Now workes performed without Gods helpe deserue reward ex Debito but workes performed by his helpe deserve wages ex gratia I doubt but notwithstanding these seeming Reasons the fore-named distinction and expositions of Scripture according thereto appeare vnto you at the first sight strange vncouth farr besides the intent of the Holy Ghost in all those fore-reckoned passages of Scripture Let vs examine it a little more narrowly and yee shall quickly perceiue that in this Schoole distinction there is nothing but fraud shifting By workes done by the strength of Nature wee are not iustified By workes done with the helpe of grace wee are iustified This is the distinction resolue it now into these tearmes which are more proper it runs thus A man is not sanctified by those workes of the Moraâ—l Law which he doth without grace but a man is sanctified by those workes of the Morall Law he doth by
Grace Both Sentences are squint eyed and looke quite awry from the Apostles ayme in this dispute touching Iustification Is it his intent Rom. 3. to proue that a sinner destitute of grace cannot be made inherently holy by Morality or outward workes of Piety or thus That a Sinner cannot attaine to Sanctification by his owne strength but he must attaine to it by the grace of God Take a suruey of the Chapter and follow the Apostles Argumentation All both Iewes and Gentiles are vnder sinne verse 9. therefore euery mouth must be stopped and none can pleade innocency and all the world must be guilty before God and so liable to condemnation verse 19. What followeth hence now Therefore by the workes of the Law shall no flesh be iustified in his sight verse 20. How strange were this Conclusion taken in our Adversaries Construction Ergo By Obedience vnto the Morall Law done without grace no flesh can attaine Sanctification in his sight For neither doth the Apostle speake of Sanctification but of absolution as is apparant All are sinners against the Law Ergo by pleading innocency in the keeping of the Law no Man can be wholy sanctified nor Iustified nor absolued from Blame in Gods sight Nor yet will the Reason immediately annexed admit that glosse Workes without Grace By the workes of the Law shall no flesh be Iustified in his sight Why For by the Law commeth the Knowledge of Sinne that is By the Law Men are conuinced of Sinne and declared not to be innocent Which reason is not worth a Rush according to our Aduersaries Construction He that without grace shall doe the workes of the Law he is not thereby made holy Why Because the Law is the knowledge of sinne The Law thus obserued tels him he is a sinner In which reason there is no force vnlesse it bee true on the other side He that by the helpe of grace doth the workes of the Law is thereby sanctified because the Law thus kept tels him he is not a sinner which is most vntrue In as much as not onely those which are destitute of grace but those that haue grace also and by the helpe thereof keepe the Law in some measure are by the Law notwithstanding convinced to be sinners The Apostle yet goes forward If we be not iustified by the workes of the Law by what then He answeres verse 21. But now is the righteousnesse of God made manifest without the Law We are iustified by the righteousnesse of God But what is that It is saith the distinction that obedience to the Law which we performe by Gods grace A glosse apparantly false For the righteousnesse of God here is a Righteousnesse without the Law But obedience to the Law though performed with grace is a Righteousnesse with the Law because t is the Righteousnesse of the Law For t is all one he that obeyes the Law by his owne strength if he doe it perfectly he hath the righteousnes of the law he that obeyethit perfectly by Gods grace hath still the same righteousnes of the law and no other For so the Law be kept it alters not the righteousnes thereof that we keepe it by our own strength that wee haue of our selues or another helpe that giues vs strength to doe it For then that strength which he giues vs is our owne Which point duely obserued cuts in sunder the sinewes of this distinction for t is cleare the Apostle distinguisheth the Righteousnesse of the Law and of God as different in thir kindes these make them to be one and the same thing Obedience to the morall Lawe but done by diuers helpes one by meere nature the other by Grace This is most contrary to the Scriptures and specially to that excellent place Rom. 10. 3. 4. c. where the Apostle shewing the differeÌ„ce betweene the Righteousnesse which is our owne or of the Law and that which is the Righteousnesse of God or Faith tels vs. The Righteousnesse of the Law is thus described Th Man that doth these things shall liue thereby but the Righteousnesse of Faith speaketh on this wise whosoeuer beleeueth on him i. e. Christ shall not be ashamed Can any thing be more plaine then that the Apostle opposeth heere Doing of the Law and Beleeuing in Christ Not doeing the Law by our owne strength and doeing of the Law by Gods grace These are Iesuiticall glosses that corrupt Apostolicall Doctrine and strangely peruert the worke of Christ in our Redemption as if he had done no more for vs but this viz. procured that where as we could not liue by doeing of the Law through our owne strength God will now aide vs by his grace that we may fulfil the Law and by that Legall Righteousnesse obtaine Iustification and remission of Sinnes We abhorre such Doctrine and doe reiect as vaine and imaginary that distinction wheÌ„ce such absurdities necessarily follow More might be sayed in confutation thereof were it needefull but we haue dealt long vpon this point and t is time to hasten forward By the way vnto the Iesuits Arguments in the defence of this Distinction We answere 1 We confesse Faith is a worke and in doeing of it we obey the Law because as Saint Iohn speakes Iohn 3. 23. This is Gods Commandment that we beleeue in the name of his Sonne Iesus Christ. And therefore the Gospell is called The Law of Faith because the promise of grace in Christ is propounded with Commandment that Men beleeue it But now we deny that Faith iustifies vs as 't is a worke whiâ—h we performe in Obedience to this Law It iustifieth vs onely as the Condition required of vs and an Instrument embracing Christs Righteousnesse Nor can the contrary be proued 2 The Iesuits are mistaken in the scope of the Apostle Rom. 3. whose intent is not to shew the Iew or Gentile could not attaine Sanctification without Gods grace by such Obedience to the Law as they could performe through the meere strength of Naturall Abilities They affirme it strongly but their Proofes are weake being manyfestly confuted by the whole File of the Apostles disputation who clearely and plainely exclude both Iewes and Gentiles from being Iustified by the workes of the Law without making mention or giueing the least Intimation by what meanes these workes must be performed whether without grace or by the Helpe of grace Yea it had been quite besides his purpose so to haue done For the Apostles argument is cleare as the Light and strong as a threefold cord All are Sinners against the Law therefore by obedience vnto the Law Let Men performe which way they list or can without grace or with grace no Man is in Gods sight pronounced innocent 3 To the Last argument out of Rom. 4. 4. we answere The Apostle there proues that the Faithfull children of Abraham are not iustified by workes Because Abraham the Father of the Faithfull was Iustified by Faith and not by workes Where wee affirme
That the Apostle excludeth all the workes of Abraham from his Iustification both such as he performed when he had no grace and those he did when he had grace For those workes are excluded wherein Abraham might glory before Men. Now Abraham might glory before Men as well in those workes which he did by the helpe of Gods grace as those which he did without it Nay more in those then in these As in his obedient Departure from his owne Country at Gods command his patient expectation of the promises his ready willingnesse euen to offer his owne Sonne out of Loue and Duty to God his religious and Iust demeaning of himselfe in all places of his abode In those things Abraham had cause to glory before Men much more then in such works as he performed before his Conuertion when he serued other Gods beyond the Flood Therefore we conclude that Abraham was Iustified neither by such workes as went before Faith and grace in him nor yet by such as followed after This is most cleare by the v. 2. If Abraham where iustified by workes he had wherein to glory but not with God Admit here the Popish Interpretation and this speach of the Apostles will be false Thus If Abraham were iustified by workes that is by such workes as he performed without Gods gratious helpe he hath wherein to glory viz. before Men but not with God Nay that 's quite otherwise For its euident If a Man be Iustified by obeying the Law through his own strength he may boldly glory before God as well as before Men seing in that case he is not beholding to God for his helpe But according to our doctrine the Meaning of the Apostle is perspicuous Abraham might glory before Men in those excellent workes of piety which he performed after his vocation and in mens sight he might be iustified by them But he could not glory in them before God nor yet be iustified by them in his sight So then all workes whatsoeuer are excluded from Abrahams Iustification and nothing lest but Faith which is imputed vnto him for Righteousnâ—sse as it is v. 3. Whence it followes That as Abraham so all others are Iustified without all Merit by Gods free grace and fauour For so it followes verse 4. 5. Now vnto him that worketh the wages is not counted by fauour but by Debt but to him that worketh not but beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly his faith is counted for Righteousnesse These words runne cleare till a Iesuite put his Foote into the streame to raise vp the Mudde To him that worketh that is which fulfileth the Righteousnesse of the Morall Law the wages of Iustification and Life is not counted by fauour but by debt for by the perfect Righteousnesse of the Law a Man deserues to be iustified and saued But to him that worketh not that hath not fullfilled the righteousnesse of the Law in doing all things that are written therein But beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly That is relyeth vpon Christ who by his Righteousnesse obtained absolution for him that is Rightousnesse in himselfe His Faith is imputâ—d for Righteousnesse that is He by his Faith obâ—aynes Iâ—stification in Gods sight not by Merit of his owne but Gods gratious acceptation of Christs Righteousnesse for his But here our Aduersaries trouble the water by a false Inteâ—â—retation To him that worketh that is say they that fulfil the Law by his owne strength Wages is not counted by fauour but by debt but if he fulfill it by Gods grace his wages is paiâ—â— him by fauour not of debt Where vnto we reply That 1 This glose is a plaine corruption of the Text. For by workes in this fourth verse the Apostle vnderstands that kind of workes were of mention is made v 2 By which Abraham was not Iustified and these as we haue shewed where works done by the helpe of Grace not by the meere strength of Nature 2 And againe for the Assertion it selfe namely He that fulfils the mâ—rrall Law by the helpe of Gods grace is iustified by fauour not by debt we say t is ether a manifest falshood or at best an ambiguous speech For t is one thing to bestow Grace on a Man to fulfill the Law and t is another thing to Iustifie him when he hath fulfilled the Law If God should giue strength to a Man exactly to fulfill the Morralâ— Law that were indeed of his free fauour and grace but when this man that hath receaued this streâ—gth shall come before God with the perfect Righteousnesse of the Law pleading that in euery point he had done what was required God is bound in Iustice to pronounce him innocent and of due Debt to bestow on him the wages of eternall Life Adams case is not vnlike to such a Man For God gaue Adam what strength he had yet Adam fulfilling the Law by that strength should haue merited Iustification and Life Therefore when the Apostle speake 〈◊〉 all workes in the perfect fulfilling of the Law he saiâ—h that to him that worketh Wages is not counted by fauour but but by debt he speaketh exactly and the Iesuits in excluding workes done by Grace comment absurdly Thus much touching the third point concerning Mans Iustification by Faith alone as also of the first generall Head promised in the Beginning Namely the condition required of vs vnto Iustification viz. Faith SECT 3. CHAP. I Of the righteousnesse whereby a man is iustified before God that it is not his own inherent in himselfe that in this life no 〈◊〉 hath perfection of holinesse inherent in him I Proceede vnto the second Generall of the Matter of our Iustification where we are to enquire what Righteousnesse it is for which a Sinner is Iustified in Gods sight Iustificatâ—on and Iustice aâ—e still coupled together and some Righteousnesse there must be for which God pronounceth a Man Righteous and for the sake whereof he for Giâ—eth vnto him all his Sinnes Noâ— is a Sinner iust before God because Iustified buâ— hee is therfore Iustified because he is some way or other Iust. The Righteousnesse for which a Man can be Iustified before God is of necessity one of these two 1 Eyther inherent in his owne Person and done by himselfe 2 Or inherent in the Person of Christ but imputed vnto him A Man is Iustified either by something in him and performed by him or by some thing in another performed for him The wisedome of Angels and Men hath not bin able to shew vnto vs any third Meanes For whereas it is affirmed by some that God might haue reconciled Mankind vnto himselfe by a free and absolute parden of their Sins without the interuention of any such Righteousnesse eitheâ— in themselues or in Christ whereby to procure it to that we say That God hath seene it good in this matter rather to follow his owne most wise Counsailes then these Mens foolish Directions T is to no purpose now to dispute what God might
that such a good worke be done so and so what then we dispute now touching particulars in euery Mans reall practice The enquiry is not for the generall What euill is there in such and such a good worke done thus and thus according as the Circumstances are framed in an Imagined Case As to aske what Sinne is their in an Almes-deede done out of Faith and Charity to Gods glory This is a fond question thus framed vpon generall termes we say their is no Sinne in it But the enquiry is in particular what Euill their is in such a worke done by this or that Man according to all Circumstances that were at that time incident to the worke as What sinne was there in Zacheus or Cornelius almes-deeds This question we admit and answere to it That some Sinne there was for which those holy Men as wel as others would not haue beene willing that God should enter into iudgement with them strictly to iudge them Yea but will the Iesuits reply name what Sinne this was or else you wrong them Now this is meere impudency For who is judge of their actions Are we or is it God and their owne Consciences we can be no judges who at furthest can judge but accordrng to outward appearance We know not their Hearts nor are we priuy vnto euery particular Circumstance that did accompany those actions of theirs Circumstances in euery particular action differ infinitely one Man may offend in this point another in that nor haue we a generall Rule whereby to judge alike of all And therefore it is a childish quaere to aske on Man whether another Man offendes who may doe euill a 1000 times not only secret from others but vnwitting to himselfe If then the Iesuite will haue an answere to his question he must resort to particular mens Consciences and to God for only the spirit of Man and the spirit of God know the things of Man Let him aske a Cornelius when he giues almes whether he doe thinke this worke so well done that no fault can bee found with it Doubtlesse he will answere that he cannot excuse himselfe from all faultinesse though he knew nothing by himselfe yet he dares not stand to Gods judgment His confession and prayer would in this case be the same with Nehemiahs Nehem. 13. 22. Remember me O my God concerning this also and spare mee according to the greatnesse of thy mercy at once begging fauorable acceptance of his obedience and gratious pardon of his infirmities If this suffice not in the next place the Iesuite is to repaire to God almighty and question him where the Sinnes in such and such a good workes who no doubt can shape him an answere that will sore confound his pride and folly and make it quickly appeare vnto him that sinnefull Man when he pleades with God is not able to answere him one obiection of a 100 that God shall make against him This of the third Argument That Man hath sufficient meanes to doe well and not Sinne. The last followes drawne from such absurdities as they say doe follow vpon our Doctrine Thus. 4 If say they our Doctrine be true that the best workes of Men be Sinfull then these absurdities be likewise true doctrine That to be iustified by faith is to be iustified by Sin That no man ought to beleeue because the worke Beleeuing is Sinne. That all good works are forbidden because all Sinne is forbidden That God should command vs to commit Sinne because he commands vs to doe good workes That God bidding vs be zelous of goâ—d workes should in effect bid vs be zealous of mortall Sinne. That to pray for the pardon of Sinne were a damnable Sinne. These and such other absurd Positions would be true if the protestants doctrine concerning the sinfulnesse of good workes may stand for good Hereunto we answere That these absurdities issue not out of our Doctrine but out of our Aduersaries malitious Imaginations Who like the ragine Sea casting vp mire and Dirt from its owne Bottome would faine throw all this filth in the face of the Reformed Churches to make them odious and hatefull to the world The best is Truth cannot bee disgraced though it may be belyed These foule Absurdities touch vs not but follow vpon that Doctrine which is none of ours Namely That the good works of the Regenerate are in their very Nature altogether sins and nothing else but sordes inquinamenta merae iniquitates Such an absurd assertion would indeed yeeld such an absurd consequence But we defended it not they abuse vs grosly wheÌ„ in their writings they report of vs the contrary that we doe mainetaine This onely we teach That mens good workes are in part sinfull Much good they haue in them but with all some euill mingled therewith Amongst the gold some drosse also will be sound that will not be able to abide the fire of Gods seuere Tryall Imperfections will appeare in our best workes so long as humane infirmity and mortality hangs vpon vs. This we teach and from this Doctrine all that haue reason may see that no such vnreasonable conclusions can be collected And let thus much suffice for the clearing of this third Proposition touching the imperfection of our obedience to the Morrall Law of God euen in the good workes which we performe From whence euery godly heart should leâ—rne both Christian Humilitie and also Industry First Humility not to boast in the flesh and glory in its owne Righteousnesse thinking that God must highly account off and reward largely that which is very little worth Secondly Industry in a faithfull indeauour after perfection That what cannot be done well as it ought wee may yet euery day be done better then before it was CHAP. IIII. Three generall exceptions against the truthes deliuered in this third Section THus we haue stood long in the confirmation of our second Argument touching the impossibility of Mans fulfilling of the Law in this Life and so consequently of iustification by the Law Against all that haue bin sayed for the profit of this point our Aduersaries haue three Common and generall Exceptions Which are these 1 That Concupiscence or Naturall Corruption in the first and second act of it is no sinne 2 That imperfection in our Charity and Obedience is no sinne 3 That smaller faults or as they tell them Veniaâ—â— sinnes doe not hinder the Iustice and goodnesse of any good worke To these three Positions they haue continually recourse For whereas they cannot deny but that their is in the Regenerate both a pronesse of Nature vnto Euill and also many inordinate Sinnefuâ—l motions arising thence they first deny that either these Naturall Corruptions or disordered Motions of the Heart be any sinnes Againe they confesse that no man hath such perfect loue of God and Man but that he may increase in charity nor be his good workes so perfectly good but that they ought still to striue to doe them
of Mans saluation 1 The first is from Adam vntill Abraham Werein God made the promise to Adam anone after his miserable fall and renued it as occasion serued vnto the Patriarches and Holy men of that first Age of the world viz. That the seede of the woman should breake the Serpents head This blessed promise containing the whole substance of mans redemption by Christ was religiously accepted of and embrased by the seruants of God in those times who witnessed their Faith in it by their offering of sacryfice as God had taught them and thier Thankfulnesse for it by their Obedience and holy Conuersation The second is from Abraham to Moses After that men had now almost forgot Gods promise and their owne duty and Idolatry was crept into those Families wherein by succession the Church of God had continued God cals forth Abraham from amongst his Idolatrous kinred with him renues that former promise in forme of a League and Couenant confirmed by word solemne Ceremonies God on the one side promising to be the God of Abraham and of his seed that in his seed all the Nations of the earth should be blessed Abraham for his part beleeuing the promise and accepting the condition of â—bedience to walke before God in vprightnesse This Couenant with Abraham is ratâ—fied by two externall Ceremonies One of a fiâ—e-brand pâ—ssing between the pieces of the Heifer and other Beasts with Abraham according to custome in making of Leagues had diuided in twaine Gen. 15. The other the Sacrament of Circumcision vpon the flesh of Abraham and his posterity Gen. 17. The third period is from the time of Moses vntill Christ. When after the Church multiplyed vnto a Nation and withall in processe of time and continuance among the Idolatrous Aegyptians grew extremely corrupt in Religion and Manners God againe reuiues his former Couenant made with Abraham Putting the Iewes in remembrance of the Couenant of grace in Christ. 1 By adding vnto the first Sacrament of circumcision another of the Passeouer setting forth vnto the Iewes the Author of their deliuerance as well from the spirituall slauery and punishment of sinne as from the bodily bondage and plagues of Aegypt 2 Afterwards by instituting diuers Rites Ceremonies concerning Priests sacrifices c. all which were shadowes of good things to come viz. of Christ the Churches Redemption by his death Which things were prefigured vnder those types though somewhat darkely yet plainely enough to the weake vnderstanding of the Iewes Who in that Minority of the Church stood in need of such Schoolemasters and Tutors to direct them vnto Christ. The fourth period and last is from Christs death to the end of the world Who in the fulnesse of time appearing in our flesh accomplished all the Prophecies and promises that went before of him and by the Sacrifice of himselfe confirmed that Couenant a new which so long before had beene made with the Church Withall hauing abolished whatsoeuer before was weake and imperfect hee hath now replenished the Church with aboundance of knowledge and of grace still to continue and increase till the consummation of all things In all these periods of time the grace of God that brings saluation to man was euer one and the same onely the Reuelation thereof was with much variety of circumstances as God saw it agreeable to euery season In the first t was called a Promise in the second a Couenant in the two last Periods a Testament the Old from Moses till Christs death the New from thence to the worlds end in both Remission of sinnes and Saluation bequeathed as a Legacy vnto the Church and this bequeast ratified by the death of the Testator typically slaine in the Sacrifices for confirmation of the Old Really put to death in his owne Person for the Sanction of the New Testament But notwithstanding this or any other diuersity in circumstance the substance of the Gospel or couenant of Grace is but one the same throughout all ages Namely Iesus Christ yesterday and to day and the same for euer In the next place By the Couenant of Workes we vnderstand that we call in one word the Law Namely That meanes of bringing man to Saluation which is by perfect obedience vnto the will of God Hereof there are also two seuerall Administrations 1 The first is with Adam before his fall When Immortality and Happinesse was promised to Man and confirmed by an externall Symbole of the Tree of Life vpon condition that he continued obedient to God as well in all other things as in that particular Commandement of not eating of the Tree of knowledge of good and euill 2 The second Administration of this Couenant was the renuing thereof with the Israelites at Mount Sinai where after that the light of Nature began to grow darker and corruption had in time worne out the Characters of Religion and Vertue first graued in mans heart God reuiued the Law by a compendious and full declaration of all duties required of man towards God or his Neighbour expressed in the Decalogue According to the Tenor of which Law God entred into Couenant with the Israelites promising to be their God in bestowing vpon them all blessings of Life and Happinesse vpon condition that they would be his people obeying all things that he had commanded Which Condition they accepted of promising an absolute Obedience All things which the Lord hath said we will doe Exod. 19. 24. and also submitting themselues to all punishment in case they disobeyed saying Amen to the Curse of the Law Cursed be euery one that confirmeth not all the words of this Law to doe them and all the people shall say Amen Deut. 27. 26. We see in briefe what these Couenants of Grace Workes are In the second place we must inquire what opposition there is betweene these two Grace and Workes the Gospell and the Law The opposition is not in regard of the End whereat both doe aime They agree both in one common end namely the Glory of God in Mans eternall Saluation The disagreement is in the meanes whereby this End may be attained which are proposed to Men in one sort by the Law in another by the Gospell The diuersity is this The Law offers life vnto Man vpon Condition of perfect Obedience cursing the Transgressors thereof in the least point with eternall Death The Gospell offers Life vnto Man vpon another condition viz. Of Repentance and Faith in Christ promising Remission of sinnes to such as repent and beleeue That this is the maine Essentiall and proper difference betweene the Couenant of workes and of Grace that is betweene the Law and the Gospell we shall endeauour to make good against these of the Romish Apostasy who deny it Consider we then the Law of Workes either as giuen to Adam before the promise or as after the promise it remained in some force with Adam all his posterity For the time before Mans fall It is
fall as our adnersaries haue done into that Errour of Iustification by workes That blessed Apostle in the second Chapter of his Epistle seemes not only to giue occasion but directly to teach this doctrine of Iustification by workes For in the 21. ver c. He sayeth expressly that Abraham was justified by workes when he offered his sonne Isaack vpon the altar and also that Rahab was in like manner justified by workes when she entertained the spies Whence also he sets downe ver 22. a generall Conclusion That a Man is justified by workes and not by faith alone Now in shew nothing can be spoken more contrary to St. Paule his Doctrine in his Epistle to the Romans and else-where For in the fourth chap. speaking of the same example of Abraham he saieth cleane contrary that Abraham was not justified by workes for then he might haue boasted ver 2. And in the 3 chap. treating generally of mans Iustification by faith after a strong dispute he drawes forth this conclusion That a man is justified by Faith without the workes of the Law v. 28. Which Conclusion is in appearance contradictory to that of St. Iames. This harsh discord betweene these Apostles seemes vnto some not possible to be sweetned by any qualification who knowing that the Holy Ghost neuer forgets himselfe haue concluded that if the spirit of trueth spake by St. Paul it was doubtlesse the spirit of error that spake by the author of this Epistle of Iames. For this cause most likely it was doubted of in ancient times as Eusebius and Hierâ—me witnes But yet then also publiquely allowed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in many Churches and euer since receaued in all Out of which for the same cause Luther and others of his followers since him would againe throw it forth accounting the author of it to haue built not gold and siluer but straw and stubble vpon the foundation Erasmus assents to Luther And Musculus agrees with them both who in his Commentaries vpon the fourth to the Romans speakes his mind simply that he sees not how Iames and Paul can agree together and therefore he turnes out St. Iames for the wrangler supposing that this Iames was one of the Desciples of Iames the Apostle the brother of Christ who vnder pretence of his Master's name and authority continually snarled at the Apostle Paul and opposed his Doctrine Howbeit his Epistle got credit in after times cum veritas paulatim inualescente mendacio proculcari caeperit That is When error by degrees praevailed against the trueth But this medicine is worse then the disease and is rather violence then skill thus to cut the knot where it cannot bee readily vntied A safer and milder course may be holden and some meanes found out for the according of this grand difference without robbing the Church of somuch pretious Treasure of diuine knowledg as is stored vp in this Epistle Wherefore both they of the Romish and we of the reformed Churches admitting this Epistle for canonical doe each of vs search after a fit reconciliation betweene the Apostles But they and we betweene our selues are irreconcileable in our seuerall reconcileations of them They reconcile them thus By distinguishing 1. of Iustification 2 of Workes Iustification say they of two sortes 1. The first when a man of vnjust is made just and holy by the Infusion of Grace or the Habit of Charitie 2. The 2. When a man of just is made more just by the augmentation of the Habit of Grace first giuen vnto him Againe they diuide workes into two sortes 1. Some goe before Faith being performed by the meere strength of nature and free-will without the helpe of grace and such workes as these are not meritorious 2. Some follow Faith being performed by the aide and assistance of grace giuen vnto man and such workes as these be meritorious These distinctions praepared the worke is now ready for the soddering which they finish artificially glewing togeather the proposition of the two Apostles in this sorte St. Paul saieth that Abraham and all men are justified by Faith without workes This say they is to be vnderstood of the first Iustification and of workes done before Faith without grace by the strength of nature So that the meaning of Paule's proposition Abraham and all men are justified by faith without workes is this Neither Abraham nor any other can deserue the Grace of Sanctification whereby of vnjust and vnholy they be made just and holy by any workes done by them when they are Naturall Men destitute of Grace but only by Faith in Christ Iesus or thus No Man merits Grace to make him a good Man of a Bad by any thing he doth before he beleeue in Christ but by beleeuing he obtaineth this On the other side S. Iames saith that Abraham and all others are iustified by Workes not by Faith only This say the Romanists is meant of the second Iustification and of such workes as are done after Faith by the aide of Grace So the meaning of the Proposition shal be this Abraham and other Men being once made good and just deserue to be made better and more just by such good workes as they performe through the helpe of Grace giuen vnto them not by faith only Being once sanctified they deserue the increase of SanctificatioÌ„ through that merit of their Faith and good workes out of Faith and Charity Is not this difference between these Apostles finely accorded think you They will now walke together being in this sort made friends through the mediation of the Schoole-men But it is otherwise They are so far from reconciling them that they haue abused them both and set them farther asunder making them speake what they neuer meant Neither in S. Paul nor S. Iames is there any ground at all whereon to raise such an interpretation of their words And therefore we respect this reconcilement as the shifting quercke of a Scholeman's braine that hath no footing at all in the text Which we doe vpon these Reasons 1. That distinction of Iustification that is of Sanctification into the first giuing of it and the after increase of it howsoeuer tolerable in other matters is vtterly to no purpose as it is applied vnto the doctrine of these Apostles Who when they speake of Iustification of a sinner in God's sight doe vnderstand thereby the Remission of Sinnes through the imputation of Christ's Righteousnes and not the infusion or increase of inherent Sanctity in the soule of man This confusion of Iustification with sanctification is a prime error of our adversaries in this article as hath bin shewed in clearing the acceptions of the word Iustification and shall be shewed more at large in handling the forme of our Iustification 2. The distinction of Iustification taken in their owne sense is falselie applied to St. Iames as if he spake of the 2. Iustification and to St. Paul as if he spake of the first For first Bellarmine himselfe being
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
workes and faith are two Coordinate causes by their ioynt-force-working our Iustification but the Apostle vtterly excludes Faith onely from Iustification and attributes it wholy vnto workes For by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Faith onely he vnderstands faith alone that faith which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 17. alone solitary by itselfe without workes And such a dead faith whereof these hypocrites boasted S. Iames excludes wholly from justifying of a man I say then that he is not iustified by faith onely but that he is iustified by workes That is a working faith that is fruitfull in Obedience The Apostle goes forward from the Example of Abraham vnto that of Rahab verse 25. Likewise was not Rahab the Harlot iustified by workes That is in the same manner as Abraham so also Rahab was iustified by a working saith Which appeared to be so by that which shee did when she receaued the messengers entertained the two spies which were sent to search the land lodged them in her house without discouering them And when by accident they were made knowne hid them secretly vpon the roofe and afterwards sent them out another way conveied them away priuily not by the vsuall but by another way that is through the window letting them downe ouer the wall by a Cord as the story hath it Ios. 2. In this dangerous enterprise wherein this weake woman ventured her life in succouring the Enemies of her King and Country it appeares plainly that she had a strong and liuely Faith in the God of Israel and that the confession which she made with her mouth to the spies The Lord your God he is the God in Heauen aboue and in the Earth beneath Iosh. 2. 11. proceeded from a truely beleeuing heart insomuch as her words were made good by works that followed them Wherefore the Apostle iustly parallels these 2 examples of Abraham offering his sonne and Rahab in the kind vsage of the Spies because both those facts were singular trialls of a liuely faith which was able in that sorte to ouercome what was hardest to be conquered viz. Naturall affection In Abraham both fatherly affection to the life of a deere and only sonne and in Rahab the Naturall loue to ones Country and a mans owne Life did all stoope and giue way when once true Faith commands Obedience Here againe our adversaries trouble themselues and the Text with needlesse speculations telling vs that now the Apostle hath altered his cliffe and gone from the second Iustification in Abrahams example to the first Iustification in this of Rahab That Rahab was conuerted at this time of receauing the spies being made a beleeuer of an infidell a good woeman of a bad That she by this good worke did expiate her former sinnes and merited the grace and fauour of God notwithstanding that she committed a venial sinne in handling of the businesse telling a downe-right lie which though she should not haue done yet it hindred not the meritoriousnes of the worke with such other fond imaginations peruerting the simplicity of the Trueth But first they are not agreed among themselues whether the Apostle doe in that sort shift from one Iustification to another Bellarmine affirmes it and many moe But others deny it as may be seene in Lorinus his exposition of the. 21. v. of this Chapter And were they agreed vpon it sure I am they should disagree from the Apostle who makes this second instance of the same nature with the former 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In like manner saieth he was Rahab iustified viz. as Abraham was Againe when they say Rahab became a true beleeuer at that time of receauing the spies not before 't is more then they can proue By the circumstances of the story it appeares plainely that she beleeued before they came by the relation of the great workes which God had done for his people and the promises that were made vnto them that they should possesse Rahabs countrey This bred feare in others but faith in her by the secret working of the holy Ghost See Ioshua 2. 9. c. And certainly had she not had Faith before the spies came who can thinke she would haue giuen entertainment to such dangerous persons But she knew them to be the Seruants of the God of Israel in whom shee beleeued and therefore by this Faith she receaued them peaceably though Enemies of her Countrey Lastly to that of the Meritâ—riousnes of the worke of Rahab to deserue Grace and Life aeternall we reiect it not only as a vaine but an impious conceit which neuer entred into the humble hearts of the Sâ— of old but hath bin set on foote in the last corrupt ages of the world by men drunken with selfe-Loue and admiration of their owne Righteousnes Thus we haue these 2 Examples whereby the Apostle hath proued sufficiently that the Faith which is separated from Obedience will not justifie a Man therefore that it is a dead Faith and not a true liuing Faith according as was proposed v. 20. Now for a close of this whole dispute he againe repeates that conclusion adding thereto anew similitude to illustrate it by in the last verse of the Chapter For as the Body without the Spirit is dead so faith without workes is dead that is As the Body without the Spirit i. e. the Souls or the Breath and other Motion is dead vnable to performe any liuing action whatsoeuer So Faith without workes is dead that is vtterly vnable to performe these liuing actions which belong vnto it What are those Two 1. To repose it stedfastly vpon the promise of life in Christ which is the proper immediate liuing Action of Faith 2. To justifie a Man in the sight of God which by a speciall priuiledge is the consequent of the former These liuing actions cannot be performed by that Faith which is dead being destitute of good workes That Faith which hath not power to bring forth Obedience is thereby declared to be a dead Faith deuoide of all power to embrace the promise with confidence and relyance as also to justifie A Man would thinke this were plaine enough and needed not to be troubled with any further Câ—villations But 't is strange what a coile our Adversaries make with this similitude writhing and straining it to such Conclusions as the Apostle neuer intendeâ— Hence they gather 1. That as the Soule giues life to the Body as the â—â—rme of the Body so Workes giue life to Faith as the forme of it 2 That as the Body is the same true Body without the Soule with it so Faith is one and the same true Faith without workes and with them which are nothing but sophisticall speculatiâ—â—â— besides the purpose of the Text. The Apostle intends nothing but to shew the Necessity of the Copulation of a liuing Faith and Obedience together by the similitude of the like Necessitie of the vnion of a liuing Body and the Soule But his purpose is not to shew that the
VINDICIAE FIDEI OR A TREATISE OF IVSTIFICATION BY Faith wherein that point is fully cleared and vindicated from the cauils of it's aduersaries Deliuered in certaine Lectures at Magdalen Hall in Oxford By William Pemble Master of Arts of the same house And now published since his death for the publique benefit PHILIP 3. 9. And he found in him not hauing mine owne righteousnes which is of the Law but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God by faith OXFORD Printed by IOHN LICHFIELD and WILLIAM TVRNER for Edward Forrest 1625. TO THE RIGHT WORSHIPFVLL MASTER DOCTOR WILKINSON Principall of Magdalen Hall The Masters Batchelours and other Students of that flourishing Societie SIRS CVstome hath made dedication of bookes almost as common as Printing of them and Wisdome directs there to dedicate where we owe either respect or thankes this worke therefore is yours by right the Author thereof who is now with God vndertaking it at your request and performing it amongst you for your good so that now to bestow it vpon you is not a gift but retribution and I hope it will both stirre you vp to be carefull to continue fit men to stand vp in his place and remaine to his successours as a patterne of imitation if it be too high for aemulation To commend this Authour to you were to bring Owles to Athens and for me to commend the worke would not adde much worth to it I know nothing can disparage it vnlesse it be a naked Margent but you and all that will be pleased to take notice of his yeares and great abilities in all humane learning wil confesse he could not haue time to reade many Fathers and so that defect may be easily pardoned For he had fully finished sixe lusters of yeares yet had hee throughly traced the circle of the Arts and attained to an eminency not only in those ordinary Sciences wherein all Schollers haue some smattering but euen in those sublimer speculations of which all are not capable few search after For hee was export in the Mathematickes both mixt and pure his skill in Histories was also praise-worthy sometime he spent and not without successe in trauailing to learne 〈…〉 and much trauaile in the study of our home-taught tongues that he had worth to laiâ—e beene Professour 〈…〉 or Hâ—brew all which indowments as they 〈◊〉 afterwards haue enabled him to read with much profit so could they not chuse but preuent younger yeares from reading at all the ancient Fathers so it was not want but abundance of learning that tooke vp his time and preuented his Margent and therefore I hope shall not disparage this worke The first weapon young Fencers learne to vse is single sword when they are masters of that they inlarge their skill our Author was but yong let it not preiudice him that he first vses onely the sword of the Spirit the word of God especially sith that is so dextrously weelded that by it alone he hath deadly wounded the Romish Leuiathan Therefore as in my knowledge these Lectures were heard with much applause so doe I perswade my selfe they wil be read with great approbation and occasion the publishing of other Lectures and priuate labours wherein hee tooke no lesse paines nor deserued lesse praise then in his publike indeauours So hoping that you will accept this small paines of mine I take my leaue and rest From Tewkeisbury this 9th of Iuly 1625. Yours willing to doe you greater though not more acceptable seruice IOHN GEREE To the Christian Reader GEntle Reader this Treatise was neither finished nor polished by the Author He left it with mee when hee died to bee dealt with as cause should require vpon perusall I found it fit for the time so full of lifâ— so sound cleere in proofe that in my conceit it will doe much good and here thou hast it as he left it The argument is of all indifference betwixt vs and Papists the chiefest no controuersie more disputed and lesse agreed vpon then this Christ and his bloud is the maine cause of our spirituall peace Papists and others diuide with him and take something to themselues the spirituall pride that is in the heart of man would faine haue a finger in the work of saluation of other controuersies betwixt vs the other party some befor the Popes Kitchin some for the Popes crowne but this of our Iustification toucheth the life of Grace to the quicke breeds more in our flesh then any and thâ—se sicknesses are most dangerous that come from within It is a fundamentall case wherein to faile takes away the essence of a Christian Wherefore sith there is now such need to haue the world confirmed in this truth of God I thought good to send this booke abroad wherein this is put out of question to any man of a single eie that we are not iustified by any thing wee any thing we can doe or suffer Many write bookes and confute them themselues when they haue done but this our Author what hee wrote he beleeued for being to die he confirmed this Truth in a discoursefull of life and power and professed to take his last vpon it that it was the very truth of God Wee reade that some learned Papists when they are to giue vp the ghost disclaime their owne merits and would faine finde all in Christ alone but this our Author did it before sundry with that life and feeling 〈◊〉 cleare apprehension of the loue of God in his Sonne that such is heard him and loued him well and long could not well tel whether they should weepe or reioice weepe to see a friend die reioyce to see him die so Good Reader learne this holy instruction out of this booke that we are not to be found in our owne righteousnes at all and beleeue it thou shalt haue as he had peace passing all vnderstanding in life and in death for being iustified by saith not by workes we haue peace with God saith Saint Paul If any ingenuous learned Papist would vndertake to answer this booke me thinkes I might prophecy that as Vergeziê° Bishop of Capo d' Istria and Nuncio to Clement the seuenth and Paul the third reading Luther to answere Luther was conuerted and had his soule saued And as Pighius tho of a peeuish Spirit enough yet reading Caluin to confute Caluin was in the very doctrine of Iustification confuted himselfe and wrote with vs. So I say would a modest Papist read this booke to reply vnto it he could not but see the truth and yeeld vnto it For tho many have done excellently in this argument yet to speake my opinion freely at least for perspicuitie this surpasseth them all Farewell Thine in Christ Rich. Capel A TREATISE OF IVSTIFICATION CHAP. I. The explication of these tearmes First Iustice or Righteousnesse Secondly Iustification HAuing by Gods Assistance dispatched two of those generall points at first proposed touching the Antecedents and Nature of
If the hardest precepts of the Law may be kept then much more all the rest which are easier But the hardest precepts may be obserued Ergo the rest also They proue the minor thus Three precepts there are which are most hard as all confesse 1 Thou shalt loue the Lord with all thy heart 2 Thou shalt loue thy neighbour as thy selfe 3 Thou shalt not couet The tenth Commandement But now all these three commandements may be kept by the Regenerate Ergo the rest and so the whole Law Wee deny the minor of the Prosyllogisme and say that those three precepts are not to be kept perfectly by any man in this life They proue it in each particular 1 That a man in this life may loue God with all his heart This they prooue ◠By Scripture Deut. 30. 6. The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart and the heart of thy seed to loue the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soule that thou mayest liue This is a praediction or promise of that which was heretofore and is still accomplished in the regenerate who being sanctified and purified from sinne a worke of Gods Spirit in the heart figured by externall circumcision of the flesh should loue God with all their hearts 2 By example of Dauid who saith of himselfe Psal. 1 9. 10. With my whole heart haue I sought thee and God also testifies of him That he kept his commandements and followed him with all his heart to doe that onely which was righteous in his eyes 1 Kings 14. 8. The like is recorded of Iosiah 2 Kings 23. 25. And like vnto him was there no King before him that turned to the Lord with all his heart and with all his soule and with all his might according to all the Law of Moses neither after him arose any like him These men then loued God with all their hearts 3 By reason For to loue God with all the heart carries one of these three senses First to loue him onely and nothing else and so wee are not commanded to loue God with all our heart because we must loue our neighbour too 2 To loue him tanto conatu quanto fieri potest that is as much as may be Nor is this commanded saith Becanus and yet if it were who would say t were impossible to loue God as much as one can 3 To loue God aboue all that is to preferre him before all creatures before father and mother as Christ did Mat. 10. 37. and as Abraham did before his onely Sonne Now this onely is to loue God with all the heart and this men may doe as appeareth in the Martyres and others who left all for Gods loue Vnto these Arguments we answere That it is not so easie a matter to loue God with all the heart as these imagine Bellarmine indeed makes a But at it There is nothing required saith he of vs But to loue God with all the Heart As if it were as easily done as spoken But wee beleeue that in this But God hath set vp a white which all the men in the world may and must aime at but none will shoot so steadily as to hit it Vnto the place of Deuteronomy we say God therein tels vs what his gracious worke is in circumcising or sanctifying our hearts what our bounden duty is thereupon viz. to loue him with all our hearts the performance whereof wee must endeauour syncerely chough we cannot doe it perfectly For the examples of Dauid and Iosiah who are said to follow the Lord with all their heart there is nothing else meant thereby but a syncere intent and endeauour in the generall to establish and maintaine Gods pure Religion in their Kingdome free from corruption of Idolatry as also for their owne particular conversation to liue vnblameably For Dauid t is a cleare case that not perfection but syncerity is his commendations whose many sinnes recorded in the Scriptures witnesse sufficiently that hee had in his heart that corruption which many times turned the loue thereof from God to other things How did he loue God with all his heart when hee defiled Vriahs bed shed Vriahs blood intended to murder Nabal iudg'd away an honest mans Lands to a fawning Sycophant with such other faults The Prophet himselfe in that place in 119. Psal. witnesseth as the vprightnesse of his heart With my whole heart haue I sought thee so withall the weaknesse and corruption of it against which he humblie craues Gods assistance in the very next words Let me not wander from thy commandements For Iosiah t is plaine that this singular commendations is giuen him because of his through reformations of the most corrupt estate of Religion which was before his reigne Wherein many Godly Kings before him had done something in redressing some abuses but none went so farre in a zealous reformation of all according to Moses Law Wherefore the Text saith that there was no King before him like vnto him which cannot be meant absolutely of all for Dauid is said to follow Gods will with all his heart as well as Iosiah but since the time that Religion began to bee corrupted in the Iewish Church there was none of all the Kings of Iudah that was so faithfull as Iosiah to restore all things to their first purity Whence he hath the praise that he turned vnto God more entirely then any other King before or after him But now from Iosiahs zeale in reformation to conclude that in euery particular of his life he kept the Law perfectly louing God with all his heart is a consequence that wants strength of connexion Vnto the reason from the meaning of the Law we grant That the first is not the meaning of it But for the second viz. That to loue God with all the heart is to loue him as much as may be The Iesuite hath no reason either to deny that this is not commaunded or to affirme that if it were commanded t is yet possible to doe it Would any man say except he care not what he say that God doth not command vs to loue him as much as may be Or will it bee a truth from any mans tongue to say that he loues God with as great perfection as may be It cannot Which appeares thus Gods will is that we should loue him with all our hearts Now Christ hath taught vs to pray Thy will bee done in earth as it is in Heauen Thence t is euident Wee on Earth are bound to fulfill the Commandement of louing God as the Saints in Heauen doe fulfill it But now our Aduersaries themselues grant that whil'st wee bee in viâ wee cannot loue God so much as we shall d ee in Patriâ Whence it followes that no man can loue him so much as may be and as he ought to doe seeing no man hath his heart replenished with that measure of Diuine loue whereof his Nature is capable which either Adam had in his
ergo if God had giuen such a Law to the Iewes as could haue brought Saluation to them through the perfect fulfilling of it 't is apparant that God had made voide his former Couenant vnto Abraham because Righteousnes should haue bin by the Law and not by Christ. But now God gaue no such Law as could be kept by the Iewes as the Apostle proues because all were sinners against it and therefore it followes that notwithstanding the giuing of the Law the Promise standes good for euer and Righteousnes is to be odtained onely by the Faith of Iesus Christ. From hence we conclude firmely That the difference betweene the Law and the Gospell assigned by our Diuines is most certaine and agreable to the Scriptures viz. That The Law giues Life vnto the Iust vpon Conâ—ition of perfect Obedience in all things The Gospell giues Life vnto Sinners vpon Condition they repent and beleiue in Christ Iesus Whence it is plaine That in the point of Iustification these two are incompatible and that therefore our minor Proposition standes verified That Iustification by the workes of the Law makes voide the Couenant of Grace Which Proposition is the same with the Apostles assertion else-where Gal. 2. 21. If Righteousne be by the Law Christ died in vaine and Gal. 5. 4. Ye are abolished from Christ whosoeuer are iustified by the Law yee are fallen from Grace By somuch more iuiurious are these of the Romish Church vnto the Gospell of Christ when by denying this difference they would confound the Law and Gospell and bring vs backe from Christ to Moses to seeke for our Iustification in the fulfilling of the Morall Law They would persuade vs that the Gospell is nothing but a more perfect Law or the Law perfected by addition of the Spirit enabling men to fulfill it That the promises of the Gospell be vpon this Condition of fulfilling the Law with such like stuffe Their Doctrine touching this point is declared vnto vs by Bellarmine Lib 4. de Iustificat cap. 3. 4. Where he comes many distinctions betweene the Law and Gospell but will by no meanes admit of that which our Reformed Diuines make to be the chiefe The cheife distinction which he conceaues to be betweene them he frameth thus The Gospell saieth he is taken in a double sense 1. For the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles by them preached and written 2. For the Grace of the Holy Ghost giuen iu the New Testament which he makes to be the Law written in our Hearts the quickening Spirit the Law of Faith Charity shed abroad in our Hearts in opposition to the Law written in stone to the dead and killing Letter the Law of Workes the Spirit of bondage and feare Vpon this he proceeds to the difference betweene the Law and the Gospell Thus. The Law teacheth vs what is to be done the Gospell if it be taken for the Grace of the holy Ghost so it differs from the Law because it gaines strength to doe it but if it be taken for the Doctrine deliuered by Christ and his Apostles so it agrees with the Law teaching vs as the Law doth what things are to be done This Argument the Iesuite illustrates and proues in three particulars 1. The Gospell containes Doctrinam operum or Leges For Morall praecepts they be the same in the Gospell that be in the Law euen those praecepts that seeme most Euangelicall viz of louing our Enemies witnes of this all the writings of the New Testament wherein euery where we find praecepts exhortations to the same virtues Prohibitions and dehortations from the same vices which the Law forbids or commands So that for Morals the Doctrine of the Gospell is but the Doctrine of the Law newly that is most cleerely and fully expounded Nor is the Gospell in a more perfect substance but in Circumstance a more perspicuous Doctrine Which though a Trueth yet is very ridiculouslie proued by the Cardinall out of Mat. 5. Nisi abundauerit c. Vnlesse your Righteousnes exceed What He saieth not the righteousnes of the Law and Prophets but of the Scribes and Pharisees yee shall not enter c. A profound Glosse Christ would not add to the Burden of the Law but take away from the false glosse of the Scribes and Pharisees Surely good cause had our Sauiour to taxe both the Doctrine of the Pharisees in interpreting and their manners in their hypocriticall practice of the Law in outward matters without inward Obedience But litle Reason was there that Christ should require of man more perfection then Gods Law required and 't is a fancie to dreame of any such meaning in our Sauiours speach 2 The Gospell containes Comminations and threatnings as the Law doth Witnes the many woes from Christ's owne mouth against the Scribes and Pharisees together with those frequent denunciations of Iudgement and Damnation to such as are vngodly that doe not repent and obey the Gospell 3 Thirdly the Gospell containes promises of Life and happines but these Euangelicall promises be not absolute but vpon the same Condition that the Legall are viz Cum conditione implendae Legis Cum conditione Iustitiae actualis operosae quae in perfecta Mandatorum obseruatione consistit Cap. 2. This the Iesuite would proue vnto vs. 1. From that Math. 5. Vnlesse your Righteousnes aboud c. that is in Bellarmines Construction so far as vnto the perfect keeping of the Law you shall not enter into the Kingdome of Heauen 2. From Mat. 19. 17. Mat. 10. 19. Where Christ speakes to the yong man Asking him what he should doe to be saued If thou wilt enter into Life keepe the Commandements And to the Lawyer 10. 28. who asked the like Question he answeres This doe and thou shalt liue That is Fulfill the Law and thou shalt be saued In which wordes they say That Christ did preach the Gospell and shewed vnto these men the very Evangelical way to Saluation 3. From the many places of Scripture Wherein Mortificatiâ—n of Sinne and the studious practice of Holines and Obedience is required of vs. As. Rom. 8. If yee mortifie the deed 's of the flesh by the Spirit yee shall liue So. Ezekiel 18. 21. If the wicked will returne from all his Sinnes that he hath committed and keepe all my statutes and doe that which is lawfull and Right he shall surely liue and not die With a Number such like places 4. From the very Tenor of the Gospell He that belieueth shall be saued but he that belieueth not shall be damned Where we see the Promise of Life is not absolute but conditionall If we doe such and such workes From hence the Romanist concludes That seeing the precepts threatnings and promises of the Gospell be for matter the same that those of the Law are the true difference betweene the Law and Gospell shall be this That the Law nakedly proposeth what is to be done without giuing grace to performe it but the
the Gospell bee all vpon condition of obedience but none vpon condition of perobedience T is an iniury done vnto vs whē they say we teach that Euangelicall promises be absolute and without condition as if God did promise and giue all vnto vs and wee doe nothing for it on our parts We defend no such dotage The promises of the Gospell be conditionall viz. Namely vpon condition of repentance and amendment of life That we study to our power to obey God in all things but this is such a condition as requires of sincerity and faithfulnesse of endeauour not perfection of obedience in the full performance of euery jot and Tittle of the Law Vnto the last Argument from the tenour of the New Couenant viz. That we must beleeue if we will be saued ergo the promise of the Gospell is with condition of fulfilling the Law This is an Argument might make the Cardinals cheeke as red as his Cap were there any shame in him Faith indeed is a worke and this worke is required as a condition of the promise but to doe this worke To beleeue though it be to obey Gods Commandement yet it is not perfectly to fulfill the whole Law but perfectly to trust in him who brings mercy and pardon for transgressions of the Law CHAP. II. Of Bellarmines erroneous distinction of the word Gospell SO much of the first member of the Iesuits distinction wherin his sophisticall fraud appeares taking the Gospel for the whole doctrine of the New Testament published by Christ and his Apostles and ergo confounding the Law Gospell as one because he findes the Law as well as the Gospell deliuered vnto vs by our Sauiour and his Ministers I proceed to the second branch of it The Gospell saith he is taken for the grace of the holy Ghost giuen vs in the New Testament whereby men are made able to keepe the Law T is so taken But where is it so taken The Iesuit cannot tell you that Vt verum fatear saith he nomen Evangelij non videtur in Scripturis uspiam accipi nisi pro doctrind No good reason for it in as much as t is euident to all me that there is great difference betweene the doctrine of Mans saluation by the Mercy of God through the Merits of Christ which is properly the Gospell and the graces of the Holy Ghost bestowed on man in his Regeneration whereby he is made able in some measure to doe that which is good But the fault is not so much in the name in calling the grace of God in vs by the name of Gospell as in the mis-interpretation of the matter it selfe Wherein two errours are committed by the Iesuite 1 In that he maketh the grace of the New Testament to be such strength giuen to man that thereby he may fulfill the Law 2 In that he saith The Law was giuen without grace to keepe it In both which assertions their is ambiguity and Error For the first We grant that grace to doe any thing that is good is giuen by the Gospell not by the Law The Law commands but it giues no strength to Obey because it persupposeth that he to whome the command is giuen hath or ought to haue already in himselfe strength to Obey it And Ergo we confesse it freely that we Receaue th◠Spirit not by the workes of the Law but by the hearing of Faith preached as it is Gal. 3. 2. The Donation of the Spirit in any measure whatsoeuer of his sanctifying graces is from Christ as a Sauiour not as a Lawgiuer Thus when we agree That all Graces to doe well is giuen vnto vs by the Gospell but next we differ They teach that the Gospell gies such grace vnto man that he may fulfill what the Law commands and so be Iustified by it we deny it and say that Grace is giuen by the Gospell to obey the Law sincerely without hyppocricy but not to fulfill it perfectly without infirmities In which point the Iesuite failes in his proofes which he brings 1 Out of those places where contrary Attributes are ascribed to the Law and Gospell Vnto the Law That it is the ministry of death and Condemnation Killing Letter that it workes wrath that it is a Yoake of Bondage a Testament bringing forth Childeren vnto Bondage But vnto the Gospell that it is The ministry of Life and of Reconciliation the Spirit that quickeneth the Testament that bringeth forth Childeren to Liberty which opposition Bellarmine will haue to bee because The Law giues precepts without affording strength to keepe them but the Gospell giues grace to doe what is Commanded But the Iesuite is here mistaken These opposite attributes giuen to the Law are ascribed to it in a twofold respect 1 Inregard of of the punishment which the Law threatens to offenders viz. Death In which regard principally the Law is said to be the ministry of Death to worke wrath to be not a dead but a Killing Letter in asmuch as being broken it leaues no hope to the Transgresser but a fearefull expectation of eternall Death and condemnation of the Law vnder the Terrors whereof it holds them in bondage But on the Contrary the Gospell is the ministery of Life of reconciliation of the quickening spirit and of Liberty because it reueales vnto vs Christ in whom we are restored to Life from the deserued Death and condemnation of the Law vnto Gods fauour being deliuered from the wrath to come vnto liberty being freed from slauish feare of Punishment This is the cheefe Reason of this opposition of Attributes Secondly the next is in regard of Obedience In which respect the ministry of the Law is said to be the Ministery of the Letter written in tabels of stone but that of the Gospell is called the ministery of the Spirit which writes the Law in the fleshly tables of the heart Because the Law bearely commands but Ministers not power to obey so is but as a dead Letter without the Vertue of the Spirit But in the Gospell grace is giuen from Christ who by the Holy Ghost sanctifieth the heart of his Elect that they may liue to Righteousnesse in a sincere thought not euery way exact conformity to the Law of God The like answere we giue vnto another proofe of his 2 Out of that place Iohn 1. 17. The Law came by Moses but Grace and truth by Iesus Christ. that is saith Bellarmine The Law came by Moses without grace to fulfill it but grace to keepe it by Christ. We answere The true interpretation of these words is this Moses deliuered a twofold Law morall and ceremoniall Opposite to these Christ hath brought a twofold priuiledge Grace for the morall Law whereby we vnderstand not only power giuen to the regenerate in part to obserue this Law which strength could not come by the Law it selfe but also much more Remission of sinnes committed against the Law and so our Iustification and freedome
them without breach of Conscience in disobeying and violâ—ting also Gods Commandement But otherwise for any immediate power over the conscience to restraine the inward liberty thereof no man without praesumption may arrogate its nor any without slauish basenes yeeld to another as the Apostle commands ye are bought with a price be not yee seruants of men This is in breife the Doctrine of Christian or spirituall lâ—berty which we call Christian 1. from the cause of it Christ by whose purchase we enioye it 2. From the subject of it Christians in opposition to the Iewes who had not this liberty in all parts of it as we haue Namely in freedome from the Ceremoniall Law and restraint in things indifferent In all other parts they in their measure were freed by Christ as well as we Againe we call it spirituall in opposition to ciuill and bodily Liberty because it stands in the freedome of Soâ—le and Conscience not in the freedome of the outward man the bondage and subjection whereof is no impeachment to this spirituall freedome As Anabaptisticall Libertines would perswade the world contrary to the Apostles decision 1. Cor. 7. 22. He that is called in the Lord being a seruant is the Lords Free-man CHAP. II. Iustification by workes subjects vs to the rigour and curse of the Law WE are now in the next place to see which braunch of our liberty is cut off by the doctrine of Iustification by workes Not to meddle with others whereat it giues a backblow but to take that which it directly strikes at we say it destroies our Liberty from the moral Law which stands heerein that we are not obliged vnto the perfect fulfilling of that Law vpon paine of aeternall Daemnation if we doe it not This gratious liberty Christ hath enfranchised vs withall whosoeuer beleiue in him and they that now teach we are justified by workes of the Law doe rob our Consciences of this heauenly Freedome bringing vs again vnder that miserable boÌ„dage vnto the Law wherein all men are holden which are in state of infidelity vnregeneration from whom the Law in extremest rigour exacts perfect ObedieÌ„ce if they will be sauâ—d For the cleering heereof this in the first place is manifest That he which will be justified by the workes of the Law is necessarily tied to fulfill the whole Law seeing ti 's impossible the Law should justifie them that transgresse it In the next place then we must proue that for a mans Conscience to be thus tyed to the fulfilling of the Law for the obtayning of Iustification is an vnsupportable yoake of spirituall Bondage contrary to that liberty wherewith Christ hath made euery beleeuer free This shall appeare in confirming of this Proportion A Man regenerate endued with true faith in Christ Iesus is not bound in Conscience vnto the fulfilling of the whole Law for his Iustification This Proposition seemes very strange vnto our adversaries and to be nothing else but a ground-plot wherein to build all licenciousnes and Libertinisme as if we did discharge men of all Alleageance to God subjection to his Lawes But their Calumnies are not sufficient confutations of orthodox Doctrine for the stopping of their mouthes we throw them this distinction whereon they may gnaw while they breake their teeth before they bite it in pieces Mans conscience stands bound vnto the Law of God in a two fold obligation Either 1. Of Obedience that according to the measure of Grace receiued he endevour to the vtmost of his power to liue conformably to the Law of God in all things 2. Of fulfilling the Law that in euery jot and tittle he obserue all things whatsoeuer it commands vpon paine of everlasting condemnation for the least transgression We teach that no true Beleeuer is freed from the Obligation vnto Obedience but so farre as by grace giuen him he is enabled he ought to striue to the vtmost to performe all duties towards God man commanded in the Law if he will justifie his faith to be sound without Hypocrisy And ergò our Doctrine is no doctrine of Licentiousnes But on the other side we teach That euery true beleeuer is freed from that obligation vnto the fulfilling of the Law for the attaining of life justification by it Which materiall difference for the cleering of our doctrine not obserued or rather suppressed by Bellarmine causeth the Iesuite to labour much in a needlesse dispute to proue against vs That a Christian man is tyed to the obseruation of the morall Law He tells vs that Christ is a Law-giuer aswell as a Redeemer of his Church praescribing orders for all in common for each one in particular That he is a Iudge that sentenceth according to Law That he is a King that ruleth ouer subjects vnto a Law That Christ by his comming did not destroy but fulfill the Law expounded it enioyned it to be observed by vs. That his Apostles vrge it in euery Epistle That a Christian man sinniug offends against the Law ergò is bound to keepe the Law In all which the Iesuite encounters his owne phantasy not our doctrine which is not wounded by such misguided weapons For we grant without striuing that every Christian is tyed to obserue the Morall Law and we averre that it is a most vnchristian Iesuiticall slaunder to affirme as he doth that we teach Christianum nulli Legi obnoxium subjectum esse in Conscientia coram Deo Nay we teach that he is bound to obey to the vtmost of his power and from this obligation no authority of Man or Angell Pope or Deuill can discharge him So much we grant the Arguments alleaged by the Cardinall doe enforce and nothing else They proue Obedience necessary to a beleeuing Christian but they can neuer proue perfect fulfilling of the Law to be necessarily required of him From this heauy burthen Christ hath eased the shoulders of all such as are in him by a liuely Faith of whom God doth no longer exact perfect Obedience to his Law in those strict and rigorous termes that they shall be accursed if they fulfill it not This we proue by these Scriptures 1. Gal 1. 2. 3. Stand fast saith the Apostle in the Liberty wherein Christ hath made vs free and be not entangled againe with the yoake of bondage But what is this Yoake of Bondage Is it onely the obseruation of the Ceremoniall Law No. That was indeed part of the yoake which the Apostles sought to lay on the Consciences of the Galatians But 't was the least and the lightest part the weightiest burthen was the fulfilling of the Morall Law wherevnto by the doctrine of the false Apostles the Galatians stood obliged This is plaine by the Text in the words following Behold I Paul say vnto you that if you be circuÌ„cised Christ shall profit you nothing For I testifie againe to euery man which is circumcised that he is bound to keepe the whole Law The Apostles
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
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