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
coinquinatum intrare potest Now sure this is admirable that such acts as these should defile a man deserue hell offend God in a word be sinnes and yet for all this neither commanded nor forbidden in any Law of God Was there euer such a toy heard of as this as Sinnes beside the Law T is a most ridiculous contradiction Peccatum praeter Legem He that doth any thing beside the Law not mentioned nor include â— therein by way of prohibition or command t is most apparent he sinnes not nor offends not at all For whom doth he offend or who can challenge him of Sinne Doth God the Law-giuer No for t was not his intention to command or forbid such an act and ergo be it done or not done it crosseth not his will nor hath he any reason to finde fault or be displeased at it Satan or Man cannot accuse him For let them then shew the Law that prooues him an offender If they cannot alleadge a Law against which he hath transgressed they wrongfully accuse him of a fault Were it not absurd accusation against a prisoner at the Barre to say that he hath indeed done nothing against the Lawes of the Land but many things besides the Law not forbidden nor commanded in the Law those hee hath done and deserues to be punished for it as an offender But now if those veniall sinnes bee mentioned in Gods Law then are such actions either commanded or forbidden If commanded then the not doing of such a thing is plainely contrary to the Law As for example To steale a penny or some other small matter to please an idle word to tell an officious lie these be veniall sinnes say our Aduersaries But how hnow they they be sinnes who told them so The Scriptures they will say Where In the 8 and 9 Commandement Aske them now Did God intend in those Commandements to forbid those actions of stealing and lying Yea or No If he intended it not then t is no sinne at all to doe them seeing it croâ—seth not Gods will nor offends him If he did intend to forbid vs those things then to doe them is a sinne manifestly contrary to the holy will of God the Lawgiuer Wherfore let vs here remeÌ„ber that excellent rule of Bernard Non iussa quïdem licitè vtrumlibet vel admittuntur vel omittuntur iussa vero sine culpa non negleguntur sine crimine non â—ontemnuntur For things not commanded we may either lawfully doe them or leaue them but for things commanded to neglect them is a sinne to contemne them is a haynous crime Wherefore this distinction of sins against and sinnes beside the Law falleth to dust and our Minor Proposition stands firme That he who committeth veniall Sinne transgresseth the Law of God and therefore is vnrighteous for his so doing Becanus here forsakes the Cardinall in this distinction and helpes him by an other deuisâ— He grants that Veniall Sinnes be against the Law and proues it because euery Veniall Sinne is moraliter malum and Ergo contra rectam rationemet Legem aeternam But here 's now the distinction It is one thing to be contra Legem another contra finem Legis All Veniall sinnes be against the Law but no veniall sinne is properly against the end of the Law that is against Charity the Loue of God or our Neighbour Is not this a superfine Inuention As if a Subiect that hath in many things broken the Law should say True my faults be against the Law of the Land but yet they are not against the end of those Lawes viz. obedience to my Prince and Loue to the good of him and my Country Though I break the Lawes yet I would not haue you thinke but I loue and honour my Prince and Country well enough Iust so the Iesuits A man may commit many sinnes against Gods Law and yet obserue the end of the Law in louing God with all his heart and his Neighbour as himselfe Then which nothing can be more senselesse that a man should offend God in breaking of his Law and yet not withstanding loue God with his whole heart That a man should wrong his Neighbour doing that to him which he would not haue done to himselfe and yet for all that loue his Neighbour as himselfe If ye loue mee keepe my Commandemâ—nts saith Christ. Iohn 14. 15. Nay say the Romanists we loue him and yet breake his Commandements Loue doth none euâ—l to his Neighbour saith the Apostle Romans 13. 10 Nay say the Iesuits Loue may doe euill to his Neâ—ghbour and yet keepe the name of loue A man may be angry with another without cause reuile him and call him Racha hee may defraude him in small matters for these they make veniall sinnes and yet in the meane time all this without breath of Charity Himselfe would not willingly be so vsed but hee will vse another in this sort and yet looke to bee thanked for his loue too Such grosse absurdities doe our Aduersaries runne in to by coyning such senselesse distinctions of Sinnes not against but besides the Law of sinnes not against the end of the Law though against the Law it selfe Our Consciences cannot be satisfied with such silly shiftes and therefore we leaue them vnto those that can content themselues and choake vp their Consciences with a little sophistry Men who make a pastime of sinne and take liberty to qualifie and dispence with Gods Law as they thinke agreeable to their Conscience hoping by tricks of wit and dodging Distinctions to a void the accusations of Conscience and to elude the seuerity of Gods Iudgement SECT 4. CHAP I Iustification by workes makes void the couenant of grace of the difference between the law the Gospel of the vse of the Law of the erroneous conceit of our Aduersaries in this point THus much of these three Exceptions of our â—econd Argâ—ment prouing the impossibiliâ—y of our Iustification by the workes of the Law because we cannot perfectly fulfill the â—aw We goe now forward vnto two Arguments more taken the one from the difference of the two Couenants God hath made with man First of works the other of grace and the other from the Nature of true Christian Libâ—rty obtained for vs by Christs death Argument That which makes voide the Couenant of Grace is a false and haereticall doctrine But Iustification of workes of the Law makes void the Couenant of Grace Ergo T is false and haeriticall so to teach For confirmation of the minor in this Argument wee must briefly shew 1 What the Couenant of Grace what the Couenant of workes is 2 What opposition their is betweene these two By the Couenant of Grace we vnderstand in one word the Gospell i. e. the gratious appointment of God to bring man to Saluation by Iesus Christ. In the administration of this gratious purpose of God we must obserue foure periods of time where in God hath diuersly ordered this meanes
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
6. 12. 14. b Psal. 103. 3. 2 Proposition Lib. 4. cap. â—0 Bell. lib. 4. de Iust. cap. 1. 10. 11. 12 13. Becâ—tom 2. tract 4. cap. 4. quest 1. c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉 〈…〉 b Rom. 〈◊〉 c Psal. 119. per 〈◊〉 d Verse ◠〈◊〉 a Lib. 4. cap. 1â— 3 Arg. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉 a Iam. 1. 25. Psal. 197. â— Argu. 6 Arg. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 7 Argu. b Gen. 17. 1. c Gen. 6. 9. d 1 King 14. 8. e 2 King 23. 25. f 2 Chro. 15. 17. g Luke 1. 6. h Iohn 17 6. i Phil. 3. 15. a Gen. 15. â— 3. b Gen. 20. 11. c Gen. 9. 21. d 2 Sam. 11. e 2 Chron. 25. v. 20. 21 22. f 2 Chron. 16. 7 g Ver. 10. h Ver. 12. i Luke 1. 18. k Mar. 14. 50 66. c. l 〈◊〉 20. 30. 31. m Gal. 3. 10. n Deut. 27. 26. Proposition a Iob 16. â—1 b Iob 17. 3. c Iob. 23. 3. 4. â— a Lib. 1. cap. 20. Nâ—li iudicaâ—e ex his quae in me 〈◊〉 a Bill lib. 〈◊〉 17. 〈…〉 4. c. 13. 17. Be 〈◊〉 2. tract 2. cap 2. 〈◊〉 4 cap 4. quest 1. a 〈…〉 3. c. 14. §. â— b Bell lib. 4. c. 77. erres in saying Opera bâ—naâ—x genâ—â—e â—ue ex obiecto sed 〈◊〉 circumstaâ—â—◠〈…〉 And it is false which he addes that God doth simply condemne facto almes-deeds c done with aâ—â—d intention for vaine glory c. God doth not simply coÌ„demne the the woâ—â—â— bâ—â— them for their ill doing of it b Suâ—t Vitata 〈…〉 Bell. lib. 4. cap. 1â— passim aubi â— Exceptioâ—â— Conclusion 〈…〉 3. 12. 13. 〈◊〉 4. 8. â—ense your â—nds purge â—ur hearts Tom. 2. pag. 885. Marke them that walke disorderly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i e. sinfull otherwise according to the Law 1 Arg. Adu 2 Arg. Adu 3 Arg. Adu 〈…〉 b Iam. 1. 〈◊〉 4 Arg. Bell. c Lib. 4. cap. 1â— Excepâ—ion Beâ— lib. 4 c. 10. â— 17. â— cap. 〈◊〉 Conclusion contr a 〈…〉 b Lib. de perfect 〈…〉 15 3 Exception Bell. lib. 4 c. 17. Conclusion contr 〈◊〉 4. cap. 14. â—â—tâ—er meaning of these words against â—nd Besides there can be 〈…〉 Lib. 4. cap. vse c 〈…〉 Bernard de Praeceptâ—â— Dispen a Tom. 2. tract 2 cap 2 q. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Man confess praelud â— Num. 16. 3 〈◊〉 Couenant of Grace 〈◊〉 Couenant 2 Workes a 〈◊〉 1 Cor. â— Iohn 1. 17. 〈◊〉 20. Iohn 13. 17. If ye know those things c. Iohn 15. 14. Ye are my friends â—ye do whatâ—uer I comâ—â—d you a â—om 8. 15. 〈◊〉 4. 24. 25. b Rom. 12. 16. At that day when God shall iudge the secrets of Men by Iesus Christ according to my Gospell a Calv. Iâ—st lib. â— cap. 18. § 9. a 2 Cor. 3. 7. b 2 Cor. 3. 6. d Gal. 5. 1. d Gal. 5. 1. c Rom. 4. 15. 1 Cor. 15. 56. e Gal. 4. 24. f 2 Cor. 3. 6. g 2 Cor 5. 19. h 2 Cor 3. 6. 7. 17. Gal. 4. 16. Thou art our Father b See Becaâ—â—â— Tom. 2. Tract 4. cap. â— Quest. 1. 2. 3. 4. Argument Heb. 9. 10. b 1 Tiâ— 1. 15. 1 Cor. 10. 23. This Liberty from humane Constitutions binding the Conscience is 〈…〉 Rom. 13. 5. 1 Cor. 〈…〉 a Lib. 4. de Iustif cap. 5. b Ibid 〈◊〉 a Lib. 4. cap. 2. b Lib. 4. cap. 7. Si Promissio vitae aeternae est conditionata ut cap. 1. probavimus certè necessarium est implere Conditionem si quis salâ—us fieri velâ—â— â—â—s â— iustus non est liber ab ebligatione Legis divine certè nisi eam impleat â—onsaluabitur If the Law still rule ouer vs as seruants requiring the praescribed taske or else shaking the Whip and threatning stripes not as ouer sonne commanding Obedience So a King in vnder the Direction not the Compulsion of the law because not tyed to the Penalty cum v. 11. b Rom. 7. 1. 2. c. 2 Conclusion a Hist. Eccl. 2. cap. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Lib. 4 dé Iust. cap. 18. Lorin 〈◊〉 Iac. b Iackson of lust Faith S. 2. cap. 6. c Leeo supra â—â—tat a Lorâ—â— in lacob b Lib. 4 cap. 18. Gal. 5. 6. a Bell. lib. 1. de â—ust cap 15. 1 Arg. of S. Iames. a Lib. 1. de Iust. cap. 15. 2 2d Arg. of S. Iames. b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The former reading is most agreeable to the Art gument of the Apostle So the Syriack-Beza the Vulgar the French our last Translators Pareus â—ollowes the other reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so Piscator But they giue no good reason of this she is so doing The change was easie from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a De lib. arbiâ— 3 Arg of â— Iames. a Bell. lib. 1. dâ— Iustif. cap. 15. b 〈◊〉 c Becanus 4 〈◊〉 of S. Iames. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as an empty Vessell without liquor a 〈…〉 b 〈…〉 〈…〉 2 Example a Heb. 11. 31. 2 Concluâ—â—â—â— proued Phil. 4. â— Deut. 5. 6. a 1 Pet. 2. 24. b Heb. 13. c Tit. 2. 14. d Isa 53 5. 1 Pet 2 24. e 1 Tim. 2. 6. f Coll. 2. 13. g Ibid v. 14. h Isa 38. 17. i Ier. 31. 34. k Coll. 1. 10. a Bell. de poen lib. 4. cap. 1. b Bel. Lib 1. de Purgaâ— cap. 14. §. quarta Ratio a Tabula de differentia 4 part Tom. 2. cap. 15. 16. Bell. lib. 4. de Paenit cap. 1. a De poâ—nit lib 4. cap. 9. sect 5. Irenaeus b Acts Apost cap 4. v. 1â—
haue done whether God by his absolute omnipotency could not haue freed Men from Hell by some other Meanes without taking satisfaction for Sinne from Christ whether God ought not to haue the same priuiledge which we giue vnto any mortale King freely to pardon a Rebell and receaue him to fauour without consideration of any goodnesse in him or satisfaction made by him or anoâ— for him Or whether Sinne doe make such a deepe wound in Gods Iustice and Honour that he cannot with the safegard of either passe by it without amendes Such question as these are vaine and curious prosecuted by idle and vnthinkfull Men who not acknowledging the Riches of Gods 〈…〉 and grace in that course of their Redemption which god hath followed would accuse God of Indiscretion for making much adoe about nothing teach him to haue goâ—e a more compendious way to worke then by sending his owne sonne to 〈◊〉 for vs. 〈…〉 stand what God hath not tell him what he might or should haue done According to which course of his now reuealed will we know that God hath declared his euerlasting hatred against Sinne as that thing which most directly and immediately opposeth the Holynesse of his Nature and the Iustice of his Commandments We know that for this hatred which God beareth to Sin no sinfull creature can be able to stand in 〈…〉 And therefore before reconciliation it was needefull Satisfaction should be made where offence had bin giuen Which seeing man could not effect by himselfe God thought it good to prouide a Mediator who should in make peace betweene both So that what euer may be imagined of possibility of other meanes to bring man to Life yet now wee know that sicioportuit Thus Christ ought to suffer Luc. 24. 26. and that it Behoued him to be like vs that being a Faithfull high Priest he might make Reconciliation for our Sines Heb. 2. 17. Leauing then this new way to Heauen neuer frequented but by Imagination let vs follow the old wayes of Iustification that the Scriptures haue discouered vnto vs which are two and no more Either by our owne Righteousnesse and workes or by the Righteousnesse workes of another viz Christ. The former is that way whereby Man might haue obtayned Iustification and life had hee not bin a Sinner But now Man that is a Sinner cannot be Iustified and saued but onely in the later way viz. by the Righteousnesse of Christ the Mediator This Duine trueth is of most infallible certainty and soueraigne consolation vnto the conscience of a Sinner as shall appeare in the processe of our Discourse wherin we shall first remoue our owne Righteousnesse that so in the second place we may establish the Righteousnesse of Christ as the onely Matter of our Iustification in Gods sight By our owne Righteousnesse we vnderstand as the Apostle doth Rom. 10 The Righteousnesse of the Law or of workes which is twofold 1. The fulfilling of the Law whether by the Habituall Holynesse of the Heart or by the Actuall Iustice of good workes proceeding thence For the Law requires both That the Pâ—rson be Holy endued with all inward qualities of Purity and Iustice and that the workes be Holy being performed for Matter and all the Circumstances according to the Commandment 2 The satisfying for the Breach of the Law For he that makes full satisfaction to the Law which is broken is afterward no debter to the Law but to be accounted Iust and no Violater thereof We must now enquire touching these two whether a Man can be Iustified by his owne O-Obedience to the Morall Law Secondly Whether he can be iustified by his owne Satisfaction for Transgression of the Morrall Law Concerning which two Quaeres we lay downe these two Conclusions which are to be made good 1 No Man that is a Sinner is Iustified by his owne Obedience to the Morrall Law 2 No Man is Iustified by his owne satisfaction for his Transgression For the former It is the Conclusion of the Apostle Rom. 3. 20. Therefore by the workes of the Law shall no flesh be Iustified in his sight which we proue by these Arguments The first shall be that of the Apostle in the forenamed place which stands thus Whosoeuer is a Transgressor of the Morall Law he cannot be Iustifiâ—d by his Obedience thereto But euery Man is a Transgressor of the Morall Law ergo No Man can be Iustified by his obedience thereto The Maior is an vndeniable Principall in Reason It being a thing Impossible that a party accused as an offender should be absolued and pronounced innocent by pleading Obedience to that Law which he hath plainely disobeyed Wherefore the Apostle takes this Proposition for granted in these words of his For by the law commeth the Knowledge of Sinne v. 20. That which conuinceth vs to be sinners by that t is impossible we should be declared to be righteous that plea wilneuer quit vs which proues vs guilty Yea t were not onely folly but madnesse to alledge that for ones iust excuse which it selfe is his very fault whereof hee is accused The Maior then is certaine The minor is no lesse viz. That euery man is a transgressor of the Morall Law If any Sonne of Adam will deny this his owne conscience will giue his tongue the Lie and the Scriptures will double it vpon him Which hauing concluded all vnder Sinne averre That If we an Apostle not excepted say We haue no sinne we deceaue our selâ—es and the truth is not in vs. Yea If we say we haue not sinned we make God a her and his word is not in vs The conclusion then is vnfallable That by the Obedience of the Morall Law no Man shall be iustified that is quitted pronounced innocent before Gods iudgment seate This Aposticall argument vtterly ouerthrowes the pride of Man in seeking for Iustification by the Law and it is of so cleare euidence that the Aduersaries of this Doctrine cannot tell how to avoide it But for asmuch as many exceptions are taken and shifts sought out for the further manifestation of the force hereof against gainsayers of the truth it will be requisite to examine there euasions Which we shall doe in the next argument Which is this 2 Whosoeuer hauing once broken the Law can neuer after perfectly fullfill it he cannot be Iustified by his obedience thereto But Man hauing once broken Gods Law can 〈◊〉 after that perfectly fullfill it Ergo Man cannot be Iustified by Obedience of the Law The Maior of this Argument is framed vpon another ground then the former opposed vnto that erronious tenent of our Aduersaries That howsoeuer a man be a sinner against the Law yet neurthelesse afterward be may be iustified by his obedience of the Law Because God for the time following giues him grace perfectly to fulfill it Which opinion is directly contrary to the reason of the Apostle which is That once a sinner and alwayes
apparant that perfect obedience was the condition required for the establishing of Adam in perpetuall blisse Other meanes there was not nor needed any be proposed vnto him But when Man had failed in that Condition and so broken the Covenant of Workes God to repaire Mans ruined Estate now desperate of euer attaning vnto happines by the first means he appoints a second offering vnto Adam a Sauiour that by Faith in him and not by his owne vnspotted Obedience hee might recouer Iustification and Life which he had lost So that what Adam should haue obtained by workes without Christ now hee shall receiue by Faith in Christ without Workes Since the time of Mans fall we must consider that the Law and Gospell though they goe together yet as they still differ in their vse and office betweene themselues so also the Law differs from it selfe in that vse which it had before and which it hath since the Fall To vs now it hath not the same vse which it had in Mans innocency It was giuen to Adam for this end to bring himselfe to Life and for that purpose it was sufficient both in it selfe as an absolute Rule of Perfection and in regard of Adam who had strength to haue obserued it But vnto Man fallen although the Band of Obedience doe remaine yet the End thereof viz. Iustification and Life by it is now abolished by the promise because the Law now is insufficient for that purpose not of it selfe but by reason of our sinfull flesh that cannot keepe it This is most manifest by the renewing of the first Couenant of Workes with the Iewes when God deliuered vnto them the Morall Law from Sinai at which time God did not intend that the Iewes should obtaine Saluation by Obedience to that Law God promised Life if they could obey and the Iewes as their duty was promised they would obey but God knew well enough they were neuer able to keepe their promise and ergo 't was not God's intention in this Legall couenant with the Iewes that any of them should euer attaine Iustification and Life by that meanes As that first the Promise need not to haue bin made vnto Adam if the Law could haue suffised for the attaining of Life so after the Promise was once made the Law was not renewed with the Iewes to that end that Righteousnes and Life should be had by the obseruation of it This is the plaine doctrine of the Apostle Gal. 3. in that his excellent dispute against Iustification by the Law The doubt that troubled the Galatians was this God had made an Evangelicall couenant with Abraham that in Christ he and his faithfull seed should be blessed that is Iustified Afterward 430 yeares he made a Legall couenant with Abraham's posterity that they should liue that is be justified and saued if they did fulfill all things written in the Law The Quaestion now was which of these two couenants should stand in force or whether both could stand together The Apostle answere that the former couenant should stand in force and that the later did not abrogate the former not yet could stand in force together with the former This he expresseth v. 17. 18. And this I say that the couenant that was confirmed afore of God in respect of Christ the Law which was 430 yeares after cannot disanull that it should make the Promise of none effect For if the inheritance viz of Righteousnes and life be by the Law it is not by the Promise but God gaue it to Abraham by Promise Heere now they might object Wherefore then serueth the Law If Men cannot bee iustified by keeping the Law to what end was it giuen so long after the Promise was made To this the Apostle answeres It was added vnto the Promise because of the transgressions Here 's the true vse of the Morall Law since the fall of Man not to justifie him and giue life but to proue him to be vniust and worrhy of death It was added because of transgressions that is 1. To convince Man of Sinne that he might be put in remembrance what was his duty of old and what was his present infirmity in doing of it and what was God's wrath against him for not doing it That seeing how impossible it was for him to attaine vnto life by this old way of the Law First appointed in Paradise he might be humbled and driuen to looke after that new way which God had since that time layed forth more heedfully attending the Promise and seeking vnto Christ who is the End of the Law vnto euery one that beleeues in him Which vse God pointed out vnto the Iewes figuring Christ vnto them in the Mercyseate couering the Arke wherein the Tables of the Couenant were kept and in the Sacrifices appointed for all sorts of Transgressions against this Couenant To admonish the Iewes a further thing was aimed at in giuing them the Law namely the bringing of them to Christ the promised seed in whom Remission of Sinnes and Life Eternall was to bee had 1. To restraine Man from Sinne. That the Law might be a perpetuall rule of Holinesse and Obedience whereby Man should walke and glorifie God to the vtmost of his power That so those Iewes might not thinke that God by making a gracious Promise had vtterly nullified the Law and that now Men might liue as they list but that they might know these bounds prescribed them of God within which compasse they were to keep themselues that so the ouer-flowing of Iniquity might be restrained These most excellent perpetuall and necessary vses of the morall Law God intended in renewing of the Legall couenant with the Iewes ergo the Apostle concludes that God did not crosse himself when first he gaue the Inheritance to Abraham by promise and afterwards made a Legall couenant with the Iewes his posterity Is the Law then against the Promises saith the Apostle God forbid For if there had beene a Law giuen which could haue giuen Life surely Righteousnesse should haue bin by the Law But the Scripture hath concluded all vnder Sinne that the promise by the Faith of Iesus Christ might be giuen to all that beleeue ver 21. 22. Whence it is most cleare that the Law and the Gospell in some things are subordinate and vphold one another in other absolute and destroy one another As the Law by the discouery of Sinne and the punishment of it humbles man and prepares him to receaue the Gospell 2. As the Law is a sacred direction for Holines and Obedience to those that haue embraced the Gospell and all others 3. As the Law requires satisfaction for the Breach of it and the Gospell promiseth such satisfaction thus the Law and Gospell agree well together and establish one another But as the Law giues life to them that perfectly obey it and the Gospell giues Life to them that stedfastly beleiue it thus the Law and Gospell are one against the other and ouerthrow one another And
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