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
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
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
vpon God and play with his Iustice as the flie with the Candle let them take heed lest in the end they be consumed by it To leaue then these vaine Inuentions Let vs giue to God the glory that 's due to his name and so we shall well provide for the peace of our Soules Trusting entirely and onely vnto that Name of Iesus Christ. besides which there is not in Heauen or in Earth in Man or Angell any name Merit Power Satisfaction or whatsoeuer else whereby we may be saued And thus much touching the first maine branch of the matter of our Iustification namely Our owne Righteousnes Whereby it appeares sufficiently that we shall neuer be justified in Gods Sight Μόνῳ Ï„á¿· Θεῷ δόξα FINIS THE CONTENTS OF EVERY Section and Chapter in this Booke SECTION 1. CHAP. I. The explication of these termes First Iustice or righteousnesse Secondly Iustification CHAP. II. In what sense the word Iustification ought to be taken in the present controuersie and of the difference betweene vs and our Adversaries therein CHAP III. The confutation of our Adversaries cauils against our acception of the word Iustification SECT 2. CHAP. I. The orthodoxe opinion concerning the manner of Iustification by Faith and the confutation of Popish errours in this point CHAP. II. The confutation of the Arminian errour shewing that Faith doth not justifie sensu proprio as it is an act of ours CHAP. III. The confutation of Popish doctrines that other graces doe justifie vs and not Faith alone SECT 3. CHAP. I. Of the righteousnes whereby a man is justified before God that is not his owne inhaerent in himselfe that in this life no man hath perfection of holinesse inhaerent in him CHAP. II. No man can perfectly fulfill the Law in performing all such workes both inward and outward as each commandement requires against which truth Popish objections are answered CHAP. III. No man in this life can performe any particular good worke so exactly that in euery point it shall answer the rigour of the Law proued by conscience Scriptures reason and Popish objections answered CHAP. IIII. Three seuerall exceptions against the truths deliuered in this 3 Section SECT 4. CHAP. I. Iustification by workes makes voide the couenant of grace Of the difference betweene the Law and the Gospell Of the vse of the Law Of the erronecus conceit of our Adversaries in this point CHAP. II. Of Bellarmine's erroneous distinction of the word Gospell SECT 5. CHAP. I. Iustification by fulfilling the Law ouerthrowes Christian libertie The parts of our Christian libertie CHAP. II. Iustification by workes subjects vs to the rigour and curse of the Law SECT 6. CHAP. I. The reconciliation of that seeming opposition betweene S. Paul and S. Iames in this point of Iustification 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 SECT 7. CHAP. I. None can be justified by their owne satisfaction for the transgression of the Law A briefe sâ—mme of Popish doctrine concerning humane satisfactions for sinne CHAP. II. All sinne is remitted vnto vs wholy in the fault and punishment For the onely satisfaction of Iesus Christ. Sect. l. â— 1. Rom. 8. 30. Heb. 9. Lib. 1. de Iust cap. 1 See luke 18. 14 This Man went downe to his house iustified rather then the other His prayer was for pardon God be mercifull c. For he went home Iustified i. e pardoned and absolued rather then the Pharisee Which is referred ad gratiam Regenerationis Tom. 2. tract 4. Cap. 2. Parag. â— Rom 6. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significat liberatur sed sersus loci dâ—scrimen indicat 〈…〉 a Ephâ— 4. 24. Col. 3. 9. a Ephâ— 4. 24. Col. 3. 9. b 1 Cor. 3. 16. 6. 19. 2 Cor. 6. 16. Rom. 8. c Rom. 12. 5. 1 Cor. 12. 11. d Ioh. 15. 4. e Ioh. 4. 14. 1 Cal. Iustit lib. 3 cap. 1â— Rom. 8. 30. 〈◊〉 Ibid. Parag. 9. Sect. 2. â— â— â— Gen. Headâ— â— Cap. 7. Generall head a Gal. 2. 16. b Rom. 5. 1. c Rom. 28. d Rom. 4. 2. 3. 20. Gal 2. 16. Iam. 2. a Luke 7. 5â— b Mat. 9. 22. c Maâ— 10. 52. d Mat. 15. 21. e Mat. 7. 29. f Rom. 4. 20. g Heb. 21. 5 6. i Rom. 3. 24. k Heb. 1. 3. n Act. 6. 7. 6. 5. o 1 Tim. 3. 9. 4. 6. Virg. Georg. 1. p Gal. 3. 23. Act. 13. 38. Rom. 11. 6. 〈…〉 Thes. 48. 2. 3. pag 6â— c Aâ—tibell pag. 106. d Collat. cuâ— Sib. Lubber e Thesibu de â—ustific f Râ—monstrâ—nt In Cell Delphensi Art 2. Antith 2. Statuimus Deum Fidem noâ—iram nobis imputare per obedientiam eaâ—que nos in illa acceptos habere We are saued by grace thorough faith Ephes. 2. 8. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Arg. Bell. b Lib. 1. cap. 13. a Lib. 1. cap. 2â— Nectamen est a Deo intus inhabitante per graâ—â—am Sanctificari sidextrinsâ—cus adâ—â—vante exitonte a Et Cap 13. pag. 311. H. a Feare Feare b Psal â—11 10. Pro. â— 7. Faith is radix a part of the tree Hope c Rom. 5. 5. d Heb. 6. 18. Loue. e Rom. 5. 5. a Rom. 5. 5. Repentance Reformation Not of Ahab or Iudas a Tom. 2. Tract â— cap. 3. Quest. 3. Bell. lib. 1. c. 14. 2 Arg. a 〈◊〉 antid â—onc Trid. Sess. 6 cap. II. b Cap. 15. eiuâ—dem Lib. primi 3 Arguâ— Bell. lib. 1 cap. 16. Allein durch â—en gsaubren Bell. quotes Luâ—beri Resp. ad duos Art ad amiâ—â—m quendam a Tit. 3. 5. 6. 7. b Rom. 3. 〈◊〉 c Rom. 9. 31. 32 How knowes Bellarmâ—ne that Bell. lib. 1. c. 19 â—ello cap. 16. a Bell lib. 1. â— 19. b 〈◊〉 Tom. 2 tract 4. cap. 2 quest 6. §. 15. c Bell. cap. 19 d As Adam a So Bellarminâ— cap. 19. answering that place Gal. 2. If righâ—teousnesse be by the Law then Christ dyed in vaine saith Nay seeing we are iustified by faith and workes following it Christ died to purpose that God might giue vs grace so to be iustified b Workes without grace doe not iustifie h Why because imperfect or because done by natures strength Not the later For then Adam not iustified Not the former forse all good works of the best are imperfect Sect. 3. c. 1. 2 Generall heads a 〈…〉 〈…〉 Conclusion Arg. a Rom. 3. Gal. 2. b Iohn 1. 8. c Verse 10. 2 Argument Pure in heart vndefiled 〈◊〉 the way 2 Cap. â— 3 Cap. 3. Proposition a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 euen I my selfe b 〈…〉 c Iohn 1. 29. d Heb 9. 28. e Acts 3. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. f Micah 7. 19. a Ezek. 16. 2â— Apoc 1. 6. 1 Iohn 1. â—7 c Col. 1. 13. d Tit. 2. 14. e Rom. 6. 18. 2â— f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 h Heb. 4. 14 a Rom.
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
grace hath enabled vs to performe the condition of beleeuing then doe we beginne to enioy the benefit of the Couenant then is the sentence of absolution pronounced in our consciences which shall be after confirmed in our death and published in the last iudgement Secondly our faith and no other grace directly respects the promises of the Gospell accepting what God offers sealing vnto the truth thereof by assenting thereto and imbracing the benefit and fruit of it vnto it selfe by relying wholly vpon it This interpretation of that proposition the Reformed Churches do admit none other reiecting as erronious and contrary to the Scriptures such glosses as ascribe any thing to the dignity of faith or make any combination betweene Faith and Workes in the point of our Iustification Amongst which there are three erronious assertions touching mans Iustification by Faith which we are briefly to examine and refute 1 That faith iustifieth vs Per modum Causae efficientis meritoriae as a proper efficient and meritorious cause Which by it's owne worth and dignity deserues to obtaine Iustification Remission of sinnes and the grace of well-doing This is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome which Bellarmine labours to proue in his 17. Chap. lib. pr. de Iustificatione where disputing against Iustification by faith alone hee tels vs. If we could be perswaded that faith doth Iustifie impetrando promerendo suo modo inchoando Iustificationem then we would neuer deny that loue feare hope and other vertues did iustifie vs as well as faith Whereupon he sets himselfe to prooue that there is in faith it selfe some efficacy and merit to obtaine and deserue Iustification His Arguments are chiely two From those places of Scripture wherein a man is said to be iustified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or absolutely without Article or Preposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per fidem ex fide or fide Wherein these Prepositions signifie saith he the true cause of our Iustification Which he proues 1 By the contrary when a man is said to be iustified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This notes the true efficient deseruing cause of his Iustification Secondly By the like in other places where we are said to be redeemed saued sanctified Per Christum per sanguinem per mortem per vulnera and in the whole 11. to the Heb. The Saints are said to doe such and such things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by faith All signifying the proper cause From those places of Scripture which sayth he plainly shew Faith doth impetrare remissionem suo quidem modo mereri Such are those Thy Faithâ— hath saued thee or made thee whole A speech that Christ vsed often as to the woman that washed his feet To her that had an issue of Blood To the blind man recovered of his sight And that to the Cananitish woman O woman great is thy Faith now see what the merit of this Faith was For this saying go thy way the Diuel is gone out of thy Daughter Thus Abraham being strenghened in Faith glorified God who therefore iustified him for the Merit of his Faith And againe in the eleuenth to the Heb. by many examples we are taught that by Faith that is by the merit and price of Faith Enoch and other men pleased God For answeare here vnto 1 Vnto the Argument from the Proposition we reply That if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be needs strictly taken in the same kind of Causality then the Iesuits should doe well to stand to that and make the similitude betweene Faith and workes runne thus A Man is iustified by workes that is for the proper and only Merits of his obedience so a Man is iustified by Faith that is for the only merit of his Beleeving in Christ aud by that meanes both shall be true and effectuall causes of Iustification But if Bellarmine dare not thus presse the similitude for feare of being found guilty of despising the blood of the New Couenant attributing that to the Merit of Faith which belongs only to the Merit of Christ he must then giue vs that leaue to distinguish which he takes to himselfe and if he fall to his Qualifications and quodammodo's he must pardon if we also seeke out such an Interpretation of those places as may not crosse other Scriptures Which for asmuch as they testifie that We are Iustified by his grace through the Redemption that is in Christ that All sinne is purged by the blood of Christ that By the sacrifice of himselfe he hath put away Sinne and With offering hath consecrated for ouer them that are sanctified we dare not without horrible sacrilege ascribe the grace of our Iustification vnto the worke and worth of any thing whatsoeuer in our selues but wholy and only to the Righteousnesse of Christ. And therefore when the Scriptures say we are iustified by Faith we take not the word By in this formall and legall sense we are iustified by the efficacy of our Faith or for the worth of our Faith according as 't is vnderstood in Iustification by workes but we take it Relatiuely Instrumentally We are Iustified by Faith that is by the Righteousnesse of Christ the benefit whereof vnto our Iustification we are made partakers of by Faith as the only grace which accepts of the promise and giues vs assurance of the performance He that looked to the Brasen serpent and was cured might truly be sayd to be healed by his looking on though this Action was no proper cause working the cure by any efficacy or dignity of it selfe but was only a necessary condition required of them that would be healed vpon the obedient observance whereof God would shew them favor so he that looketh on Christ beleeuing in him may truly be sayed to be saued and Iustified by Faith not as for the worth and by the â—fficacy of that act of his but as it is the Condition of the promise of grace that must necessarily go before the performance of it to vs vpon our Obedience where vnto God is pleased of his free grace to iustifie Nor is this Trope any way harsh or vnusuall to put Oppositum pro opposito Relatum pro Correlato Habitum pro Obiecto In Sacramentall locutions 't is a generall Custome to put the signe for the thing signified and the like is vsed in other passages 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the word of God grew c. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mystery of faith and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the words of Faith and Rom. 8. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Spe seruati sumus id est Christo in quem speramus Hope that is seene is not hope that is res visa non sperata est That of Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Like to that Christ our Ioy Anni spem
credere Terrae Georg. 1. And if we list not to be contentious 't is plaine enough that in those places where the Apostle treats of Iustification by faith viz the grace of God in Christ opposing workes and faith that is the Law and the Gospell the Righteousnesse of the Law to the righteousnesse of the Gospell which is no other but the Righteousnesse of Christ. Thus faith is taken Gal. 3. 23. Where he expresly treats of Iustification But before Faith came we were kept vnder the Law shut vp vnto the Faith which should afterward be reuealed That is Before Christ came and the cleare exhibition of the Gospell and the Righteousnesse thereof the Church was kept vnder the Ceremoniall Law as vnder a Schoole-master directing her vnto Christ that so Wee might be iustified by Faith that is not by the Lesson of the Law but by Christ typified and figured vnto vs therein 2 Vnto the other Argument prooving the merit of faith we reply That in those places is no ground at all for such a conceit Thy Faith hath saued thee saith Christ to some whō he cured both in Body Soule But what was it by the efficacy and for the word of their faith that this was done No As 't was vertue went out of Christ that cured their bodily diseases and his compassion that mooued him to it so 't was his grace and merits and free loue that healed their soules and brought them pardon of their sinnes in the sight of GOD Yet he saith Their faith saued them because by beleeuing in the Sonne of God they receiued this fauour though for their beleeuing they did not deserue it God bestowes mercy where he findes faith not because faith merits such fauour at his hands but because he is pleased to disperse his fauours in such an order as himselfe hath appointed and vpon such conditions as hee thinkes good To that of the Canaanitish woman Her great faith could not claime by desert that fauour which Christ shewed vnto her daughter onely Christ was pleased to honour her faith by his testimony of it and to helpe the daughter at the Mothers entreaty Christ did it vpon that request of hers so instant and full of faith But yet who can say she merited ought at CHRISTS hands by that her faithfull and instant petition Her selfe yet liuing would deny it and shee doth deny it there counting her selfe a dogge vnworthy of the childrens bread when yet shee beleeued strongly and was a child of Abraham according to the faith To that of Abraham who gaue glory to God and of Henoch and others who pleased God by their faith Wee answere That it is one thing for a man to glorifie and please God by his Obedience 'T is another by so doing to deserue ought at his hands If God in much grace and fauour accept of the honour and contentment wee are able to doe him by our Faith and Obedience It followes not that therefore we must in iustice merit at his hands Other Arguments for them there are but so weakely knit they fall in sunder of themselues Against them we haue to obiect the Scriptures that so often say We are iustified gratiâ and gratis and the Councell of Trent which they respect more then the Scriptures which hath defined thus Nihil eorum quae Iustificationem praecedunt siue fides siue opera ipsam Iustificationis gratiam promeretur Sess. 6. Cap. 8. How then can they say Faith merits Iustification Heere our Aduersaries haue two shifts to runne vnto whereby they would avoide the absurdity of this Assertion 1 That this merit is not from vs but of God Because Faith is the gift of Gods grace and therefore though we be iustified by merit yet we are iustified by grace because merit is of grace 'T is of grace that our faith merits This you may be sure is some of that smoake of the bottomelesse pit wherein hell vented out the Iesuites and they their darke Imaginations all to confound whatsoeuer is cleare and lightsome in Scripture Scripture opposeth these paires Grace and Nature Grace and Merit As the Pelagians of old confounded Nature Grace teaching that we were saued by Grace yet affirming that we are also saued by Nature and the naturall strength of free-will Which they salued thus To be saued by Nature is to be saued by Grace for Nature is of Gods grace and giuing So these confound Grace and Merit making a thing Meritorious because it s of Grace Faith merits because its Gods gracious gift Nothing more contradictory If it be his gift how doth it merit or of whom Of man it may of God it cannot vnlesse we will senslesly affirme that the gift deserues something of the giuer That he that giues an hundred pound freely is thereby bound to giue an hundred more Had they sayed that faith is good because of Gods giuing that were true and we may grant them that God is honoured and pleased with his owne gifts but that euery good thing merits and that we can deserue of God by his owne gifts is affirmed without all Reason or Scriptures and will neuer be proued by either But there is yet another shift 2 Faith merits Iustification Non de condigno of the worthinesse of it but de Congruo of the fitnesse that is God in Iustice is not bound to bestow Iustification where there is faith but yet in fitnesse he ought to doe it So that if he doe not iustifie him that beleeues he is likely to omit a thing very fit and agreeable This distinction is a meere Imposture and collusion Bellarmine in dealing with it seemes to haue a dog by the eares he is loath to loose him yet knowes not well how to hold him If he be vrged where Scriptures make any the least Intimation of such a distinction hee referres you to Divines that is Popish Schoole-men who out of their owne imagination haue forged it and in time made it Authenticall But he stickes in the mire when he is to shew what merit of Condignity and merit of Congruity is Merits of Condignity are workes to which wages is due of Iustice. What then are merits of Congruity Such workes whereto wages is not due by any Iustice. As for example He that labours the whole day in the Vineyard merits a penny of Condignity because in Iustice his labour is worth his hire But he that for an houres worke receiues a penny he deserues it of Congruity because though his labour be not worth it yet he was promised a penny by him that set him on worke Then which fond imagination nothing can be more ridiculous and contrary to common sense For the merit of any worke is the proportionablenesse of 't is worth with the Reward Now in reason wherein ariseth this proportion of any work with that reward Stands it in the dignity of the worke it selfe or in the compact made betweene him that worketh and him that rewardeth It is
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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
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
judge St. Iames in the example of Rahab speakes of the first Iustification because as he saieth she was then at the first made a beleeuer of an infidell a righteous woman of an harlot And againe Paul he speakes of the 2. Iustification in the example of Abraham which is alleaged by both the Apostles Heere 's then a confusion insteed of a distiction Paul speakes of the first Iames speakes of the 2. and yet both do speake of both Iustifications Againe when they say Iames speakes of the second Iustification whereby of just a man becomes more just ti 's a groundlesse imagination for asmuch as it was to no purpose for the Apostle Iames to treat of the second Iustification whereby men grow better when those Hypocrites with whom he had to doe had erred from their first iustification whereby they were not as yet made good as the learned Iackson obserues Nay there is not in all St. Iames his dispute any sâ—llable that may giue any just suspicion that by Iustification he meanes the increase of inhaerent Iustice. Bellarmine catcheth at the clause v. 22. By workes Faith was made perfect which is in the Iesuites construction Abraham's inhaerent justice begun by faith receiued increase and perfection by his workes But this is onlie the Iesuites phrensie Abraham his faith and his Righteousnes whereof his Faith is but a part was not made but declared to be perfect by so perfect a worke which it brought forth as euen Lorinus another of that sect expounds it orthodoxly 3 Thirdly that distinction of workes done before Faith without grace and after Faith by grace is to as litle purpose as the former in this matter of our Iustification Heretofore we haue touched vpon that distinction and shewed the vanitie thereof in limiting St. Paul to workes done without grace when simplie he concludes all workes from our Iustification And St. Iames though he require workes of grace to be ioyned with that Faith which must justifie vs yet he giues them not that place and office in our Iustification from which Paul doth exclude them and wherein our adversaries would establish them as it shall appeare anon Leauing then this sophisticall reconcilement coined by our aduersaries I come to those reconciliations which are made by our diuines wherein we shall haue better satisfaction vpon better grounds Two waies there are whereby this seeming difference is by our Men reconciled 1. The 1. by distinguishing the word â— Iustification which may be taken either 1 For the absolution of a Sinner in Gods iudgement 2 For the declaration of a mans Righteousnes before men This distinction is certaine and hath its ground in Scripture which vseth the word Iustifie in both acceptions for the quitting of vs in Gods sight and for the manifestation of our innocency before man against accusation or suspicion of faultines They applie this distinction for the reconciling of the two Apostles Thus. St. Paul speakes of Iustification in foro Dei S. Iames speakes of Iustification in foro hominis A man is justified by faith without workes saieth S. Paul that is in God's sight a man obtaines remission of Sinnes and is reputed just only for his Faith in Christ not for his workes sake A man is justified by workes and not by Faith onely saieth S. Iames that is in mans sight we are declared to be just by our good workes not by our Faith onely which with other inward and invisible Graces are made visible vnto man onely in the good workes which they see vs performe That this application is not vnfit for to reconcile this difference may be shewed by the parts 1. For S. Paul ti 's agreed on all sides that he speakes of mans iustification in God's sight Rom. 3. v. 20. 2. For S. Iames we are to shew that with just probability he may be vnderstood of the declaration of our Iustification and righteousnes before men For proofe whereof the Text affords vs these reasons 1. Verse 18. Shew me thy Faith without thy Workes and I will shew thee my Faith by my workes Where the true Christian speaking to the Hypocriticall boaster of his Faith requires of him a declaration of his faith and Iustification thereby by a reall proofe not a verball profession promising for his part to manifest and approue the trueth of his owne Faith by his good workes Whence it appeares that before man none can justifie the soundnes of his Faith but by his workes thene proceeding 2. V. 21. Abraham is saied to be justified when he offered vp his sonne Isaak vpon the Altar Now ti 's manifest that Abraham was justified in Gods sight long before euen 25. yeares Gen. 15. 6. Therefore by that admirable worke of his in offering his Sonne he was declared before all the world to be a just man and a true Beleeuer And for this purpose did God tempt Abraham in that triall of his Faith that thereby all beleeuers might behold a rare patterne of a liuely and justifying Faith and that Abraham was not without good cause called the Father of the Faithfull 3. V. 22. It is saied that Abrahams faith wrought with his worke and by workes was his faith made perfect Which in the iudgement of popish Expositors themselues is to be vnderstood of the manifestation of Abrahams faith by his workes His Faith directed his workes his workes manifested the power and perfection of his Faith It is not then without good probability of Reason that Caluin and other Expositors on our side haue giuen this solution vnto this doubt Bellarmine labours against it and would faine proue that justification cannot be taken heere pro declaratione Iustitiae But his Argument cannot much trouble any intelligent reader and therefore I spare to trouble you with his sophistry This now is the first way of reconciling the places Howbeit the trueth is that although this may be defended against any thing that our aduersaries objected to the contrary yet many and those very learned divines chose rather to tread in another path and more neerely to presse the Apostles steps whom also in this point â— willingly follow 2 The second way then of reconciling these places is by distinguishing of the word Faith which is taken in a doubled sense 1. First for that Faith which is true and liuing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Faith which worketh through loue and is fruitfull in all manner of Obedience 2. Secondly for that Faith which is false and dead being onely a bare acknowledgment of the trueth of all Articles of Religion accompanied with an outward Formality of Profession but yet destitute of sincere Obedience This distinction of this word Faith is certaine by the Scriptures as hath heretofore bin shewed in handling of that Grace Our Men now apply it thus S. Paul when he affirmes that we are justified by Faith onely speakes of that Faith which is true and liuing working by Charity S. Iames when he denies a Man is justified by
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
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
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
manner of their Connection is the same that just in euery point as the Soule is to the Body or the Body to the Soule so Workes are vnto Faith and Faith vnto Works It sufficeth to his intent that as in the absence of the Soule the Body so in the absence of Obedience Faith is dead But thence it followes not that workes by their presence doe the same thing to Faith as the Soule to the Body by it's presence or that Faith in the absence of Workes remaines the same as the Body doth in the absence of the Soule If we must needs be tied to the strict termes of the Similitude let vs a little examine the comparison and we shall see our Aduersaries all flye off first from it Let the comparison be first thus Betweene the Body and the Soule Faith and Workes as the termes be in the Text. As the Body without the Soule is dead because the Soule giues life i. e sense breathing and all other Motion to the Body So Faith without Workes is dead because Workes giue life vnto Faith But now this Comparison will not runne on all foure For Workes are not vnto Faith as the Soule is to the Body but as sense and motion is to the Body Seeing Workes are externall acts not internall habits and so are proportionable not to the Soule but to the liuing actions thence issuing Wherefore 't is as absurd to say that Workes giue life vnto Faith as 't is ridiculous to affirme that Sense Motion giue life to the Body which are not Causes but Effects signes of Life Therefore when Faith without Workes is dead 't is not spoken in that sense because Workes giue life to Faith as the Soule doth to the Body Lâ—â— then the Comparison bee thus Between the Body and the Soule Faith and Charity As the Body without the Soule is dead because the Soule is the forme of the body and giues life to it So Faith without Charity is dead because Charity is the Forme of Faith and giues life to it But neither will the Comparison hold vpon these termes For 1. our Adversaries here put in Charity the habit for Workes the act which is more then themselues ought to doe seeing they will tye vs at short Bitts to the very letter of the Text. For though we can be content to admit that interpretation would they admit of the Apostle's plaine meaning not straine for querkes yet seeing they argue so precisely from the Words of the Comparison they must not now haue libertie from vs to goe from them but be content to take the Words as they lie in the Text and make their best of them Yet seeing 't is most senselesse to make Workes that is externall Actions the Forme of Faith an internall habit let them take Charity insteed of them an internall habit likewise Wil it be any better now belike so TheÌ„ 't is thus As the Soule is the Forme of the Body so Charity is the forme of Faith and as the Soule giues life and action to the Body so Charity vnto Faith Will they stand to this No. Here againe they fly off in both Comparisons Charity is one habit Faith another distinct betweene themselues and therefore they deny as there 's good reason that Charity is either the Essentiall forme of Faith as the Soule of the liuing Body or the accidentall Forme as whitenes of Paper They say 't is onely an externall Forme But this now is not to keepe close to the Apostle's comparison but to runne from it at their pleasure when they fall vpon an absurdity in pressing of it so strictly The Soule is no externall but an internall essentiall Forme therefore Charitie must be so if all runne round Againe doth Charitie giue life or liuing actions vnto Faith as the Soule doth vnto the Body Neither dare they hold close to this Comparison For the proper worke or action of Faith is to assent vnto the Trueth of diuine reuelations because of Gods authoritie as themselues teach Whence now comes this assent From the Habit of Faith or of Charity They grant that it comes immediatlie from the Habit of Faith which produceth this action euen when it s seuered from Charity Then 't is plain that it is not Charitie that giues life to Faith which can performe the proper action that belongs to it without it's helpe How then doth Charity giue life vnto Faith For this they haue a sillie conceit Charity giues Life that is Merite vnto Faith The beleefe or assent vnto diuine Trueth is meritorious if it be with Charity If without then 't is not meritorious This is a fine toy wherein againe they runne quite from the Comparison of the Apostle For the Soule giues liuing Actions to the Body not only the Qualifications of the Actions and so Charitie is not like the Soule because it giues only the qualification of Merit vnto the Action of Faith not the action it selfe Beside A most vaine interpretation it is without any ground from Scripture to say a liuing Faith that is a meritorious Faith when euen in common sense the life of any habit consists onelie in a power to produce those actions that naturallie and immediatlie depend vpon that Habit. And what Reason is there in the World why the Habit of Charity should make the actions of Faith meritorious or why Charity should make Faith meritorious rather then Faith make Charity meritorious seing in this life there is no such praeeminency of Charity aboue Faith Wherefore we despise these speculatiue Sophismes which with much faire glozing our Aduersaries draw from the Text but yet when all comes to the Triall themselues will not stand to the strict application of the similitude because it breeds absurdities which euen themselues abhorre Now if they take liberty to qualifie and interpret they must giue vs leaue to doe so too or if they will not we shall take it To shut vp all Their other Collection is as weake as the former namely A dead body is a true body ergo a dead Faith is true Faith This Argument forceth the Similitude and so is of a Force In materiall things which haue a diuerse being from different Causes it may hold But 't is not so in Vertues and Graces Trueth and Life are both essentiall to such qualities True Charity is a liuing Charity i. e. actiue as the Apostle himselfe proues v. 15. True Va Valour And so of euery vertuous quality if it be true 't is liuing and stirring in Action if it be otherwise 't is counterfeit some other thing that hath onely a shadow of it All these Trickes are pin vpon the Apostle to pervert his plaine meaning viz That as it is necessary to the being of a liuing body that it be coupled with the â—oule so 't is necessary to the being of a liuing true Christian Faith that it bring forth Workes of Obedience SECT 7. CHAP. I. None can be iustified by their owne satisfaction
for the transgression of the Law A briefe summe of Popish doctrine concerning humane satisfactions for sinne THus we haue the resolution of the dispute of S. Iames together with such Cauils as our Adversaries make vpon the seuerall passages thereof By the whole order whereof it appeares sufficiently that Saint Iames disputing against Faith meanes thereby that false and bastard Faith which hypocrites pleased themselues withall insteed of a true Faith and that disputing for workes he meanes nothing but a working Faith And it appeares also that the drift of the Apostle is not in this place to dispute directly of Man's Iustification but only to bring that in as an argument to proue his principall Conclusion That Faith without workes is dead because it will not iustifie In summe it 's euident that neither these Apostles doe disagree between themselues nor yeâ— either of them doe agree with our Adversaries in teaching Iustification by the the Workes of the Morall Law Of the impossibility of Man's Iustification by which meanes Hitherto Theâ—r exâ— Proposition is that None can be iustified by their owne safisfaction for the transgression of the Law For this is this is the only way 〈◊〉 for an Offender to obtaine Iustification and Absolution viâ— to alleage that he hath satisfied for his offence committed by doing or suffering so much as the party offended could in justice exact of him Which satisfaction being made he is no longer debter vnto him but deserues his absolution and his fauour as if he had not offended at all Now then the Question is Whether a Sinner may by any thing done or endured by himselfe satisfie the Iustice of God so obtaine absolution at the Barre of God's Iudgment We defend the Negatiue That it is impossible for a Sinner by any Action or Passion of his own to doe so much as shall be aequivalent vnto the wrong which he hath done vnto the glorious Iustice of God that there with he may rest satisfied and exact no further paenalty Which point is so euident vnto the Conscience of euery one that knowes himselfe to be either a Creature or a Man or a Sinner that it needes not any confirmation If we be considered as Creatures there 's nothing that a finite strength in a finite time can performe which can hold proportion with the offence of an infinite goodnes and Iustice and the eternal punishment thereby deserued Consider vs as Men so we are bound to fulfill the Law of God in all perfection nor is there any thing so true so honest so just so pure so worthy loue and good report but the Law one way or other obliges vs vnto the thought and practise of it So that besides our due debt of Obedience we haue nothing to spare ouer and aboue whereby to satisfie God for those Trespasses that we haue committed vpon his honour and Iustice. Lastly consider vs as Sinners so we are tyed in a double Obligation 1. of punishment to be suffered for Sinne committed 2. Another of Obedience to be perpetually performed Both these debts of punishment and Obedience are equally exacted of sinfull Men and ergo 'tis as absurd in Diuinity to say the Obedience of the Law or good workes will satisfie for the Transgression of the Law as 't is in ciuill dealing to account the payment of one Band the discharge also of another Wherefore euery one that is not blinde and proud in heart will here be soone perswaded to relinquish all claime of Heauen by his own satisfaction running vnto him onely who alone without the helpe of Man or Angell hath troden the Winepresse of the fiercenesse of God's wrath bearing our Sinnes in his Body on the Tree suffering the vtmost whatsoeuer was due to the punishment of them Our Adversaries in this busines are at a stand mistrusting their owne yet not daring wholly to trust to Christ's satisfactions They will giue him leaue to haue his part but by his leaue they will haue one share too in satisfying for Sinnes For they are a generation of Men that are resolued to be as litle beholding to God as may be for grace or for glory And if there be any article of Religion wherein Scripture and Reason would giue the honour of all vnto God they looke at it with an Euill Eye and cast about which way to thrust in themselues for copartners 'T is strange to see to what passe Pride and Couetousnesse haue brought the doctrine of Satisfaction as it is now taught and practised in the Romish Church With you patience I shall take a short survey of it that you may see whether of vâ—twaine rest our Consciences vpon the surer and more stedfast anchor we that trust onely to Christ's satisfactions or they that joine their owne together with his The summe of their doctrine as it is deliuered vnto vs by the Councell of Trent Sess. 6. cap. 14 16. Sess 14 cap. 8. 9. with the Romish Catechisme part 2. cap. 5. quaest 52. seq and explained at large by Bellarmine in his two bookes De Purgatorio in his 4th Booke De Poenitentia and his Bookes De Indulgentijs is this Sinnes are of two sorts 1. Sinne committed before Baptisme as Originall Sinne in all that are baptized Infants and actuall sinnes in those that are baptized at yeares of discretion 2. Sinne committed after Baptisme when after the Grace of the holy Ghost receiued in Baptisme men fall into Sin polluting the Temple of God and grieuing his Spirit Touching the former sort of Sinnes they are agreed that Men are freed from them both the fault and punishment by the Merits and satisfaction of Christ only without any satisfaction on our part But now for Sinnes after Baptisme in obtaining of Remission of them Christ and we part stakes Which copartnership is declared vnto vs in this manner In 〈◊〉 Sinnes we must know there are three things considerable 1. The fault in the offence of God's Maiesty and violation of our friendship with him Here they grant also That Man can not satisfie for the fault doing any thing that may appease God's displeasure and procure his loue Christ onely hath done this for vs for whose onely satisfaction God of his mercy freely returnes into fauour and friendship with vs. But this must be vnderstood in a catholique sense viz for fault of Mortall Sinnes as for Veniall Sinnes God is but slightly angry with them and so we may satisfie him for the fault thereof both in this life and in Purgatory 2. The staine or corruption of Sinne called the Reliques of Sinne abiding in the Soule For the purging out of which there is great force in such satisfactions as are made by Prayers Fastings Almesdeedâ—s and other laborious workes although the Heretiques say otherwise That the abolishing of inhaerent corruption is by the gift of grace freely bestowed on vs by degrees in the vse of all godly meanes 3. The punishment of Sinne which after the fault is pardoned
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
such a fact lawfull howeuer questioned to the contrary In other Languages my skill serues mee not nor is it needfull to trouble you with Instances Those that haue written of this subiect of every Nation witnesse every one for their owne Language And further this word Iustificare being of a latterâ—stampe vnknowne to such Latine Authors as are of ancient and purer Language fitted by Ecclesiasticall writers to expresse the meaning of those two words of the Originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is apparent the Copy must follow the Originall and the Latine word beare the same sense as the Hebrew and Greeke words doe And that this is that Legall sense which wee haue spoken of is a point so manifest throughout the whole Bible that nothing but impudency can deny it As wee shall presently perceiue For in the next place 2 As to the Scriptures which they alleadge for proofe of their Interpretation of the word We answere That of a Multitude of places of Scripture wherin the word Iustifie is vsed our Adversaries may truly pick out one two or three that seem to fauor their Assertion of Infusion of habituall Iustice yet haue they gained little thereby For where tenne or more may be alleadged against one in which the contrary signification is vsed reason tels vs that an Article and Doctrine of Religion ought to bee framed out of the signification of words and phrases which is vsuall ordinary and regular and not out of that which sometimes comes in by way of particular exception Might he not be iudged destitute of sense or modesty that would quarrell at the signification of the word Ecclesia that in the New Testament it is not taken for the Company Assembly of the faithful because in a place or two as Act. 19. it is taken for any ordinary ciuill meeting of people together Wherefore we may grant them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that of Dan. 12. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Apoc. 22. is to be made iust formaliter by infusion of inherent Holinesse in a Sinner For so Ministers may be said to iustifie many as it is in Daniel viz. by Ministery turne many to righteousnesse directing them to the meanes of Holinesse and as Gods Instruments working in them the graces of Conversion and Regeneration And so he that is iust in the Apoc. may be iustified still that is encrease in the inward Habite and outward Exercise of Holinesse more and more thus we may yeeld them in these two places without seeking too other Interpretations further off And yet will this be no prejudice to our Doctrine grounded vpon the other signification so generally vsed Wee answere that of all those other places alleadged by Bell and Becanus there is not any one that doe necessarily enforce such a meaning of the word as hee and his fellowes stand for These aboue the rest haue most apparance namely 1 Cor 6. Tit. 3. Rom 8. 30. where Iustification is say they confounded as one and the same with Sanctification Regeneration Wherevnto I answeare that they doe ill to confound those things that the Apostle hath distinguished very plainly Hee tels the Corinthians that the Vnrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdome of God and that themselues had bin such euen of the most notorious rancke but now they were washed sanctified and Iustified By three words the Apostle expresseth the change of their former condition One Metaphoricall yea are washed The meaning whereof hee declareth in two proper words following yee are Sanctified that 's one degree of washing or clensing from the corruption of Nature in part by the Spirit of our God of whome is the gift of inherent grace And ye are iustified that 's another sort of washing from the guilt of Sinne in the whole in the name of the Lord Iesus that is by the Righteousnesse aâ—d Merits of Iesus Christ. Nothing can be more perspicuous and elegant That place to Tit. Chap. 3 is also as plaine God sayeth the Apostle speaking of the Heires and sonns of GOD in Christ hath saued vs not by any workes of ours but by his owne mercy ver 5. This salvation is set forth to vs in the Meanes and in the End The meanes are two Regeneration and Iustification He hath saued vs by the washing of Regeneration renewing of the Holy Ghost This is the first Meanes viz. Regeneration expressed 1. by its properties or parts 1. Washing or doing away of the filthy Qualities of our corrupted Natures 2. Renewing the Investing of it with new Qualities of Graces and Holynesse 2 By the cause efficient the Holy Ghost whome hee hath shed on us abundantâ—y or richly following the Metaphore comparing the Holy Ghost in this operation to water powred out 2 The Meritorious Cause of it Through Iesus Christ our Saviour who hath procured the sending downe of the Holy ghost into the hearts of the elect ver 6. This is one stepp to Heauen our Regeneration but it is imperfect and cannot abide the severity of Gods Iudgements now we must be absolutely free from all fault and guiltinesse before we can haue hope of obtaining eternall Life Therfoâ—e followes the other meanes of salvation viz. our Iustification by the free grace of God which vtterly frees vs from all blame whatsoever both of obedience to the law and satisfaction for Sins against the law that thus being Regenerate and Iustified we might obtaine the end of our salvation eternall Life The third place is that Rom. 8. 30 Whom God hath Praedestinated these he hath called whome called iustified whome iustified glorified In this place Becanus triumphs For sayth he The Apostle here describing the order of Mans salvation first in Gods decree then in the Execution of it by three degrees of Vocation Iustification and Glorification it followes necessarily from thence that either Sanctification is left out or that it is confounded with one of those three degrees named T is a desperate shift to say that Sanctification is signified by Vocation or Glorification therefore it must be the same with Iustification And this cannot be avoyded by any Elusion We leaue shifts to the Iesuites returning him to this place this plaine direct answere That Sanctification is here comprised in the word Vocation For whereas the linkes of this golden chaine are inseparable and all those that are called must needes be iustified and glorified by vocation must here be meant that calling which is inward and effectuall not that alone which is outward by the externall Ministery of the Word For all that are thus called bee not iustified as is apparent and againe some as Infants are iustified that are not capable of such a Calling But now wherein stands the inward vocation of a sinner Is it not in the Infusion of inherent sanctifying Grace enlightning his Eyes opening his Eare changing his Heart turning him from darkenesse to light from the power of Satan to the obedience of
God in a word in the Renovation of his Facâ—lties Which what is it else but Sanctification or Regeneration or Conuersion Only stiled by that tearme of Vocation in regard of the meanes whereby it is ordinarily effected that is the preaching of the word He must needs coyne vs some new Mystery in Divinity who will perswade vs that some other worke of Grace is meant by Vocation and not that of Sanctification Therefore wee haue neither one Linke snapt out nor two shuffled together in this chaine of our Saluation But foure as distinct as vndivideable Election Sanctification whereto we are called by the Gospell preached 2 Thess. 2. 14. Iustification by Faith which is a fruit of Sanctification and Glorification The fourth place is that in the Epistle to the Hebrewes Chap. 13. 14. For if the blood of Bulls and Goats and the ashes of an Heifer sprinkling them that are vncleane sanctifieth as touching the purifying of the flesh how much more shall the blood of Christ who through the eternall Spirit offered himselfe without fault to God purge our consciences from dead workes to serue the liuing God Hence they argue That as Leuiticall Sacrifices and Washings did sanctifie the flesh from outward Legall impurity so the Sacrifice of Christ doth purge the Conscience from inward spirituall vncleanenesse of dead Workes or Sinnes This purging of the conscience is nothing but iustification of a sinner Wherefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be all of one meaning To which I answere That the Apostle in that Chapter and the next disputing of the vertue and efficacy of Christs death far exceeding the force of all Leuiticall Sacrifices the shadowes of it ascribes vnto it what could not be effected by those viz. eternall Redemption verse 12. purging of the conscience from dead workes verse 12. the putting away of sinne verse 26. The Sanctification of the Elect Chap. 10. 7. 10. made Heires according to the hope of eternall life In neither then of those places is our sanctification confounded with our Iustification but both distinctly declared as two seuerall partes of graces and meanes of the Accomplishment of our eternall Happinesse 'T is scarce worth the labour to examine those other Scriptures produced by our Aduersaries whereof some part doe directly crosse and the rest doe but onely in apparance confirme their assertion In generall therefore for them thus much wee confidently affirme that let the Concordance be studied and all those places examined wherein either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is vsed in the Old or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the New Testament there will not one be found no not one in which those wordes carry any other meaning then that which we stand for viz. the clearing of a parties innocence questioned as faulty and blame-worthy Take a taste of some places 1 Iustification is sometimes applyed to 1. God when Man iustifies God As Psal. 51. 4. Rom. 3. 4. That thou mightest be iustified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in thy saying and mightest ouercome when thou art iudged Matth. 11. 19. And wisedome is iustified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of her children Luke 7. 35. Luke 7. 29. And the Publicans iustified 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God being baptized with the baptisme of Iohn Can there be any other meaning of Iustification hereâ— but this onely That God is then iustified when his workes his wisedome his sacred ordinances being accused by prophane men as vntrue vnequall vnâ—ust and foolish are by the Godly acknowledged or any other meanes evidently cleared vnto all men to be full of all Truth Equity Wisedome and Holinesse 2 Man and that 1 Before Man in things betweene Man and Man When Man iustifies Man Deut. 25. 1. If there be a controversie betweene Men and they come vnto iudgement that the Iudge may iudge them then they shall iustifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the righteous and condemne the wicked Isaiah 5. 23. Woe to them whâ—ch iustifie the wicked for a reward and take away the righteousnesse of the righteous from him Prouerb 17. 15. He that iustifieth thâ— wicked and condemneth the iust euen they both are an abomination to the Lord. 2 Sam. 15. 4. Oh that I were made Iudge in the Land that euery man that hath any suit or cause might come to me and I would doe him Iustiâ—e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In these many the like places to Iustifie is in iudâ— ciall proceeding to absolue a party from fault blame whether it be rightfully or wrongfully done Ezek. 16. 52. Be thou confounded and beare thy shame in that thou hast iustified thy sisters speakes God vnto Ierusalem in comparison of whose abhomination the sinnes of Sodome and Samaria were scarce to be accounted any faults They were Saints to her Of the Pharises Christ speakes Luke 16. 15. Yee are they that iustifie your selues before men but God knoweth your hearts That is You stand vpon the defence and ostentation of outward Holinesse and deeming it sufficient to make it appeare before Men you are holy without regard of acquitting the sincerity of your hearts before God 2 Before God where God iustifies Man Exod. 23. 7. The innocent and the righteous slay thou not for I will not iustifie the wicked by esteeming him as innocent and letting him goe from punishment Isaiah 50. 8. Hee is neere that iustifieth me who will contend with me saith the Prophet in the person of Christ signifying God would make it appeare that he was blamelesse for the rejection of his people the Iewes who perished for their owne and not his fault Rom. 5. 18. As by the offence of one iudgement came on all Men to condemnation So by the righteousnesse of one the free gift came vpon all men to the Iustification of life Rom 8. 33. 34. Who shall lay thing to the charge of Gods Elect It is God that iustifies who shall condemne 1 Cor. 4. 4. I know nothing by my selfe yet in this am I not iustified Hee that iudgeth me is God q. d. I haue kept a good conscience in my Ministery but God is my iudge though my conscience pronounce me innocent yet God is my sole Iudge that iudgeth me and my conscience Acts 13. 38. 39. Through this Man is preached vnto you the forgiuenesse of sinnes and from all things from which yee could not be iustified by the Law of Moses by him euery one that beleeueth is iustifyed By which places not to name more it appeares plâ—inly that Iustification is opposed to Accusation and Condemnation and therefore can signifie nothing else but the defence absolution of a persoÌ„ accused for an offender Which thing is so cleare and euident that it cannot be gaynsayed except by those alone who are wilfully blind and obstinately resolued to coÌ„tradict any truth that makes against their inveterate errors For our selues we may not nor dare not shut our eyes against so cleare Light nor ought we to be so bold wheÌ„ God hath
apparant that the worke is deseruing or not-deseruing according to ' its owne Nature not according to a compact made He that promiseth vnto one more for a little worke then to another for a great deale in the same kinde doth not by such a compact make the little labour of the one more deserving then the others great pains We must look to the worke what it is in its own Nature as it is of some worth or no worth so account it deseruing or not deseruing Wherfore wheÌ„ in the distinction they make some merits of Condignity or worthinesse some of Congruity or of fitnesse without worthinesse they offend two wayes grosly against two rules of Reason First in opposing termes not opposite Worthinesse and fitnesse being the same if you take them in regard of the worke For that which deserues a reward worthily deserues it fitly how else is it worthy of the reward if the reward be not fit for it and that which deserues it fitly if it deserues it deserues it worthily 2 In distinguishing vpon tearmes that doe not convenire tâ—ti For Worthinesse agrees to merit onely but fitnesse belongs to Compact So that in plainer English the distinction runnes thus Merits or deserts are of two sorts Some that are merits and doe deserue because they are worthy of a reward others that are no merits and doe not deserue because they are not worthy of the Reward but onely obtaine it ex Congruo in regard of Compact and Promise For this Rule is most certaine That a worke which deserues nothing by its owne worthinesse can neuer deserue any thing by compact or promise The Iesuites are senselesse in defending the contrary If saith Bellarmine a King promise a Beggar 1000 pounds a yeare vpon no condition then indeed the Begger doth not deserue it But if vpon condition he shall do some small matter as that he shall come to the Court and fetch it or bring a Posâ—e of flowers with him now the Begger deserues it and he may come to the King and tell him hee hath merited his 1000 pounds a yeare Euery man but a Iesuite would say 't were extreame impudency in a Begger to make such a demaund so derogatorily to the Kings gracious bounty Now can it helpe them to say That a Promise bindes vnto performance so that God should be vniust and vntrue if he should not bestow the reward promised although the workes bee not equall to the reward For Gods Iustice and Truth in performing his promise doe not imply our merit in performing the Condition We doe not deserue by our well-doing because God is iust in his rewarding And the reason is manifest Because God in making the promise respected meerly the freenesse and bounty of his owne grace not the worthinesse of our workes And therefore that obligation whereby he hath tyed himselfe to performance is founded meerely in his owne Truth not a â—ot in our merit Wherefore when they tell vs that faith merits Iustification de Congruo they intrappe themselues in a grosse Contradiction seeing to deserue de Congruo is not to deserue at all but onely to receiue the reward by meere promise God hauing promised to iustifie beleeuers Thus much touching the first Assertion that Faith is the proper Cause of Iustification working it by it owne efficacy and merits CHAP II The Confutation of the Arminian errour shewing that faith doth not iustifie sensu proprio as it is an act of ours The second Error about this point is of the Arminians with whom also the Papists agree T is this 2 That we are Iustified by Faith sensu proprio that is the Act of beleeving in that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere is imputed to vs for righteousnesse being accepted of God and accounted vnto vs for that whole Righteousnesse of the Law which we were bound to performe So that our very Faith is that Righteousnesse for which we are iustified in the sight of God noâ— quidem merito suo sed propter gratuitam acceptilationem Dei The authors of this opinion are Faustus Socinus that vnhappy Haereticke in his most Blasphemous Booke de Christo servatore Michael Servetus a Spanyard in his second Booke de lege Evangelio which Errors are confuted by Calvin in his opuscula A stiffe deâ—ender of this opinion was Christophorus Ostorodius a Polonian in his disputations contra Georgium Tradelij who for this and other pestilent errors about the Article of Mans Redemption was wiâ—h his companion Andreas Vaidonitus banished the Low Countreys where he had seated himselfe and published his opinions Arminius and his followers haue bin cheefe promoters of it Arminius himselfe as in other his opinions so in the publishing of this vsed much closenesse and cunning conveyance In his private disputations Tit. de Iustificatione he seemes plainly to condemne it saying that it is an abuse to say that Fides est causa formalis Iustificationis and an error to affirme That Christ hath deserued vt fidei dignitate et merito iustificemur In his publique disputations he opens himselfe somewhat plainly yet darkely enough Thes. 19. de Iustificat cat Thes. 7. These are his words Fidei vero Iustificatio tribuitur non quod illa sit Iustitia ipsa quae rigido seuero Deâ— iudicio oppont possit quanquam Deo grata sed quod in iudicio misâ—riâ—ordiae triumphans supra iudicium absolutionem a peccatis obtineat gratiose in Iustitiam imputetur Cuius rei causaest tum Deus iustus misericors tum Christus obedientâ—â— oblatione et intercessione suâ secundum Deum in beneplacito et mandato ipsius Here Faith it selfe is imputed for Righteousnesse But t is not in Gods seuere Iudgment but in his Iudgment of Mercy Faith in it selfe is not worthy but yet Christ by his merits hath deserued that God will gratiously accept of it This opinion published was quickly contradicted wherevpon Arminius makes knowne his mind in playner Termes In declaratioue sententiae ad ordines Holland Westfrisiae he confesseth that in the forenamed Thesis his meaning was that ipsa fides tanquam actus iuxta Evangelij mandatum praestitus imputatur coram Deo in siue ad iustitiam idque in gratiâ cum non sit ipsamet iustitia Legis And in his Responsione ad 31. Artic. art 4. hee brancheth cut his opinion in three distinct propositions 1 Iustitia Christi imputatur nobis 2 Iustitia Christi imputatur in iustitiam 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere imputatur in iustitiam The first of these Propositions he grants That Christs Righteousnesse is imputed to vs. The second hee denies That Christs Righteousnesse is imputed for Righteousnesse The third â—e grants That the Act of beleeuing is imputed for Righteousnesse Here by Mysteries in these Propositions hereafter to bee vnfolded Wee now meddle with the last which yet is more roundly expressed by Arminius in his Epistle ad Hyppolitum Lege princip Pa. Ipsum Fidei actum 〈◊〉
and Mercy Truth in that he esteemes me perfectly righteous for that righteousnesse sake which is euery way perfect and mercy that he accepteth for sinne that righteousnesse which is performed for me by Christ my surety but is not mine owne Other mercifull Iudgement of God besides this we acknowledge none 3 We are not iustified by two righteousnesses existing in two diuers subiects But if wee be iustified by the worke of Faith we shall be iustified partly by that righteousnesse which is in vs viz. of Faith partly by the righteousnesse of Christ without vs. Ergo we are not iustified by Faith properly The Minor is apparant The Righteousnesse of Faith is â—nherent in vs. and by it we are iustified say our Aduersaries The righteousnesse of Christ is inherent in him and by it are we iustified say the Scriptures Being now iustified by his blood we shall be saued from wrath through him Ro. 5 9. v. 19. By the obedience of one many shall be made iust Wherefore either we are properly iustified by both or there is an errour and one part must stand out We cannot be properly iustified by both for our own faith and Christs obedience too for if we be perfectly iust in Gods sight for our own Faith what need the Imputation of Christs obedience to make vs iust If for Christs righteousnes we be perfectly iustified how can God accouÌ„t vs perfectly iust for our faith Arminius and his friends seeing these things cannot stand together haue according to the good will which they beare toward the righteousnesse of Christ kept in our faith and thrust out Christs obedience denying vtterly that it is imputed vnto vs for righteousnesse But my Brethren which I hope make a better choice seeing it cannot part with ours part with our owne righteousnesse leaning wholy vpon the righteousnesse of Christ and seeking for the comfort of our Iustification in his perfect obedience and not in our weake and imperfect saith These Reasons may suffice to shew the errour of that Assertion We are iustified by Faâ—â—h sensu propâ—rio God accepting the Act of beleeuing for the perfect obedience of the Law And therefore that in those places where 't is said Faith is imputed for righteousnesse the Phrase is to be expounded metonymice that is Christs righteousnesse beleeued on by Faith is imputed to the beleeuer for righteousnesse Whereas our Aduersaries say that faith of its owne dignity and desert doth not obtaine this fauour of God to be esteemed for the perfect righteousnesse of the Morall Law but this comes to passe onely by the Merits of Christ who hath procured this grace vnto vs that God should thus accept of our Faith wee answere that this is affirmed but 't is not prooued They speake a little more fauourably then the Romanists who make faith of it selfe to merit Iustification these will haue it not to merit it but to be graciously accepted for righteousnesse But wee find not in Scripture any such Doctrine as this Christ hath merited that wee should bee iustified for our faith or Christ hath merited for our faith that faith should be esteemed by God for that perfect Iustice of the Law whereby we are iustified in Gods sight These things the Scriptures teach not they teach that Christ is our righteousnesse and that we are iustified by his blood and obedience But that he hath merited by his obedience that we should be iustified by our owne obedience and righteousnesse is a peruerse assertion of men that loue to runne about the bush and leauing the streight to runne in crooked and froward wayes And it differs little from the like shift of the Disciples of Rome who to maintaine Merit of our workes and of Christ too salue it with this tricke Christ hath merited that wee might merit But we acknowledge as no other merit but that of Christ so no other righteousnesse to Iustification but his alone Thus much of the second Assertion CHAP. III. The confutation of Popish Doctrine that other graces doe iustifie vs and not faith alone THe third and last followes wherein the Controuersie is betweene vs and those of Rome whose Assertion is that 3 A sinner is not iustified by faith alone but also by other vertues and graces as Hope Loue Repentance Feare of God c. This we also reject as an error contrary to the Scriptures wherby we are taught That a man is iustified by faith alone For opening the truth of which point you must call to minde the different acception of the word Iustifie wherein it is taken by vs and by our Aduersaries With them to Iustifie is all one as to Sanctifie of vnjust and vnholy to make inherently iust and holy With vs to Iustifie is to absolue an offender quitting him from blame and punishment According to these different Acceptions this proposition A man is iustified by faith alone hath a double meaning one thus A man by faith alone is inherently sanctified another thus A man by faith alone obtaines absolution in Gods Iudgement from all faultinesse and punishment This latter meaning onely is true and t is that onely which is defended by vs of the Reformed Churches Namely that faith onely is the grace of God whereby a sinner beleeuing the promise and resting himselfe vpon the righteousnesse of Christ receiues mercy from God in absoluing him from the fault and punishment of all his Transgressions and to be accounted Righteous for Christs sake Which gracious priuiledge God hath annexed vnto faith as vnto the Condition of the New Covenant and not vnto Loue Hope Feare Repentance or any other grace For not these but Faith onely respecteth the promise of the Gospell The former sense of that Proposition is false and absurde viz. A Man by faith alone is inherently sanctified nor doe any of the Reformed deteine such a Construction thereof Wherefore when Bellarmine and his Complices dispute eagerly against Iustification by faith alone those Arguments wherewith they suppose to smite through the Truth of our Assertion are let flye at a wrong Marke being all aymed at this Butte viz to proue That a man is sanctified by other inherent Graces as well as faith Which point we easily yeeld them confessing that inherent righteousnesse consists not of one but of the manifold graces of Gods Spirit wrought in the heart of such as are Regenerate Neuerthelesse for the shewing of some points which may be doubted of Let vs briefely take a view of the chiefe passages of Bellarmines long discourse which he maintaines from the twelfth Chapter of his first booke de Iustificatione to the end For to proue that a Man is iustified not by faith alone Of his Arguments which are few I shall name three onely which are materiall 1 If other vertues Iustifie as well as Faith then not faith alone But other vertues doe Iustifie Therefore c. The Minor he prooues out of the Councell of Trent Sess. 6. cap. 6. where seauen preparatory graces to
Iustification are reckoned vp 1 Faith 2 The Feare of God 3 Hope in his mercy 4 Loue of God as the Fountaine of Iustice ad benefactoris saith Bellarmine 5 Repentance a sorrow and detestation of sinne 6 A desire of receiuing the Sacrament of Baptisme 7 A purpose to leade a new life and keepe Gods Commandements All these saith Bellarmine doe iustifie a Man Praeparatoriè antecedentèr dispositiuè Faith that 's the roote and beginning of our Iustification the rest follow in order all must goe before as needfull preparations and Iustification followes as the effect of all in common c. Ergo Not of Faith alone The Iesuite goes ouer euery particular to shew by Scriptures what force each of those graces haue to Iustifie But t is not worth-while to repeate his proofes Vnto the Argument wee answere two things 1 That it is framed vpon the errour which puts out of frame the whole dispute of our Aduersaries about this Article of Iustification namely that Regeneration and Sanctification is all one thing with Iustification and that to Iustifie a sinner is nothing but to doe away inherent corruption by infusion of inherent righteousnesse This we haue heretofore by the Scriptures cleared to be false and therefore this Argument proouing our Sanctification to be wrought by other graces as well as by faith toucheth not the point of Iustification in the Remission of sinnes which faith alone obtaineth through the promise 2 Touching these graces which they make preparatory vnto Iustification that is to Sanctification Wee answere that t is a Philosophicall dreame of such as measure out the workes of Gods Spirit in mans conuersion according to Aristotles Physickes and those disputes touching praeuious or fore-going dispositions that qualifie the matter for receiuing of the Forme We acknowledge that in mans Regeneration all graces of the Spirit are not perfected at once But as the ioynts and sinewes in the bodily so the graces of Sanctification in the spirituall New-birth are at first weake and feeble Which in continuance of time gather more strength according to our growth in Christ. But yet these are true for the substance though imperfect in their degrees and measure There is now true Spirituall life in such a one which was before dead in sinne although there be not the free and able exercise of all the vitall powers Health there is but not entire from all degrees oâ— sicknesse and euery kinde of disease Wherefore we affâ—â—me that these vertues which are by our Aduersarics reckoned onely as dispositions vnto Regeneration are if they be true and not counterfeit Mettall the maine parts and fruits of Regeneration Hence we beleeue that these are foule errors viz. To teach that a man without grace by the power of his free-wil may dispose himselfe to his Regeneration by beleeving in Christ fearing and louing of God hoping of his Mercy repenting of his sinnes resoluing vpon amendment and all this with true and sincere affection or to teach if a man cannot do these things of his owne meere strength and free-will yet by the Spetiall aide of God inciting and helping him 〈◊〉 may doe them whilst he is vtterly vnsâ—nctified in statu peccati That true Faith and Feare and Hope and Loue and Repentance and purpose of Reformation are Vertues and Graces in a Man that is yet gracelesse and without Vertue because destitute of Sanctification That these Graces consisting in the inward motion of the soule and change of the Affections are wrought in Man not by any sanctifying Grace of the Holy Ghost inwardly touching the heart but by some other kind of Vertue and aid they know not what externall exciting and helping forward the strength of Nature All these are monstrous and mis-shapen imaginations bred in proud hearts that would faine share the glory of their Conversion betweene Gods grace and their owne free-will and maintained by curious heads whom Philosophicall speculations haue transported beyond the simplicity of diuine Truth The Scripture speaks otherwise of these Graces as of those that belong to such as are not in the way to be made good but are made so already Ye are al the Children of God by Faith in Iesus Christ saith the Apostle Paul Gal. 3. 28. Whosoeuer shall confesse that Iesus is the sonne of God God dwelleth in him and he in God saith Iohn 1. 1. Ioh. 4. 15. and Chap. 5. 1. Whosoeuer beleeueth that Iesus is that Christ is borne of God Doe we by true Faith become the Children of God borne of him in whom hee dwelleth and we in him when as yet in the meane time we are yet vnsanctified vnholy vncleane not in the state of Grace Bellarmine will proue that a man may haue Faith yet not the Child of God ouâ— of Iohn 1. 12. As many as receiued him to them he gaue power to become the Sonnes of God euen to them thâ—t beleeue on his name See sâ—â—th he they that beleeue are not yet but haue power if they list to become the Sonnes of God viz. by going on further from Faith to Hope and Loue and the rest of the Tridentiâ—e dispositions For t is Loue properly and not Faith that makes vs the Sons of God as he would proue contrary to that expresse place of the Galat. out of the 1 Ep. of Iohn where the Apostle hath much excellent matter but nothing to that purpose To the place of Iohn wee answere that the Iesuite playeth with the ambiguity of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not here a liberty to doe what we list as if we could at our pleasure become Gods adopted sonnes but t is a right and priuiledge which Christ the naturall Sonne bestowes on true beleeuers to be made Gods adopted sonnes and so coheires with him of the heauenly inheritance When is this priuiledge of Adoption bestowed Then when they beleeue and assoone as they beleeue before they be Regenerate No Saint Iohn denies it He giues power to be the Sonnes of God euen to those that beleeue in him Who be they Hee answeres vers 15. Which were borne not of bloud nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God Faith then is not a Preparatiue to Iustification but a part of it And is not Feare of GOD too No saith Bellarmine That is the beginning of wisedome that is of a perfect Iustification A bad interpretation but a worse Argument T is the beginning therefore not part Nay If the feare of God be the Alpha of Christian graces certainely it selfe makes one Letter of that Alphabet T is such a beginning of wisdome as its selfe is wisdome too Else God himselfe deceaues vs who as it is Iob 28. 28. Sayd vnto man Behold the feare of the Lord that is wisdome and to depart from euill is vnderstanding And therefore to take it in the Iesuits glosse Feare of God is Iustification as well as the beginning of it For
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
compleate 6 They proue by these Scriptures that the Law may be fulfilled Gal 5. The apostle reckons vp the fruits of the spirit Loue ioy Peace c. then he sayth ver 23. that against such there is no Law That is sayeth Bellarmine the Law cannot accuse such men of Sinne. So 1 Iohn 3. 9. Whosoeuer is borne of God doth not commit Sinne for his seede remayneth in him and he cannot Sinne because he is borne of God Ergo the regenerate cannot so much as breake the Law We answere That both these places are peruerted by false Interpretations Against such there is no Law sayth the Apostle Against what such persons or such graces If it be meant of Persons viz. That such as haue the Spirit and bring forth the fruits of the Spirit there mentioned against those there is no Law we must take it in the Apostles owne meaning which hee expresseth verse 18. If yee he led by the spirit ye are not vnder Law How is that Are not the Regenerate vnder the Law that is vnder the Obedience of the Law Yes wee graunt on both sides that Grace frees vs not from subiection and obedience vnto Gods Law How then are they not vnder the Law T is plaine They are not vnder the Curse and Condemnation of the Law as those be that walke in the flesh and doe the workes thereof who therefore shall not inherit the Kingdome of God v 19. and that 's to be accursed But such as walke in the Spirit being regenerate and Iustified are not vnder the Curse and therefore though the Law may and doth accuse them of Sinne yet the Law is not so against them as to bring condemnation vpon them as it doth vpon other from which in Christ they are freed If the clause be vnder stood of the Graces of the Spirit there reckoned vp the sense is this Against such workes there is no Law forbidding them as there is against works of the flesh these agreeable those contrary to the law But this makes nothing to our Adversaries purpose For the place in Iohn He that is borne of God doth not commit Sinne yea cannot If our Aduersaries exposition according to the very Letter may stand good it will â—ollow That in the regenerate there is not onely a possibility to keepe the Law but also an impossibility at any time to breake it But they easily see how absurd this position is and that it being graunted their doctrine of falling away from Grace lies flat in the dust seeing Iohn sayeth expresly That a man regenerate not onely doth not but cannot Sinne. Therefore certainely he cannot fall from Grace Wherefore they helpe it out with a distinction Hee cannot sinne that is mortally He may sinne that is venially and veniall sinnes may stand with grace and with perfect Obedience of the Law This distinction is one of the rotten pillars of the Romish Church tw'ill come in fit place to be examined hereafter for the present we say Hee that Sinnes venially as they mince it breakes the Law and againe a Man Regenerate may sinne mortally which is true not onely according to there doctrine who teach that a Man may fall from the Grace of Regeneration which to doe is a mortall Sinne but much more according to the Scriptures and Experience which witnesse that Peter Dauid Solomon and Many yea all the Saints haue at sometime or other there greivous falls out of which notwithstanding by the Grace of the Holy Ghost abiding in them they recouer themselues so that finally they fall not a way The last Argument is from the examples of such men as haue fulfilled the Law 7 The Scriptures record that diuers men haue beene perfect in fulfilling the law in all things 〈◊〉 Abraham Noah Dauid Iosiah Asa Zacharie and Elizabeth the Apostles and other holy Men. Therefore the Law is at least possible to bee kept by some Not to stand in particular examination of all the places of Scripture which are alleadged for proofe of these examples we answer briefly That it is euery maÌ„s duty to aime at perfection in his obedience according to Christs Commandement Mat. 5. 48. Be ye therfore perfect euen as your Father in Heauen is perfect 2 That in this life there are many degrees of grace which God bestowes diuersly on diuers men according to his owne pleasure and their greater or lesse diligence in the practise of Holinesse So that comparatiuely some men may be said to be perfect because farre more perfect then others as the greatest starres bee said to be of perfect light because they shine brighter then those of lesser Magnitude though yet not so bright as the Sunne But 3. we affirme that no man in this endeauour after perfection goes so farre as for inward Holinesse and outward obedience to answere the perfection of the Law in all points Euen in these holy Saints which they bring for instance the Scriptures haue recorded vnto vs their failings that in them at once we may see a patterne of Holinesse to be imitated and an example of humane Infirmity to be admonished by wee haue Abraham somtimes misdoubting of Gods promise protection and helping himselfe by a shift scarce warrantable Noah ouer-seene in drinke Dauid breaking the sixth and seauenth Commandements one after another Iosiah running wilfully vpon a dangerous enterprise against Gods Commandement Asa relying on the King of Syria for helpe against the King of Israel and not vpon the Lord in a rage imprisoning the Prophets for reprouing him and in his disease seeking not to the Lord but to the Phisitians Zachary not giuing credence to the Angels message The Apostles all at a clap forsaking or denying Christ. We cannot then in these Saints finde perfection in the full obedience to the Law amongst whose few actions registred by the Holy Ghosts penne we may reade their sinnes together with their good workes And had the Scriptures beene silent in that point yet who could thence haue concluded that these men or others had no faults because no mention is made of them It was Gods purpose to relate the most eminent not euery particular action of their liues euen Christs story fals short of such exactnesse Wee conclude then notwithstanding these Arguments Our second Proposition standeth firme and good viz. That no man in this life can fulfill the Law in euery duty both inward and outward but that the iustest man on earth will faile in many things So if he should seeke for Iustification by this his actuall obedience to the Law he throwes himselfe vnder the curse of the Law For cursed is euery one that continues not in all things which are written in the booke of the Law to doe them saith the Apostle out of Moses Which curse must needs light on those that are of the workes of the Law that is seeke for Iustification and life by
that kind whereof his Aduersaries accused him His heart was vpright his life was innocent neither his Aduersares could make proofe neither did his conscience accuse him or God condemne him of these faults that he was charged withall Thus farre Dauid durst stand to Gods Iudgement that hee was innocent in those particular euils whereof man had accused him but it followes not therefore hee durst enter into iudgement with God and plead that God himselfe could find no fault at all with him Hee might haue many secret faults and imperfections euen in this most innocent passage of his life which neither himselfe knew nor his enemies could come to the knowledge of and therefore though he dare pleade his righteousnesse before God so farre as man can accuse him of vnrighteousnesse yet he dare not goe further to cleare himselfe against all that God may obiect against him Heare what himselfe saith in this case Psal. 139. 23. 24. Search me O God and know my heart try me and know my thoughts Speakes the Prophet this out of confidence that God vpon search and tryall shall finde no euill in his heart and thoughts No but out of holy desire that whatsoeuer euill is found in him may bee amended Hee knowes well that many things may be found faulty in him and therefore he stands not to iustifie himselfe but only sues for grace to redresse them adding in the next words And see if there be any wicked way in mee and lead mee in the way euerlasting 2 They proue that the workes of Men regenerate are not Sinnefull by the Scriptures which call them good workes and say that they are pleasing vnto God 1. That they are good Let your light so shine before Men that they may see your good worke Matth 5. 16. Charge the rich that they doe good and bee rich in good workes 1 Tim. 6. 18. wee are his workemanshippe created in Christ vnto good workes Eph. 2. 10. why trouble yee the woman for shee hath wrought a good worke vpon mee Mat 26. 10. 2. That they are also pleasing vnto God is apparant by these places Ye are made an holy â—riesthood to offer vp spirituall sacrifices acceptable to God by Iesus Christ 1 Peter 2. 5. In the Epistle to the Philippians the Apostle calleth their almes seat vnto him An odor of a sweet smell a sacrifice acceptable well pleasing vnto God Philip 4. 18. Againe To doe good and to communicate forget not for with such sacrifices God is well pleased Heb. 13. 16. Hence thâ—y argue If the workes of Men regenerate bee good and acceptable vnto God then certainely the Protestants erre in their Doctrine teaching that the best workes of Men are sinnefull for as much as Sinne is neither good in it selfe nor any way pleasing vnto God Who is infinitely offended at all iniquity Hereunto we answere That this Argument is nothing but a forward and wilfull mistake of our doctrine Wee teach that the best workes of the best men are in part sinnefull They thereupon cry out that wee take away all goodnesse from the workes of the godly and that wee account them to be in se. i. e. Ex natura sua damnable and mortall sinnes This is a foolish calumny of Men that cannot distinguish betweene the disease and the diseased Body but straightway conclude that the whole body it selfe is nothing else but a meere rotten vlcer because it hath swellings and sores in some parts of it Wherefore to vnfold their eyes in his point they are to vnderstand that wee make a necessary true distinction between That which is sinne and that which is sinnefull teaching that the good workes of the Regenerate be not sinnes though they be sinfull Wee explaine it thus That is to be called Sinne in its owne Nature which is the transgression of the Law in doing any act forbidden or in leauing vndone any act commanded by the Law The omitting or committing of any such act is properly in se ex Naturâ suâ a sinne Because it is directly and totally in the very substance of it against the Law As to pray to a false God or neglect prayer to the true God are both of them sinnes in their very proper Natures because both are forbidden by the morall law That wee call sinnefull which is for the maine substance of the worke conformable to the Law but it failes and offends against the Law in some circumstances required in the doing of it when the thing is done which the Law commands but noâ— perfectly in euery point as the Law commands it such a worke we say is not a sinne though it be sinnefull there is sinne in it but it is not all sinne This distinction our Aduersaries cannot but admit of as in the workes of the Heathen and Christians vnregerate so in the good workes of the Regenerate themseâ—ues Wee and they confesse that the morall Vertues of the Heathen were good and commendable in the substance thereof nor doe we thinke there is any men so deuoide of reason as to affirme that the Iustice Temperance Chastity Liberality of a Heathen are meere vices sinnes We all grant they were vertues but yet our Aduersaries themselues cannot affirme that they were euery way vertuous free from all spots and staines of Vice seeing they had neither faith sanctity from whence they sprung nor the glory of God at which they aimed Now as the vertues of the naturall man are in part vitious so the good workes of the Regenerate are in part sinnefull To fast to pray to giue almes with the like workes of Piety or Mercy we affirme and teach that they are good workes good in their nature and vse being such actions as the Law commands We know none of our side so farre gone with passion as to maintaine that a godly man sinnes because hee fasts prayes and giues almes as if those very acts were nothing but damnable sinne We detest such franticke opinions and if any of our Writers haue let slip such words as may giue occasion to our Aduersaries so to thinke of vs we doe not nor are we bound to iustifie euery hot and cholericke speech breathed out in eagernesse of disputation Good workes they be truly and verily good but they are not perfectly good When a godly man prayes he doth well but he neuer doth so well but he may doe better Nor dare any man in the world auouch that either the roote whence good actions come is purged by perfect Holinesse or the manner of doing them is so exactly kept in a precise obseruation of euery circumstance or the end in doing them Gods glory and Mans good so syncerely and truely aimed at that the seuerity of Gods Iustice cannot finde any the least failing in any of those things This is all we teach touching the sinfulnesse of good workes and thus we stand too as a most certaine truth And we say That this sinnefulnesse accompanying our good workes is
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
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
Gospell not only proposeth what is to be done but withall giueth Grace and strength to doe it and therefore the Law giuen by Moses the Law-giuer cannot iustifie because it was giuen without the grace of fulfilling it but the Gospell giuen by Christ the Redeemer doth justifie because it is accompanied with the grace of the holy Ghost making vs able to keepe the Law For which cause also the Law of Moses is a yoake vnsupportable the Law of feare and bondage because it giues not grace to keepe it but onely conuinceth our Sinne and threatens vs punishment but the Law of Christ the Gospell is a light yoake a Law of loue and liberty because it giues grace to keepe it and of loue to God and man and so by fulfilling frees a man from feared punishment This is the summe of the Romish Doctrine touching the difference betwixt the morall Law and the Gospell in the point of Iustification as it is deliuered vs by Bellarmine the rotten pillar of the antichristian Synagogue Wherein we haue scarce a syllable of distinct Trueth but all peruerted by aequiuocations and grosse Ambiguities as shall appeare by a short surucy of the former discourse Whereas then he distinguisheth the Gospell into the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and into the Grace of the Holy Ghost let vs follow him in these two parts First for Doctrine We grant that the Gospell is often so taken but in this matter about Iustification this acception on is too large and not distinct enough For although by a Synecdâ—che of the chiefest most excellent part the whole Doctrine and Ministry of Christ and his Apostles with their successors be called the doctrine of the Gospell and the Ministery of the Gospell yet all things which they preached or wrote is not the Gospell properly so called But as Moses chiefly deliuered the Law vnto the Iewes though yet with all he wrote of Christ and so in part reuealed vnto them the Gospell so Christ and his Ministers though chiefely they preach the Gospell yet in its place they vrge the law withall as that which hath its singular vse in furthering our Christian faith and practise Wherefore when we speak of the Gospell as opposite to the Law t is a Iesuiticall equiuocation to take it in this large sense For the whole doctrine of Christ and his Apostles preached by them and written for vs in the Booke of the New Testament we follow the Apostle in his dispute of Iustification Gal. 3. 4. 5. And according as he doth take the Gospell strictly for the promise of Iustification and life made vnto man in Christ Iesus This is in proper tearmes the Gospell viz. that speciall Doctrine touching mans Redemption and reconciliation with God by the meanes of Iesus Christ the Reuelation whereof was indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the gladdest tidings that were euer brought to the eare of mortall man Which Gospell in strict teaÌ„rmes the Angels preached Lue. 2. 10. 11. Behold I bring you glad tidings of great ioy which shall be to all people That vnto you is borne this day in the Citie of Dauid a Sauiour which is Christ the Lord. And afterward Christ and his Apostles fully explained the mysteries thereof vnto the world According to this necessary distinction we answer That if we take the Gospell in that large Acception t is true which Bellarmine hath That the Gospell containes in it the Doctrine of workes viz. the Morall Law euen the very same precepts prohibitions threatnings promises which are deliuered in the Law All which as Christ and his Hpostles preached so may all Ministers without blame yea they must if they will auoid blame presse the same vpon their hearers seasonably and discreetly that the Law may make way for the better receiuing and entertainment of Grace in the Gospell But hence it followes not that the Gospell properly so taken is to be confounded as one and the same thing with the Law because the Law is conjoyned with it in the preachings and writings of the Ministers of the New Testament They still are deuided in their Nature and Offices nor hath the Gospell any affinity with the Law in praecepts threatnings or promises Wherefore when Bellarmine teacheth vs. That Euangelicall promises be made with condition of perfect fulfilling the Law T is a desperate errour and that in the very foundation You heard his proofes before recited see now a little how passing weake they be 1 Mat. 5. Except your righteousnesse c. To this wee answere The plaine meaning of the place is this Our righteousnesse must abound more then that of the Pharises that is It must not be outside onely as theirs was but inward Righteousnesse of the heart in inward sanctity of the thoughts and affections as well as of the outward Action or else such our hypocrisie will keepe vs from entring into Heauen But doth it hence follow that because we must be more perfect then these Pharisees we must be as perfect in all things as the Law requires we must exceed them ergo equall the holinesse of the Law in all points Because wee must be syncere without hypocrisie ergo we must be perfect in all things without blame Such consequents as these the Iesuit hath coÌ„cluded out of his own head not out of the text Touching that speech of Christ to the yong man Mat. 19. and the Lawyer Matt. 10. That if they did fulfill the Law they should liue We answere that Christ in so speaking vnto them did not preach the Gospell but shewed vnto them the Legall way to Saluation For these erring that grand error of the Iew in seeking for righteousnesse not by faith but by the works of the Law seuering the Law from Christ the end thereof as the Apostle shewes Rom. 9. 31. 32. 10. 3. and so supposing to be saued by doing some good thing Christ answeres them in their humour as euery one should be answered that swels with high conceits of his own righteousnesse workes That there was a Law to be kept and if they could fully obserue the righteousnes of it they should be saued sending them of purpose to the Law that they might be humbled thereby and see their great folly in seekeing for life by that which they were so vnable to keepe Against which answere the Iesuit hath nothing to rely but stands much in confuting of another answere made by some of our Diuines That Christ spake these things Ironically This Bellar. seeks to confute nor do I labor to confirm it though it might be justified for any thing he brings to the contrary 3 Vnto those those places of Scripture that euery where almost promise life blessednesse the fauour of God vpon condition of holinesse in life and conversation that we mortifie the lusts of the flesh walke in the Spirit ouercome the world c. We answere that Obedience is one thing perfect obedience is another We say that the promises of
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
dispute is heere evident The Galatians may not be circumcised not obserue the Ceremoniall Law why Because if they did Christ should not profit them at all But what reason is there for this that Circumcision the Ceremonies should frustrate the benefit of Christs death The Apostle alleageth a good reason because the obseruation of the Ceremoniall Law tied them also to the fulfilling of the whole Morall Law The Argument is thus framed They who are bound to keep the whole Law haue no profit at all by Christ. But they who are circumcised are bound to keepe the whole Law ergo They that be circumcised haue not profit at all in Christ. The minor in this Argument is the expresse words of the Text and the proofe of it is euident in Reason because the retaining of Legall ceremonies did in effect abolish Christ's comming in the Flesh who by his comming in the Flesh had abolished them And ergo they who in reviving them denied Christ's death had no meanes at all to be saued but only by the fulfilling of the Morall Law Wherevnto they were necessarily bound if they meant not to perish Which reason yet is of no force before Christ his comming and ergo then circumcision and other legall ceremonies did not lay vpon the Iewes such a strict obligation to fulfill the whole Law The Maior Proposition is the very reason of the Apostles Enthymeme thus Men circumcised are bound to keep the whole Law Ergo Christ shall not profit them The Reason of the consequence is this Proposition Whosoeuer are bound to keepe the whole Law Christ profiteth them nothing at all This Argument and the Reason thereof will hardly passe with approbation in the Iesuites Schooles Men are bound to the whole Law ergo Christ shall not profit them Nay will they reply That 's a non sequitur For by that doctrine Christ's death hath cancelled that streight obligation of fulfilling the Law But euery one that beleeues the promise of saluation in Christ is yet notwithstanding obliged to fulfill the whole Morall law For this is say they the very Condition wherevpon he must haue benefit by the promise euen Perfecta Mandatorum â—bservatio and therefore he is so farre from being freed by Christ from this obligation vnto the Law that for a certaine except he fulfill it he shall neuer be saved as Bellarmine peremptorily and bloodily determines These Men when they list are wondrous mercifull toward Sinners and can teach them trickes by very easie meanes to merit Heauen and Remission of Sinnes But their crueltie betrayes their kindnes in other matters in as much as when all comes to the vpshot a Sinner is driuen to this If he wil be saued by Christ he must as he is bound perfectly keepe the whole law else there 's no hope for him This is cold comfort for the poore beleeuer but 't is happy we haue not Iesuites Pharaoh's taske-masters set ouer vs to exact the whole Tale of Bricke but a Iesus who hath freed our soules from this bitter thraldome and deliuered vs from the power of so rigorous and strict commands of the Law We beleeue an Apostle of Christ against all the Sycophants of Rome and tell them that they giue the holy Ghost the lie when they teach that in beleeuers the obligation to keepe the whole Law stands still in full force vertue not discharged by the death of Christ directly contrarie to this Argument of the Apostle Ye are bound to keep the whole law ergo Christ shall not profit you Whence we argue thus Whosoeuer are bound to keepe the whole law to such Christ is vnprofitable But vnto true beleeuers Christ is not vnprofitable Ergo True beleeuers are not bound to keepe the whole law A conclusion most certaine as from these irrefutable praemisses so from most euident Reason For if such as beleeue in Christ Who through the Spirit waite for the hope of Righteousness through Faith as the Apostle speakes here v. 5 if such be yet bound to fulfill the whole Law for their Iustification to what end is it to belieue in Christ vnto Righteousnesse and Iustification If when all is doen we must be saued by doing what profit comes there by beleeuing Can the conscience find any benefit and comfort at all in Christ when we shall come to this wofull Conclusion that notwithstanding there is in Scripture much talke of Faith of Christ of Promises of Grace yet all this will bring vs no commoditie except this condition be performed on our parts that we perfectly keepe the Law of God If any thing in the World this is to imprison the soule in wretchlesse slauerie and to lay the conscience vpon the racke of continuall Terrors if Heauen be not to be had but vpon such hard termes And this is most apparantlie to frustrate all benefit of Christ of Promise of Faith of Grace of the whole worke of Redemption seeing in fine 't is the Law that we must liue by and not by Faith the perfect fulfilling of the Law must make vs righteous in God's sight and not our beleeuing in Christ that we may be justified For he that keepes the whole Law is thereby righteous and by nothing els Here 't is but a bare shift to say Though we be bound to fulfil the Law yet Christ profits vs because he giues vs Grace to performe our Band in exact Obedience This evasion might it stand good Saint Paul were indeed finally confuted as a weake disputant But the Errour of this hath bin touched before and if nothing els were said this Apostolicall Argument is sufficient to refute it I proceed to other Scriptures 2. 1 Tim 1. 9. Ye know that the Law is good if a man vse it lawfully knowing this that the Law is not made for a righteous man but for the lawlesse and disobedient for the vngodly for Sinners for vnholy and prophane c. The Law is not giuen to the Righteous How must this bee vnderstood Is it not giuen quoad directionem as a Rule prescribing what is to be done what is not to be done Yes vve all agree in that Hovv is it then not giuen 'T is ansvvered quoad coactionem maledictionem as it compels to obedience and curseth the Transgressors Thus is it not giuen to the Iust. This ansvver is full of ambiguitie and needes some explication that vve may knovv vvhat is the coaction or compelling force of the Lavv from vvhich the Iust are freed In vnfolding vvhereof our aduersaries and vve differ Whether are in the right we shal see by the proposal of both our Interpretations They say The Law hath no coactiue or compelling power ouer the Iust because the Iust doe obey it spoute libentèer alacritèr ex instinctu charitatis that is vvillinglie out of Loue but it hath a compulsiue force ouer the vniust because they recalcitrant cogi quodammodò debent ad obsequium that is they obey vnvvillinglie being forced to
proofe yet because hypocrisie is euer armed vvith sophistrie for a plainer Conviction the Apostle proues it by this manner of Argumentation That Faith which saues a Man is a true Faith But a Faith without workes is not a true Faith Ergo A Faith without workes will not saue a Man The Maier is euident to all that haue Reason The Minor S. Iames proues by diuerse Arguments 1. dravvneâ— pari from comparison vvith another like vertue Namely Charity tovvards the poore The Argument is thus If Charity towards the poore professed in Words but without workes be counterfeit then Faith in God professed in like manner without Obedience is also counterfeite not true But Charity towards the poore in words professed without deeds is a counterfeit Charity Ergo Faith in God without Obedience is a counterfeit and false Faith The Reason of the maior Proposition is euident from the similitude that is betweene all Vertues and Graces There is no vertue but men may counterfeit and falsely arrogate it to themselues as they may boast of a false Faith so also as Salomon and experience speakes of a false Liberality false Valour false Prudence c. Now there is but one way to discouer this counterfeiting in any kind and that is to goe from words to workes from praesumptions and boastings to actions This way all count most certaine nor will any man beleiue words against workes or be persuaded by faire speaches that the habites of vertues and graces be truly seated in his mind whose tongue tells vs they be so but his doeings confute his sayings Wherefore the Apostle in his comparison proceedes on an vndeniable ground Now for the minor that the Charity which is rich in good words and poore in almesdeeds is not true but counterfeit pitty the Apostle shewes by an ordinary instance If a brother or sister be naked and destitute of daily food that is If a beleiuing Christian want food and raiment or other necessaries and one of you say vnto them depart in peace and be ye warmed and filled If he giue him kind words Alas poore soule I pitty thee and wish thee well I Would I had to giue thee goe in God's name where thou mayest be releiued and so let him passe with a few pittifull Complements notwithstanding yee giue them not those things which are needfull for the body what doth it profit Is the poore man's backe euer the warmer or his belly the â—â—ller with a few windy complements Can such a man persuade any that he hath in him indeed the bowells of mercie and compassion towards the needy when they find such cold entertainment at his Gates 'T is manifest that this is but a meere mockery and that such pittifull words come not from a heart that 's truely mercifull The Apostle now applies this touching Charity vnto Faith v. 17. Euen so Faith if it haue not workes is dead being alone As that Charity so also that Faith which men professe without Obedience is false and fained and therefore vnprofitable to saue a man It is dead How must this be vnderstood Faith is a quality of the soule and qualities are then saide to be dead when they are extinguished As if we should say such a man's Charity is dead it is because he hath lost it that which was in him is abolished But this is not the meaning For then when St. Iames saieth that Faith is dead being alone his meaning should be that Faith seuered from workes is no Faith at all but quite extinguished Now this is not so For there 's a Faith seuered from workes in Hypocrites Haeretiques Reprobates and Deuills Which Faith is a generall assent to all diuine truthes and this Faith in them hath a true being but no sauing vse Wherefore it is called â— dead faith in regard of the effect because 't is nothing availeable to bring them in whom it is to Life and Saluation as a true and liuâ—ng Faith is Heere our Aduersaries haue much strange Contemplation telling vs that Faith without workes though it be a dead Faith yet 't is a true Faith Euen as an Instrument is a true Instrument though it be not vsed So that in their Philosophy ti 's one and the same true Faith which is dead without and liuing with workes Euen as 't is one and the same Body which liues with the Soule and is dead without it or as water is the same whether it stand still in a Cisterne or runne in a Riuer Whence they proceed to discourse that Charity is the forme of Faith and conclude that it is not the inward and Essentiall forme of it as the Soule is the forme of a man for that workes are not essentiall to Faith nor the accidentall forme as whitenes is of Paper because Faith according to their Schooles is in the vnderstanding and Charity in the will But it is the externall Forme of it because it giues to Faith a merit and worthines for the deserving of Heauen These fond speculations of the Forme and merit of Faith I passe by now hauing touched vpon them heeretofore To that which they say That a liuing Faith and a dead Faith is one and the same true Faith 't is vtterly false they differ asmuch as Light and Darknes 1. In their subject a dead Faith is in the Reprobate Men and Deuills A liuing Faith only in the Elect. 2. In their Object A dead Faith assents to diuine Reuelations as barely true or good onely in the generall a liuing Faith assents to them as truer and better in themselues then any thing that can be set against them 3 in their Nature A dead Faith is no sanctifying Grace but a common gift of Creation as in the deuill of ordinary illumination as in Reprobate Men. A liuing Faith is a sanctifying Grace a part of inhaerent holines wrought in the heart by the speciall power of the Holy Ghost All which haue bin heeretofore cleared in handling the Nature of Faith Wherefore vnto those arguments or Sophismes rather which Bellarmine brings to proue that Iames speakes of a true diuine infused Catholique Christian Faith though it be dead faith I answere breifely That we grant a dead Faith to be a true Faith but it is in its kind Because it hath a true being in men and deuils in whom it is and ti 's directed toward true objects But it is not that true Faith which is Catholique Christian sauing This is of another kind and in comparison of this that other is but a meere shadow and counterfeit resemblance of true Faith Wherefore when those Hypocrites accounted themselues to haue that faith which is truely Christian and sauing S. Iames shewes them that this their faith which was alone naked of Obedience was nothing so but a Faith of another kind a dead faith hauing onely a false shew of a true and liuing faith This of the first Argument 2 The Argument is contained v. 18. being drawne from an impossibility in
prouing the trueth of it The Argument stands thus That Faith which is truely Christian may be shewen and proued so to be But a Faith without workes cannot be demonstrated to be a true faith Ergo. A Faith without workes is no true Faith The major is omitted as most euident of itselfe Because there is no morall vertue or grace of the Holy Ghost truely planted in the heart but it may be knowne by some externall Actions which it is apt to bring forth Euen as life is knowne by breathing or beating of the Pulse The trueth of an inuisible Grace hath it's demonstration in visible workes But now for the Minor S. Iames proues that Faith without Obedience cannot appeare by any proofe to be true faith Which he doth in a Dialogue betweene a true beleeuer and a Hypocrite Yea a man may say thou hast Faith and I haue Workes shew me thy faith without workes and I will shew thee my faith by my workes That is Thou saiest thou hast a true Faith though thou hast no workes I say I haue true faith because I haue workes Come wee now to the triall and let it appeare who saieth true thou or I. If thou saiest true proue thy Faith by something or other to be true Shew me thy Faith without thy wotkes Workes thou hast none whereby to shew thy faith make it then appeare by something else But that 's impossible Where workes are wanring ther 's no demonstration else whereby to justifie the trueth of faith And therefore thou art driuen to confesse that thou vainely boastest of that which thou hast not But on the otherside saieth the true Beleeuer I can make good that which I say prouing that my faith is true by my workes I will shew thee my faith by my workes My sincere Obedience is a reall demonstration that my beleife is no verball ostentation and vaine bragg This proofe of S. Iames is very conâ—incing and gripes the Consciences of Hypocrites smiting them with shame and confusion when they come to this triall and so haue their false and fraudulent hearts laied open But heere it will be asked what workes doe demonstrate the trueth of faith and also how they doe proue it Whereto wee answere Workes are of two sortes 1. Ordinary such workes of Sanctity Obedience as are required to a holy Conuersation 2. Extraordinary viz Miracles We say S. Iames vnderstands the former and those onely our aduersaries conclude both But erroneously for asmuch as S. Iames speakes not of the doctrine of faith but of the Grace of faith The Grace requires good workes of Piety and Charity as perpetually necessary for the conmirmation of it's Trueth So doeth not the doctrine of Faith alwaies require Miraculous workes for the confirmation of it's divinity But oney at the first publication thereof Wherefore Lorinus is very ridiculous who vpon this place tels vs that they may justly demaund of vs Haeretiques For so they bedust vs Miracles for the confirmation of our new and false Doctrine Indeed were it new and false their request were not vnreasonable that we should make our doctrine credible by doing of Miracles But sure the Iesuite iudgeth of our doctrine by his ovvne vvhich did he not suspect for a nevv Error vvee see no reason they should still require Miracles for confirmation of an olde Truth For our selues we seeke not the aide of a lying Wonder to vphold a true doctrine nor doe we count it any disgrace at all to our Religion that we cannot by our Faith so much as cure a lame Horse as the Iesuite out of Erasmus scoffes at vs. Now surely if such a beast as Bellarmine's deuout Mare want helpe to set her on all foure we cannot be yet so well perswaded of that vertue of Romish Faith as to thinke that a Frier will doe more good at such a jadish miracle then a Farrier But whereas the Iesuite goes forward to require of vs the other sort of good workes of Piety and Charity for the demonstration of our Faith hee hath reason so to doe though not so much as he imagines when hee chargeth vs with neglect of good Workes and vnbridled licentiousnesse Would to God we could cleere our practise from such neglect as well as we can our doctrine from teaching it But yet by their fauour if we come to comparisons we know no Reason why we should runne behind the dore as more ashamed of our practises then they may justly be of theirs in which case we boldly bid him amongst them that is without sinne to cast the first stone at vs. To proceed Seeing Workes of Obedience are the proofâ—s of a true Faith it must be considered in what sort they proue it For may not good Workes be counterfeited as well as Faith I answere That in this triall the judgment of verity infallibility belongeth vnto God who only knowes the heart and conscience being able to discerne euery secret working of the Soule and so to judge exactly whether or no all outward appearances come from inward syncerity But for the judgement of Charity that belongs to vs. If we behold in any man the Workes of Obedience to God's will of such a Man we are to judge that he hath true Faith Though yet herein we must as farre as humane frailtie will giue leaue iudge also not according to appearance but iudge righteous iudgment Mens practises must be examined if hypocrisie bewray it self as 't is hard for a Counterfeit not to forget himself at some one time or other if he be duly obserued there Charity must not be blinde it must see and censure it 'T is not a charitable but a peruerse Iudgment to call euill good nor is it any offence to call that a barren or bad Tree that beares either no fruit at all or none but bad And thus of this second Argument of the Apostle that these Hypocrites Faith was vaine because when it comes to the proofe it cannot be iustified to be found and good 3 The Argument is v. 19. from the example of the diuels themselues in whom there is a Faith without Workes as well in hypocrites and ergo it is in neither of them a true Faith The Argument is brought in to confute a Cauill with the hypocrite might make against the former reason True might he say I cannot shew my Faith by my Workes yet for all that I haue a true Faith And why Because I beleeue the Articles of Religion that there is one God with the rest Hereto the Apostle replies That such a beliefe is not a true Christian Faith because it is to be found euen in the diuels The Argument runnes thus That faith which is in the diuels is no true Christian faith But a bare assent to the Articles of Religion without Obedience is in the Diuels Ergo A bare assent without Obedience is no true Christian faith The Maior of this Argument will easily be granted That the diuels haue not
that true Faith which is required of a Christian Man to his saluation The Minor is also euident That the diuels doe belieue the Articles of Christian Religion S. Iames instances in one for the rest namely the Article of the Godhead whereto the Diuels assent aswell as Hypocriticall Men. Thou beleeuest that there is one God saith the true beleeuer to the hypocrite pleading that he beleeued the Articles of Faith Thou doest well 'T is a laudable and good thing to acknowledge the Truth of Religion But vvithall thou must knovv that the diuels deserue as much commendation for this beleefe as thou doest The diuels also beleeue Euen they confesse the Truth of that and the other Articles of Religion An euident proofe vvhereof is this that they tremble at the povver vvrath and iustice of God and the remembrance of the last iudgment vvhich did they not beleeue they vvould not feare but novv they expect it vvith Horrour because they knovv it vvill come vpon them Whence 't is plain that the Faith of Hypocrites and diuels is all one neither better then other both vnfruitfull to bring forth Obedience both vnprofitable to bring vnto saluation and therefore neither of them that true Faith vvhich is Christian and sauing This Argument of the Apostles pincheth our Aduersaries sore vvho stiffly maintaine that S. Iames speakes of a True though of a dead Faith For they can not for shame say that there is a true Faith in the diuels and damned Spirits But yet S. Iames hath concluded that they haue that dead Faith which hypocrites boast of What then Then a dead Faith is no true faith as our Adversaries affirme it is Wherefore to helpe themselues they deny that it is one and the same dead Faith which is in hypocrites and euill Spirits Indeed ex parte obiecti they grant that the Faith of diuels is as true and catholique as that of wicked Men because they both beleeue the the same things And also in regard of the effects they grant their Faith to be alike because both be vnfruitfull But not ex parte subiecti so they say there 's much difference The Faith of diuels is of one sort and the Faith of hypocrites of another But heere they make a litle to bold with the blessed Apostle ouerturning the force of his argument to vphold their owne fancie The Apostle proues against Hypocrites that their idle Faith without Obedience is not true sauing Faith Why Because the diuel 's idle Faith destitute of Obedience is no true sauing Faith But now Is the Faith of diuels hypocrites of the same kinde and Nature Yea or no No they be not they be of a diuerse nature say the Adversaries Let it be then considered what force there is in the Apostle's Argument Faith without workes in Deuils saues them not Ergo Faith without workes in wicked Men saues them not Might not one prompted by a Iesuite reply vpon the Apostle Nay by your leaue your Argument is inconsequent because you doe not dispute ad idem Faith in the diuels is of one kinde Faith in Hypocrites is of another therefore though Faith without works cannot saue diuels yet Faith without works may saue Men. Thus were the Apostle's Argument laide in the dust if these Mens Opinions may stand for good But would you know what distinction these Men make betweene the faith of diuels and wicked Men which St Iames takes for the same 'T is thus First the Faith of Euill Men is free the Faith of diuels is compelled and extorted from them by a kinde of force So Bellarm. Fides hominum malorum libera est captivante nimir ùm piâ voluntate intellectum in obsequium Christi Fides vero Daemonum est coacta extracta ab ipsà rerum Evidentiâ Quod insinuavit idem Iacobus dicens Daemones credunt contremiscunt Nos enim non credimus contremiscentes id est inviti coacti sed spontè libentèr Wicked Men beleeue freely and willingly Why Because their pious and godly Will captiuates their vnderstanding to the Obedience of Christ so causing it to assent vnto the Truth The diuels beleeue vpon compulsion being forced to it by the Euidence of the things themselues Which Saint Iames intimates They beleeue and tremble that is they beleeue against their Wills Is not this a shamelesse Iesuite that will say any thing to patch vp a broken cause For be not these absurd Contradictions to say that wicked Men haue godly Wills that by a pious Motion of the Will their vnderstanding is captiuated to the Obedience of Christ and yet they be hypocrites and wicked Men still No Man can relish such assertions who knowes how averse and fromward the will of Men is to embrace any thing that is of God till such time as it be regenerate by sanctifying Grace It is therefore without all reason to affirme that wicked Men beleeue willinglie and 't is against all experience which shewes that vngodly Men are vtterly as vnwilling to beleue any truth that makes against them in any kinde whatsoeuer as a beare is to be brought to the stake Indeed in matters that like them or such as be of an indifferent Nature neither fauouring nor crossing their Corruptions they 'll be apt to beleeue though not out of a pious affection as the Iesuite dreames but out of selfe-loue and other selfe-considerations But take them in any other point of Religion that doth any way grate vpon their wicked affections all the perswasion and instruction in the World cannot worke them to a beleefe of it till the Conscience spite of their hearts be convicted by some notable Euidence of the Trueth Now what else can be said of the diuels who will as willinglie beleeue what makes for them if any thing did or what makes not against them as any wicked man can doe And they are as vnwilling to beleeue any thing that makes against them as any wicked Man is Nor would they beleeue it did not the cleerenes of diuine Reuelations convince them of the certaine Truth thereof So that there is no difference at all in this respect as the one so the other beleeue vnwillingly as diuels so wicked Men beleeue with trembling The diuels indeed with greater horror as their beleefe and knowledge is alwaies more distinct then Mans but yet Men with horror too when their Consciences by fits are awakened to behold the woes that are comming vpon them Vnto this difference of Bell. others adde two more Namely 1 That the Faith of diuels is naturall that of wicked Men supernaturall and infused 2 That the Faith of Diuels is dishonest the Faith of wicked Men is an honest Faith Whereto we say thus much That touching the first difference we grant indeed that the Faith of the diuels is not supernaturall except it be in regard of the obiect The faculties which they receiued in their creation are not so farre corrupted in them but that they are able
a perfect aequality between the offence and wrong and the recompence made when so much is done or suffered as the offended party can in iustice exact Now they grant that Man cannot satisfie God in this sort in rigour of Iustice. Only Christ hath satisfied so for vnto such a satisfaction it is required that it be done 1. Ex proprijs By that which is our owne 2. Ex indebitis By that which is not debt of it selfe 3. Ad aequalitatem By that which is of aequall worth and value Now none of these wayes can our satisfaction passe in strict Iustice Because whatsoeuer we haue 't is God's free gift whatsoeuer we can doe 't is our due Obedience when we haue done all yet we cannot by any finite act doe such honour to God as shal be equall to that iniury we haue offered to his infinite Maiestie Euen the right of Nature teacheth as Bellarmine grants That Man cannot parca reddere Deo giue him quid pro'quo 2. Acceptationis facti ex Gratiâ donante ad imperfectam Aequalitatem Proportionis ex Condigno i e. There is a satisfaction of fauourable acceptance wherein there is a kinde of imperfect Proportion betweene the offence and the recompence when so much is done or suffered as God is content in gentlenes to take for good satisfaction Thus then a man may satisfie God's Iustice because God giues him grace to doe so much as he will accept for satisfactioÌ„ Which Grace is threefold 1. The Grace of Iustification whereby the Holy Ghost dwels in vs and we are made Members of Christ and Christ is become our Head By meanes of which vnion with Christ and inhabitation of the Spirit it comes to passe that our workes haue a singular vertue For Christ communicates vnto vs his satisfaction and by merits of them makes our Workes meritorious and satisfactorie vnto God So that whereas all things whatsoeuer we could haue done where of no worth at all in the sight of God now Christ hath deserued such a Grace for vs that the spotted ragges of our righteousnes and good workes being tincta Christi sanguine i. e. died in the bloud of Christ receaue such a colour that they will passe for reasonable good cloth In a word our money is now good siluer which before was but brasse Againe because the holy Ghost dwels in the just Ergo as Bellar profoundly argues their Workes proceeding from the Holy Ghost haue quandam infinitatem a kind of infinitenes in them and thereby quandam aequalitatem a kind of aequality with the injury which by sinning we offered vnto God Euen as a man may say that a fly or a spyder is a kind of infinite Creature because 't is of Gods making and God you know is infinite This is the first Grace of Iustification The 2 ye may call 2 The Grace of Euangelicall Counsailes For although God might of right challenge all our workes as due vnto him yet so it is that he commands not all but onely persuades and exhortes vnto some By which bounty of God it comes to passe that we haue certaine workes Propria indebita of our owne which we owe him not and by these we onely make satisfaction Yea such is the bounty of God that he suffers vs to merit by those things which be of his free gift and is willingly content that what we receaue at his hand we giue it him backe againe for a satisfactorie payment to his Iustice. Which is very strange I tell you 3 Lastly one Grace more God giues vs. Namely When hee pardons the fault he remoues the aeternity of the Punishment and makes it Temporall that so it may be more easily satisfied for All which particulars and Priuiledges are sure and certaine because the Catholique Doctors haue firmely proued them out of their owne heads without the helpe of the Scripture So then they are agreed That our workes are not satisfactorie in Rigour of Iustice but only in favourable acceptance by grace giuen to doe them and Gods clemency in accepting them being done CHAP. II. All sinne is remitted vnto vs wholy in the fault and punishment For the onely satisfaction of Iesus Christ. THus I haue somewhat largely set forth vnto you the popish Doctrine of humane satisfaction for sinne wherein it is plaine to all that can see any thing that their aime hath bin to lay a plot to delude mens Soules and piâ—ke their Purses It would require a large discourse to prosecute their Arguments whereby they seeke to couer their Fraud But they are not of that Moment as to spend time about them being too hasten to other matters The summe of them all comes vnto this 1. That those afflictions and Temporall chastisements which God hath laied vpon his Children for the Triall of their Faith and patience for their humiliation for sinnes past by hearty Repentance for their admonition for the time to come for the example of others c. they must needs be in these Mens Imaginations true satisfactions to Gods Iustice to expiate their sinnes past 2. That such good workes as the godly haue performed for declaration of their piety testification of their thankfulnes vnto God for to expresse the sorrow of Heart for to bring themselues to a greater measure of true humiliation by much Praier fasting c. for to obtaine victorie ouer some Corruption and temptation for to get some grace which they wanted for to preuent or fit themselnes for some Iudgement feared c. All this now must be conceaued presently to be meritorious and satisfactorie to Gods Iustice for Sinne. 3. That such Pennance as in the Primitiue Church was enjoyned vnto those that after their Conversion and Baptisme relapsed againe to Heathenisme or otherwise for such as for scandalous offences were excommunicated I say that such Pennance enjoyned to these for testification of their hearty sorrow for their offence and for satisfaction to the Congregation before they might be againe admitted into it must now be turned into a direct and proper satisfaction for the sinne it selfe 4. That such indulgence or fauour as was then sometimes vsed toward such relapsed and excommunicate persons in remitting vnto them some part of their enioyned Pennance vpon euident tokens of their vnfained repentance this is now by these men turned quite to another vse Namely to the freeing of men from further satisfaction to Gods Iustice by applying vnto them certaine phantasticall supererogations treasured vp in the Popes Cabbinet These are the maine Issues and Errors of their disputes wherein I will proceed no farther but onely lay downe one generall Conclusion opposite vnto their Doctrine and so end this point with a few Reasons for the confirmation of the Trueth and confutation of this Error The Position is this All Sinne whatsoeuer Originall or Actuall is remitted vnto vs wholy in the Fault and Punishment aswell Temporall as Aeternall for the only satisfaction of Iesus Christ and not any satisfaction made by
sufficient to barre vs from Iustification by them For we deserue not reward for what is well done except all were well done But neuerthelesse it shall not hinder Gods gracious acceptation of our good workes who is well pleased with the obedience of his children so farre as it is good and holy and when it failes for Christs sake he mercifully pardoneth their Trespasses Thus much of the second Argument The third is from reason grounded on Scriptures 3 Where there are sufficientia principia rectae operationis sufficient causes and meanes of well-doing there a good worke may be done without all fault But in a man Regenerate there are causes and meanes sufficient for well-doing Ergo He may doe well and not offend They proue the Minor thus To the performance of any good worke there is required nothing but these things Knowledge of what is to be done will and power to do it But now a Regenerate man hath all these For first his vnderstanding is enlightned so that hee can easily know what is good to be done Secondly his will and affections are sanctified and aided by grace to desire and endeauour the performance of it And thirdly and lastly hee hath power to put in practise what he knowes and desires there being no impediment inward or outward that should hinder him Ergo he may doe well and sinne not Here we desire them to shew vs. How a man Regenerate is enduded with such perfect abilities as may helpe him and quite rid him of all such impediments as might hinder hiâ— in well doing This they say is done by the grace of Sanctification giuen vnto a Regenerate man whereby hee is freed from all contagion of sinne and such incombrances as hinder him in well-doing For by this grace giuen to him hee is made a good tree now A good tree cannot bring foorth â—ad fruit Matth 7. 18. And ergo a good man cannot doe bad workes 〈…〉 made a fruitfull Branch of Christ the true Vine as it is Iohn 15. 5. I am the Vine yea are the branches he that abideth in me and I in him the 〈◊〉 beareth much fruit And Ergo That fruit onely which is good Which Similitude of a Branch much illustrates the matter in their Imagination For as in a Vine-Branch If first it haue sufficient moisture from the Body of the Vine Secondly if it haue sufficient heat of the Sunne to digest that moysture And thirdly if it be not hurt nor hindred by Frosts Wette Windes Wormes or other such discommodities of the Ayre and Soile then certainely it will be are very much and very good fruit so is it in a man regenerate From Christ he receiues sufficient moisture of Diuine Grace which is in him as a well of water springing vp vnto euerlasting life Iohn 4. 14. He hath heat sufficient of spirituall affection to cause him to bud forth into good workes For Christ saith I am come to send fire on the earth and what will I if it be already kindled Luke 12. 49. And Did not our hearts burne within vs said the two Disciples that went to Emaus Luk. 24. 32. Ergo they haue heat enough Finally they haue no impediment Neither inward For why It is written Rom. 8. 1. There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus Ergo no inward impediment to well-doing Nor outward For it written nothing shall separate vs from the Loue of God that is in Christ Iesus our Lord Rom. 8. 38. Ergo no outward impediment of good workes Hereunto we make answer That this Argument is a sophisticall cauillation which proues that which we do not deny They say that a Man Regenerate hath sufficientia principia rectae honestae operationis We say so too confessing that hee is made a good tree a fruitfull Branch that hee is enlightened sanctified and strengthened by the spirit of God vnto the performance of good workes We grant that now he is enabled to doe well who before his Regeneration could doe nothing saueâ—ll but the question still remaines whether now he doe so well as that he doth nothing ill when he doth best We grant that the Vine which in former time yeelded nothing but wild grapes now being transplanted and grafted into the best Vine beares good grapes but we deny that they are so weet and kindly in euâ—â— respect as not to haue a little relish still of their former wildnesse and sowrenesse Wherefore our Aduersaries doe but trifle with vs to tell vs that Men Regenerate haue meanes sufficient to doe those workes that be good this we deny not but we question whether they haue helpe sufficient to performe any worke so absolutely and perfectly good that God himselfe cannot charge it with any Sinne at all This we constantly deny And to their discourse That a regenerate Man hath sufficient Knowledge Power and will to doe good perfectly in this they affirme more then will euer bee proued Our imperfections in euery one of these three particulars witnessed to our Conscience by Scripture and experience doth disable vs euer froÌ„ doing any worke entirely and totally good Knowledge we haue but much darkned by ignorance We haue a will to doe good but that also corrupted with much forward RebellioÌ„ A power we haue to do good but alwayes crossed and much restrained by manyfold Lusts within and Temptations without vs. How is it possible for vs being compassed about with so many infirmities but wee should offend in one thing or other Becanus here brings vs an instant of a good worke and bids vs shew what sinne there is in it If sayth he A Man regenerate read or heare those words of Christ. Mat 6. giue almes hee being enlightned knowes that this is a worthy and honest worke Wherupon he is toucâ—ed in heart and stirred vp to do it He consents to this motion and resols vpon the execution which supposing that he be rich nothing now can hinder because he is both able and willing to giue Now then this almes being thus giuen out of knowledge and a pious motion of the Heart tending to Gods honour and our Neighbours good the Iesuit desires to knew of vs where their is any Sinne in it Wee say there is some euill in euery good worke and therefore hee would haue vs tell him what euill there is in this Almesdeed Vnto this we say that this enquiry of the Iesuite is the most ridiculous and absurd thing that can be He asketh vs where is the Sinne what if we answere him we doe not know Is hee now euer the wiser what hath he gained hereby Are other Mens worke without all faults because we know not what they be Nay are they without fault because themselues know not whether there be any in them or no what silinesse were it to argue in this sort Therefore when wee come to this point strictly to examine the workes of Men. First we tell the Iesuite that he must not put Cases touching generalities suppose
it by Terrors and Threatnings and therefore The law rules not ouer the iust as seruants who obey for feare but sonnes who obey for Loue. We expound it otherwise The Law hath not coactiue power ouer the just because the just that is true beleeuers in Christ Iesus are freed from the necessity of perfectly fulfilling it for the obtaining of saluation But the Law hath a coactiue power ouer the vnjust vnbeleeuers because they are obliged vnto the perfect fulfilling thereof or else to be certainly accursed And ergo we say the Law command's ouer the just as ouer Sonnes requiring of them a faithfull and willing endeavour but it commands ouer the vnjust as ouer Seruants of whom it exacts the vttermost farthing and vpon the legall default threatens eternall malediction The difference then betwixt them vs is this They make the coaction of the Law to consist in the manner or quality of mans obedience to it The Law compels when men obey vnwillingly We make the coaction of the Law to consist in the quality of the command condition wherevpon Obedience is required The Law then compels when it exacts full obedience vpon poenalty praecisely threatned to the disobedient Wherein the trueth is manifestly on our side For 't is plaine that compulsion in a Law must be taken in opposition to direction not persuation for Lawes persuade not but command For if we speake properly a Law cannot be sai'd to compell those to whom 't is giuen as if by any real and physicall operation it did enforce them to obedience It proposeth what is to be done it setteth before a man the punishment for disobedience but it workes not on the will of man to force it one way or other Wherefore if we know what direction in a Law is we shall soone know what Compultion is Direction as all agree is the bare praescription of what is to be done or left vndone Compulsion that is the exaction of obedience vpon paenalty to be inflicted What other coactiue force there is in a Law no man can imagine Well then to apply this The just are sub directione Legis but not sub coactione This must of necessity be vnderstood thus the just are not vnder the coactiue power of God's Law â—â—cause it doth not exact of them full obedience vpon paenalty of aeternall death to be otherwise inflicted on them As it doth exact of the vnjust For otherwise there will be no difference betweene the just and the vnjust in regard of this coactiue power of the Law if both the one and the other be obliged to yeeld alike perfect obedience vpon the like paenalty In this case the Law will be as coactine to one as the other exacting aequall obedience vpon aequall termes both of the just and vnjust viz obey fully in all things or you shall be cursed The Sonne and Seruant shall be all one and the Law shall still command over the children with as much terrour as ouer the Bondslaue There is no difference in the world in our adversaries doctrine both sorts are bound to obey perfectly or else certainly they shall not be saued So that the Law of itselfe shall be as rigorous towards one as the other But we know the Scriptures offer vnto vs more mercy and that Christ hath discharged vs from this rigour of the Law vnder which euery one that is out of him in the state of vnbeleefe is holden in bondage As to the difference they make the iust obey willingly the vnjust vnwillingly ergo the Law compels these and not those this is nothing to the purpose For it alters not the nature of the Law that it is obeyed with diuers affections The Law is the same for its command authority howsoeuer it be obeyed willingly or vnwillingly that matters not The Law ceaseth not to be coactiue because ti 's willingly obeyed euen as a slaue ceaseth not to be vnder the coaction compelling power of his Master though he loue his master and out of a willing mind be content to abide in thraldome And as Adam though he obeyed the Law willingly yet was vnder the coactiue power of it because he was tyed to obey it or else he should certainly die the death for his transgression of it Wherefore I conclude that the just are not freed from the Laws direction nor from the Lawes compulsion as it compels or enioynes them absolute obedience in all things and for default thereof threatens the vnauoydeable malediction of Gods aeternall wrath 3 Lastly for proofe of this point we haue those places formerly alleaged Rom. 6. 14. We are not vnder the Law but vnder Grace Gal. 5. 18. If we be led by the spirit we are not vnder the Law 2 Cor. 3. 17. Now the Lord is the Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is Liberty Gal. 3. 13. Christ hath redeemed vs from the Curse of the Law being made acurse for vs. All which with other the like doe establish this orthodoxe Doctrine That beleeuers haue ohtained freedome by Christ from the rigour of the Morall Law and are not any longer bound in conscience to the perfect fulfilling thereof vpon this assured perill that if they keepe it not they shall not be saued We might stand longer vpon each Testimony but let that which we haue said suffice for the vindicating of our conscience from that Torture and Bondage wherewith these â—â—opish Doctors would ensnare vs. The knowledge of which our Liberty is not to giue vs occasion of security or licentiousnesse as these Men calumniate but to restore peace spirituall rest vnto our soules knowing that we are now deliuered from the necessity of obeying or of perishing which before we were in Christ lay more heauy vpon our soules then a mountaine of Lead That so being freed from this thraldome we might serue him who hath freed vs thankfully and chearefully obeying him in all duty by whom wee haue obtained this glorious priuiledge that whereas perfect obedience was sometimes strictly exacted of vs now our sincere though imperfect indeauours shal be mercifully accepted at our hands SECT 6. CHAP. I. The reconciliation of that seeming opposition betweene S. Paul and S. Iames in this point of Iustification THus much of this Argument and of the first Branch of mans Righteousnes whereby if it were possible he should be justified viz. His Obedience to the Law of God By which meanes we haue shewed no flesh shall be justified in Gods sight We are to proceed vnto the text branch heereof viz. Mans satisfaction for his transgression of the Law Wherein we haue also to proue that a Sinner cannot be acquitted before god's judgment seat by pleading any satisfaction that himselfe can make for his offences But in our passing vnto that point we are to giue you warning of that stumbling stone which St. Iames as it may seeme hath layed in our way lest any should dash his Faith vpon it and