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
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
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
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
vncapable of Iustification by the Law for how should the Law declare him innocent that hath though but once transgressed against it Hee that hath stollen in his youth and euer after liued truly and iustly can neuer quit himselfe in Iudgement from the guilt and punishment of thee very by pleading he hath kept the Law in his latter Times Obedience that followes after iustifies not from the guilt that went before As we shall see more â—ereafter in the point of Mans satisfaction But let vs grant that the Law though once broken yet afterwards fullfilled would Iustifie a Man we here defend the Minor That Man hauing broken Gâ—ds Law can neuer after wards perfectly fullfill it and so by that meanes also he is excluded from Iustification by it This Proposition the Romanists will not yeeld to with out strong proofe Let vs explaine it and confirme it The Proposition may beset downe in these termes No Man whosoeuer can perfectly fullfill the Morall Law in this Life Man heare we consider in a two-fold estate of Nature of Grace Touching man in the estate of nature it is a greed on both sides that the keeping of the Law is vtterly and absolutely impossible vnto him But concerning Man regenerate and iustified they of Rome affirme he may keepe the Law wee of the Reformation granting that absolutely it is not impossible for we will not say but God might if he saw good bestowne such perfection of grace vpon a Regenerate Man that afterwards he should Liue without all 〈◊〉 and be translated to Heauen without death yet according to the order which God now holdeth in bringing Man to saluation we deny that there euer was or euer will be any Mortall Man that hath or shall perfectly fulfill the Righteousnesse of the Morall Law This shall appeare vnto you by parting the Righteousnesse of the Law into its branches whereby you may see what it is to fullfill the Law and how impossible it is so to doe The Righteousnesse required by the Morall Law is of two sorts 1 Habituall in the inherent holinesse of Mans whole person when such gratious Qualities are fixed and planted in euery faculty of soule and Body as doe dispose and incline the Motions of both onely vnto that which is conformable to the Righteousnesse of the Law That such Righteousnesse is required by the Law is a plaine Case and confessed That which commands the good or forbids the euill action doth command the vertuous and forbid the vitious Habit too He that lookes for purity in the streame cannot but dislike poyson in the Fountaine and God that commands vs to doe good bids vs also to be holy nor can wee doe the one vnlesse we doe the other And therefore the Apostle ioynes both together The end of the Commandement is loue but where out of a pure heart 1 Tim. 1. 5. 2 Actuall In the exercise of all good workes enioyned by the Law and forbearing the contrary euill workes Whether these good or euill workes be inward in that spirituall obedience which the Law required viz. in the right ordering of all the motions of our soules that euery one of our Thoughts Imaginations Purposes of our minde and all the secret workings and stirrings of our affections be altogether employed vpon Piety and Charity not so much as touching vpon any thing that is contrary to the loue of God or our neighbour Or whether these good and euill works be outward in the bodily obedience vnto the Law in doing all and euery externall dutie of Religion towards God of Iustice and Mercy towards man and in leauing vndone the contrary Further this actuall righteousnesse of the Law is to bee considered two wayes 1 As it respects all the Commandements and so that righteousnesse is onely perfect which fulfils all and euery particular precept of the Law 2 As it respects any one Commandement or any one dutie therein contained And so we may call that righteousnesse perfect which exactly performes any one point of the Law though it faile in others So you see what is to be done of him that will perfectly fulfill the Law let vs now see whether any man can doe so or no. We say no man can doe it and we make it good in the confirmation of these three Propositions 1 No man in this life hath perfection of grace and holinesse inherent 2 No man in this life can fully obserue all those good workes both inward and outward which the Law requires 3 No man in this life can performe any one particular good worke so exactly that in euery point it shall answer the rigor of the Law and Gods seuere iudgement For the first we proue it by this Argument Where sinfull corruption remaines in part there in herent holinesse is not perfect But in euery Man during this life there remaineth sinfull corruption Ergo In no man is there during this life perfect inherent holinesse The maior is without exception For he that is part bad and sinfull t is not possible he should be totally good and holy The minor is most euident by Scriptures and each Mans experience and reason it selfe Gal. 5. 17. The Apostle describes the Combat that is betweene the flesh and the spirit that is betweene corruption and grace in a man regenerate The flesh lusteth against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh and these two are contrary one to the other so that ye cannâ—t doe the same things that yee would Who can say that holinesse is perfect in that maÌ„ in whoÌ„ corruption of Nature not onely troubleth but hindreth grace in its holy operation Shall we say this contention lasts but for a while after a man is newly regenerate but in successe of time the Spirit gets an absolute victory corruption being not only ouer-mastered but also annihilated If we say so experience will accuse vs conscience will iudge vs to be Lyars Where is that man and who is he named that can say he findes no rebellion or distemper in his affections or desires no disorder in any motion of his soule but that all within him is sweetly tuned vnto obedience without iarre and discord arising from corruption Certainely that humble confession of a most holy Apostle may cause blushing in any such proud Iustitiary Had Paul the body of sinne in him and hast thou noâ—e He fights and wrestles against the Law in his members rebelling against the Law of his mind yet he is so checkt and mated by it that He can neither doe the good hee would nor auoid the euill he would not when he would doe well euill is still present with him And so tedious is this toyle vnto him that he complaines of it at the very heart and cries out bitterly for helpe in this conflict Whereupon though he haue helpe from God through Iesus Christ yet hath hee not full deliuerance from this inherent corruption but is faine to conclude in this pittifull manner So then I
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
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
are not able to bridle these vnrulie motions wherefore when Bell. saieth That the Law is giuen to the reasonable will not to the sensiue appetite it is vtterly false Because in Man it is probable of gouernment and so subject to the Law Our Reason hath euen in this our corrupted estate a ciuill command ouer our appetite and affections so that it can moderate them by faire persuasions now and then That which it can doe sometimes it ought to doe alwaies and if any affections can obey Reason at sometimes were they not infected with Sinne they would doe it at all times And if they doe well when they obey certainly they doe euill when they disobey And ergo such motions of them as are repugnant to right reason are nothing but rebellion against God's Law As to the place in the 7. Rom. we answere That that Interpretation of it which Bell. brings is most peruerse and against all Sense The Apostle complaines that he did the Euill which he would not no doubt in so doeing he did sinne But what is it now which committed this guilt or sinne It is not I that doe it saieth the Apostle but that sinne that dwelleth in me That is according to Bell not I in my mind or superior faculties of Reason and Will but my inferior Appetite and affections which doe this euill against my consent So the meaning shal be Concupiscence in that duell in the Apostle committed Sinne but the Apostle himselfe committed it not Which is very absurd As if a cholericke-Man hauing done a mischiefe in his anger should saâ—e It were not he did it but his raging passion or an adulterer that 't was not he committed the Sinne but his sinfull Affection that carried him further then reason would So that if God will punish such a sinne he must not punish him but onely his sensitiue appetite which was in fault This is ridiculous for besides that it crosseth the Romanists Doctrine manifestly in teaching that such disorderly motions of the sensitiue appetite be no sinnes which heere the Apostle contradicts saying plainly that the Sinne which dwelt in him did doe the euill he would not viz Sinne it draweth after it this grosse Error That some faecultie in man may sin and yet the man not sinne himselfe Wherefore the Apostle in that speach 'T is not I doe it but sinne in me doth not oppose one facultie against the other the reasonable will against the sensitiue appetite seeking for a shift to excuse his sinne by putting it off from himselfe to that which was not capable of Sinne but he opposeth grace in euery facultie to Corruption in the same facultie as two contrarie Principles and causes of his actions one mouing to good the other enclining to bad Thence the Apostle saieth that when he doth euill 't is not I that doe it i. e I regenerate according to the Grace that dwelleth in me for that inclines me to doe good but 't is the Sinne dwelling in me which when I would doe well inclines me to doe euill He heere shewes the Roote whence this Euill comes but yet he doth not put off the fault from himselfe As 't is himselfe doth well so 't is himselfâ— doth ill too according as he concludes vers 25. Then I my selfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doe both well and ill well according to Grace in my mind that is regenerate part both of inferior and superior facultie I serue the Law of God but ill according to corruption remaining in me but in my flesh vnregenerate part the Law of Sinne. Much more might be added but 't is not my purpose heere to enter vpon the common place at large I proceed to the second quaestion of our Aduersaries who teach that albeit our Loue of God be imperfect yet this imperfection is not sinne in vs. They grant That no man hath any grace of the spirit but he may encrease in it daily that the Loue of God and our Neighbours may still grow on to farther degrees of affection That no grace nor good worke hath that full perfection which it might haue in this Life or which we shall attaine vnto in Heauen But they deny this defect to be any fault or sinne 2. Defectus Charitatis quod viz non faciamus opera nostra tanto feruore dilectionis quanto faciemus in patriâ defectus quidemest sed culpa peccatum non est saieth Bell. and againe Charitas nostra quamuis comparata ad Charitatem beatorum sit imperfecta tamen absolute perfecta dici potest This is an Error against which we defend this Conclusion in generall touching both Charity and all man Righteousnes The defects or want of Perfection in Mans Righteousnes is Sinne. For the proofe of this point we are to obserue that the Imperfection or Perfection of any thing is to be considered of two waies 1 Comparatiuely When any thing set by another is more or lesse perfect then that other 2 Absolutely When considered in it selfe it hath or wantes that Perfection which it should haue by its proper Nature Betweene these there is great difference For Comparatiue imperfection is not euill absolute imperfection is Euill We may see it in an example The Senses that are in Man being compared with their like in other creatures 't is manifest they are much excelled by them as by an Eagle for sight a spider for touch c. Heere we say that the eie of a man is not perfect as the eie of an Eagle but yet we doe not account this imperfection any Naturall euill of the eie of a man God might haue giuen a stronger and a clearer sight to men but we blame not his workes nor count our sight imperfect because it hath not that singular Temper which is in other Creatures but because it wants at any time that temper which is agreeable to our nature Such a defect only is properly an Euill in Nature when something is wanting to the perfection of any part which by the Course of nature should be there Thus 't is also in Grace Compare we the Righteousnes of man or Angels with the Righteousnes of God we saie that God's is infinitely more perfect then the Creatures But now is this imperfection in Humane or Angelicall righteousnes any Euill and Sinne in them We saie No. Neither are the Angels sinfull because lesse righteous then God nor Adam sinfull because lesse righteous then either God made them both lesse good then himselfe yet very good and without all Sinne. There be degrees of Righteousnes and though the Creature be infinitely below the heighest pitch of goodnes which is God yet he may bee still aboue that lowest descent vnto Sinne and vnrighteousnes In Phylosophie we dispute whether the slackening of any degree in one Quality be the mingling of another that is contrary As heat in eight degrees if it decrease vnto seuen whether there is any degree of cold mingled with it 'T is heard to
say that there is But concerning Grace and Righteousnes 't is certaine there is that remissio graduum without any admixtion of Sinne and iniquity As the Holines of Saints is lesse then that of Angels that of Angels lesse then the Holines of Christs glorified Humanity this lesse then his Diety And yet in the least of these Righteousnesses there is no Vnrighteousnes at all to be found no not in the seuere judgement of God Except we say there is vnrighteousnes in Heauen where no vncleane thing can enter Well then What Imperpection of mans Righteousnes is it which is Sinne We say That Imperfection when man in any Grace or good Worke wantes that degree of goodnes which he ought to haue As in nature If the Eye want that cleernes of sight which should be in it 't is a naturall Euill In Morality if a man want that Temperance or degree of Temperance he ought to haue it s a vitious and morall euill so in Grace the want of that righteousnes or degree of righteonsnes which God requires to be in man is a Sinne and spirituall Euill All such priuations of what should be present are Euill in what kind soeuer If they be in nature they be malamiseranda deserue pity and cure if in Vertue and Grace they be mala culpanda worth of blame and punishment Such defects as these in Grace when man fals short not onely of that which is in others but that which should be in himselfe doe alwaies arise from the mixture of Corruption and Sinne. Hee that loues nâ—t God or his neighbour so much as he ought to doe 't is because his heart be wicked at the least in part and that he loues others things more then he should doe These things are certaine and vndeniable according to those words of St. Augustin that are authenticall Profecto illud quod minus est quam debet ex vitio est And againe Pecâ—atum est vel cum non est charitas quae esse debet vel minor est quam debet 'T is a Sinne not to loue God at all or to loue him lesse then we should Wherefore heere we aske the Iesuite whether Charity and other Graces in a man regenerate be so perfect in this Life as they ought to be If he say they be not so perfect as they ought to be how can he affirme that this defect is no fault nor Sinne Can a man possibly doe worse or be worse then he should and yet be iâ— no fault therefore If he say they be as perfect as they should be his owne Conscience and the Conscience of all the men in the World will gain-say him for a liar No man can say that he loues God and his Neighbour asmuch as he ought to doe and that he is not bound in euery grace and good worke to ariue at greater perfection then hee hath for the present He that thinkes himselfe come nearest vnto the marke will yet be driuen to confesse that he fals many bowes short of those patternes which we ought to imitate Adam in his Innocency Christs Humanity and the Saints in Heauen Wee here bid them Depinge ubi sistam make a point where we shall stoppe that when we are come so farre we need seeke no further perfection If they cannot do this then they must confesse as the truth is that euery man is bound by Gods command to be more holy to be more perfect in all Graeces and good workes and so farre as he wants any degree or dramme of goodnesse that should be in him and his works so farre he is sinfull and guilty of a fault 3 I goe on to the last Assertion of our Aduersaries which is toâ—ching veniall sinnes viz. That these doe not hinder the righteousnesse of mens good workes A man may be a perfect iust man though he commit many veniall sinnes The reason whereof they make to be because veniall sinnes are not contrary to charity the loue of God and our neighbour and so may stand well enough with the fulfilling of the Law Against this errour tending to the obduration of mans hart in impenitency loue of sin we maintain this conclusioÌ„ Those sinnes which the Church of Rome cals veniall doe truly make a man regenerate and his workes vnrighteousnesse in the sight of God This we proue by this one Argument Whosoeuer transgresseth the Law he is vnrighteous in so doing But he that commits veniall sinnes transgresseth the Law Ergo He that commits veniall sinnes is an vnrighteous man The Maior is vndeniable For the Minor our Aduersarie is at a stand They are loath to grant it yet cannot tell how to deny it with any honesty Bellarmine after one or two shuffling distinctioÌ„s of simpliciter secundum quid perfectè and imperfectè at last plainly denies that veniall sinnes be contrary to the Law For answering vnto those places in Iames. In many things we offend all and that in Iohn If we say we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues Hee saith they cannot hansomly shift themselues of those places who hold that veniall sinnes be propriè contra Legem Such as bee of that opinion Let them looke to it saith he what they will answere to that of Saint Iames. He that keepes the Law in one point c. He therefore will be more wise and wary Solâ—da igitur respensio est saith he Peccata venialia sine quibus non viuitur non esse peccata simpliciter sed imperfectè secundum quid neque esse contra Legem sed praerer Legem And thus saith he Omnia cohaerent like a Pebble in a Withe Nam qui ostendit in vno praeuaricans scilicet vnum praeceptum reus est omnium simpliciter iniustus constituitur tamen in multis offendimus omnes quia tametsi nihil facimus contra Legem tamen multa facimus praeter Legem Et qui â—atus est ex Deo non peccatat transgrediendo Legem tamen si dicamus qâ—ia peccatum non habemus viz. nihil praeter Legem faciendo noâ— ipsos seducimus veritas non est in Nobis This is an vnbound Besome as will appeare by vndoing that distinction which seemes to hold it together Veniall sinnes are not against the Law but besides the Law Well we must now know what is against the Law what besides That is against the Law when any thing is done which the Law forbids or left vndone which it commands That is besides the Law when the thing done is neither coÌ„manded nor forbidden in the Law He then that commits a veniall sinne doth some such act as the Law neither forbids nor commands Here then we aske Be veniall sinnes sinnes Yea they be Is God offended with them Yea and he may iustly punish them on vs with the losse of Heauen For so Bellarmine himselfe confesseth Peccata venialia nisi misericorditer remittantur impediunt ab ingressu illius Regni in quod nihil
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
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
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
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
vs vnto the Iustice of God For confirmation of this sacred Trueth deliuered vnto vs in the word and generally embraced by the Reformed Churches yea by our Aduersaries themselues when the Agonies of Consciences the appâ—ehension of Death and of Gods Iudgement doe cleere vp their eyes a litle to behold the vanity of their poore satisfactions obserue we these Reasons First the innumerable Testimonies of Scripture ascribing the Remission of Sinne onely to the mercy of God in Christ crucified That Christ hath borne our Sinnes His bloud hath purged vs of all Sinne His death redeemed vs from all iniquity His Stripes healed vs That he hath paied the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or price of our Ransome That God for his sake hath for giuen vs our trespasses Blotted out our sinnes Cast them behind his backe Forgotten them with store of the like sayings ascribing the doeing away of all Sinnes to the Grace of God through the Satisfaction of Christ without limiâ—ing it to any Sinne or mentioning any satisfactorie workes of ours Now what say our Aduersaries to this By a shift they turne of all Scriptures tending to this purpose Thus Christ hath satisfied for the fault of our Sinnes and so reconciled vs vnto God and for the aeternity of the Punishment but he satisfied not for temporall punishment We must endure Torment's though but for a while This is a meere Cavill without any apparant ground from such Texts of Scripture or necessary deduction from other We deny it therefore as they affirme it And that it may appeare to be but a forged devise Let vs inuert the distinction and we shall hold it with as good probability the other way Christ satisfied for the fault not for the punishments say they We will goe contrary and say Christ satisfied for the punishment but not for the fault We by our owne satisfaction must procure Gods fauour Now let them object what they can against this if we list to caâ—ill as they doe it may be shifted off with as faire probabilitie as they doe our Arguments on the other part Let them name all the places that say Christ hath reconciled vs to God his Father This is easily put off Christ hath reconciled vs. that is Christ deserued such Grace for vs that we by our workes may reconcile ourselues Iust as they say Christ hath satisfied that is procured Grace for vs that we by our workes might satisfie Let them object Our workes can be of no worth to appease Gods anger We will say True Of themselues they are not but Christ hath merited that they should be of sufficient worth Iust as themselues say vnto vs objecting that our workes be not of value to satisfie Gods Iustice. True say they Of themselues they be not but Christ hath deserued for them to make them satisfactorious Thus if euery idle distinction not fortified by necessary deduction from Scripture might passe for a good answere the certainty of diuine Doctrine were soone shaken to pieces and no Position so absurd but would be defended with much facility 2. That Assertion of theirs Namely That the fault is forgiuen and the punishment required is most false and absurd euen in common sense To pardon a fault and be friends and yet require full satisfaction to forgiue the debt yet to exact the payment be not these trimme kindnesses Bellarmine tels vs there be some offences of so grieuous Nature that satisfaction cannot be made but in a long time Now in this case the partie wronged may pardon the other and be reconciled to him yet the offender remaine still bound to make entire satisfaction for the wrong But now the Iesuite doth not name any such case neither indeed can doe For suppose a subject hath offended his Prince and the fault deserued 7. yeares close imprisonment for satisfaction If the Prince should say vnto him I pardon your offence you haue my loue but yet you shall lie by it to the last daie were it not a mockerie would any man thank him for such a kindnes It is to be thought the Iesuites the incendiaries of Christendome would not thanke Christian Princes for such a courtesie if they should pardon them their fault and hang them vp The like absurditie there is in this when they say That after the fault pardoned yet in this Life and in Purgatory the temporall punishment must be suffered For wherefore must it be suffered For satisfaction say they To what To God's Iustice. For what now Is it for the fault and offence committed No That 's pardoned For what then For just nothing Againe this Assertion is contrary to good reason For God's Friendship and his Iustice may not be diuided in this sort as if he were reconciled and well pleased with that Creature which hath violated his Iustice and not made satisfaction for it God's friendship with Man followes satisfaction to his Iustice euen as his Enmity with Man is a consequent of the breach of his Iustice. His righteous will is transgressed therefore he is offended His righteous will must be satisfied before he be pleased So that it is a vaine speculation to thinke Christ hath appeased God's anger but not satisfied his Iustice for as much as his fauour is purchased onely by satisfaction to his Iustice offended 3. This doctrine of humane satisfactions obscures the dignity and ouerthrowes the Force of Christ's satisfactions If we haue a share he hath not all the glory Nay he hath scarse any at all For aske wee For what hath Christ satisfied They say to procure God's Loue to vs. But that cannot be vnlesse he hath satisfied his Iustice. Hath he done this or no Yes he hath satisfied for the Aeternity of the punishment Yea. But how know they that What if we vpon their grounds say That he hath not satisfied for the Aeternity of it but only merited that our sufferings and satisfactions should be aequivalent to the aeternity of the Punishment Especially considering that our Workes according to Bellarmine haue a certaine kinde of infinite value in them Againe Aeternity is but an Accident of punishment of Sinne the Essentials of it are the Losse of Ioy and the sense of Paine if therefore Christ haue satisfied only for that he hath done but the least part Neuerthelesse our Adversaries will needes perswade vs that humane satisfactions doe not so much eclipse as illustrate the glory of Christ's satisfactions in as much as thereby he hath not only satisfied himself but made vs able also to satisfie A great matter doubtlesse But where saith the Scripture any such matter that Christ hath merited that we might merit and satisfie And moreouer by this Tricke whilest Christ makes vs able to merit and satisfie his owne satisfaction is plainly excluded For come to the point and aske Who is it satisfies God's Iustice for Sin Christ or wee Heere Bellarmine stumbles like a blind horse and of three answeres takes the
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.
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
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
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 〈◊〉
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
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
sanctifying them abolished their naturall corruptions by degrees That so the body of sinne might be destroyed that is not presently annihilated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made of no force and strength made vnable to worke strongly in vs. That henceforth we might not serue sinne Though alwayes we should haue sinne in vs. So are we dead to sinne not as if sinne were vtterly dead in vs or had no more working in vs then it hath in a dead carcase but because the guilt of sinne is fully taken away and the power of sinne hatâ— receiued a deadly wound doth bleed out some of its life now and shall infallâ—bly bleed out the last drop of its life hereafter Vnto the third Argument we answere thus That the Hornes of those Dilemma's be made of wood and may be easily battered We say then that God sees and knowes the sinfull corruption which is in the regenerate for wee cannot assent vnto that wilde and franticke imagination of some who haue troubled the quiet of some places in this Land by preaching that God doth not nay cannot see any iniquity or matter of blame in those that be in Christ Iesus We beleeue that nothing is hid from his eyes nor be our sins lesse visible to him then our graces God knowes what sinnes his children commit he iudgeth them to be faults and such as deserue his infinite wrath Yea to goe further as hee sees the sinne of the regenerate so he hates it with a perfect hatred it being impossible that his pure eyes should behold impurity and loue it But now what followes hence If he see it and hate it then he cannot but punish it True that consequence is certaine But what 's next If God punish that sinne which is in the Regenerate how then is their sinne couered and their iniquities forgiuen How doth hee account them Iust whom he knoweth and punisheth for vniust Here 's a Sophisme He sees sinne and hates sinne and punisheth sinne of the Regenerate Therefore he punisheth it in and vpon their owne persons That 's a non sequitur Hee punisheth it but t is in the person of Christ who hath troden the Winepresse of the fierce wrath of God conceiued against all sinfulnesse whatsoeuer in his Elect by which meanes his hatred towards the sinne of the Regenerate is fully satisfied and also his loue towards their persons procured He graciously passeth by their iniquity pardoning vnto them what he hates and hath punished in Christ in which respect he may be truly said not to see that sinne in them which he will neuer punish in them and to couer that sinne which shall neuer bee layed open in iudgement against them 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 Obiections are answered ANd thus much touching the first Proposition and the first point wherein Man fals short of his obedience to the Morall Law viz. in the imperfection of habituall inherent holinesse We goe on vnto the next Proposition touching Mans actuall Obedience vnto the whole Law Where we teach That no man can perfectly obey the Law in performing all such workes both inward and outward as each commandement requires A man would thinke this point needed no other proofe but onely experience In all the Catalogue of the Saints can you pricke out one that after regeneration neuer committed sinne against the Law We shall kisse the ground he treads on if we know where that man haunts who can assure vs that since his conuersion he neuer brake the Law Shall we finde this perfection in a Monkes Cell or in a Hermits Lodge an Anachorites Mue vnder a Cardinals Hat or in the Popes Chaire All these are Cages of vncleannesse not Temples wherein dwells vndefiled Sanctity Neuer to sinne that 's a happinesse of Saints and Angels with whom we shall hereafter enioy it but whilst wâ—e are mortall we can but wish for it Thy Law saith Dauid is exceeding large It compriseth in it not a few but many and manifold duties Good workes are by a kind of Popish Soloecisme brought to a short summe Prayer Fasting and Almes-deedes These are eminent among the rest but not the hundreth part of the whole number There is besides a world of duties enioyned and as many sinnes forbâ—dden each Commandement hath it seuerall Rankes euery duty its manifold Circumstances to reckon vp all were a businesse which the wit of the subtilest Iesuite or the profoundest Diuâ—ne could hardly master To performe them is a taske which is beyond the strength of the holiest Man who in finding it a great difficulty to doe any one well would forthwith iudge the performance of so many an impossibility But if this suffice not we haue expresse Scriptures to proue that no man doth actually obey the Law in all points Such places are these 1 1 Kings 8. 46. There is no man that sinneth not 2 Eccles. 7. 20. For there is not a iust man vpon eaâ—th that doeth good and sinneth not 3 Iames 3. 2. In many things we offend all 4 1 Iohn 1. 8. If we say that we haue no sinne we deceiue our selues and the truth is not in vs. Whence we conclude that de facto neuer any man did keepe the Law but brake it in some yea in many things And therefore we say that the dispute of our Aduersaries touching the possibility of keeping the Law vanishes to nothing For seeing no man hath or will euer actually keep it as the Scriptures witnesse to what end serues all the quarrelling aâ—d dispute about the possibility of keeping it No man shall be iustified by the Law because he hath a power to keepe it if he list but because he hath actually kept it Whence it is manifest that the reply of our Aduersaries is ridiculous No man indeed doth keepe it but yet they may if they will For 1. what is that to Iustification Can a man that 's regenerate be iustified by his obedience of the Law when yet after his regeneration hee doth not keepe it 2. And againe How know these men that there was or is such a power in the Saints to keepe the Law when yet the world neuer saw it brought into Act Is it not more probable that what neuer was nor will be done neuer could nor can be done Were they all idle and did not doe their best endeauour T is true none doth so much good as hee should and might but yet t is a sharpe censure to say that none would put themselues forward to the vtmost of their might What shall be said of Saint Paul Phil. 3. 12. He confesseth that himselfe was not yet perfect but that he sought after it How negligently No with great diligence and intention He followed after 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 12. and that eagerly Reaching forth to catch the things that were bâ—fore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 13. And pressing towards
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
the obedience of the Law which yet they cannot in all things perfectly obey CHAP. III. No man in this life can performe any particular good worke so exactly that in euery point it shall answere the rigour of the Law proued by conscience Scriptures reason and Popish obiections answered I Proceed vnto the last Proposition which concerneth Mans actuall Obedience to any one particular precept of the Law Wherein will appeare the third Imperfection of mans Obedience in fulfilling of the Morall Law We haue seene That no man hath perfect inherent sanctity free from Natures corruption Againe That no man can performe perfect actuall obedience to all and euery duty of the Law without failing in any one point And this much our Aduersaries will not much sticke to yeeld vnto vs and confesse That there is no man but sinneth at some time or other and that t is scarce possible to avoide veniall sinnes as they stile them But then they deny vtterly That a man sinnes in euery particular good worke though he cannot doe all perfectly yet in some he may exactly fulfill the Righteousnesse of the Law not missing in any one circumstance And therfore at least by that obedience he may be iustified This opinion of theirs hath neither truth in it selfe nor yet brings any benefit at all to their maine purpose in prouing Iustification by workes For to what end serueth it them to stand quarrelling for the perfectioÌ„ of our obedience in some one or two good works when yet we faile in many things besides One thing well done will not iustifie him that doth many things ill For that of Saint Iames must be a Truth Hee that keepeth the whole Law and yet faileth in one point is guilty of all Iames 2. 10. Much more guilty is he that keepeth it in a few and breakes it in many But yet further we reiect this opinion also as an Errour and we teach on the contrary That No man in this life can performe any one particular good worke so exactly that in euery point it shall answere the rigour of the Law and the seuere tryall of Gods Iudgement About this Assertion our Aduersaries raise much stirre and many soule slaunders against vs proclaiming vs to all the world open enemies to all good workes that wee bee Factors for the Kingdome of darknes promoting as much as in vs lyeth all licentiousnesse in evill courses and taking of the courage and endeauour of Men after pious duties For who will set himselfe say they to doe any good worke if the Protestants doctrine be true that in doing of it he shall commit a mortall Sinne who wil pray fast and giues almes if when he doth these things he cannot but sinne As good then it were to doe euill as to doe good a man can but sin and so he shall let him doe his best These slanderous incongruities fastened on vs spring not out of our Doctrine rightly vnderstood but out of froward and peruerse hearts that will not see the truth Such aspersions will easily bee wiped of when after the confirmation of the Trueth wee shall make answere to such obiections as seeme to infringe it We say then That no man can performe any good worke required in the Law with such exact observation of every circumstance that were it examined by the rigour of the Law and Gods Iustice no fault at all can bee found in it This we proue by Conscience by Scriptures by Reason First we here apeale vnto the Conscience of Man the Iudgment whereof is to be regarded and whereunto we dare stand in this matter Thou that boastest that in such and such good workes that thou hastnot committed any Sinne at all Darest thou indeed stand to it and vpon these Tearmes appeare in Gods Iudgment Darest thou abide the strictnesse of this examination standing ready to Iustifie thy selfe against euery thing that hee can obiect Wilt thou venter thy selfe vpon this Tryall euen in the best works thou dost That God cannot with his most piercing eye of Iustice spy a fault in theÌ„ if he number theÌ„ he shal find nothing short if he weigh them not one graine too light Againe let conscience speake when thou hast prayed fasted giuen almes done any other excellent worke of Piety and Charity in the deuoutest and most vnblameable manner thou thinkest possible Thinkest thou verily that in this case thou doest not at all stand in need of Gods fauour to passe by thine infirmities and that thou needest not euen in this behalfe pray Lord forgiue me my trespasses What man durst say or thinke in any good worke Lord in this particular I doe not desire thou shouldest be mercifull vnto me Without doubt there is no man liuing vpon earth that shall in serious consideration of the seuerity of Gods iudgement and the great infirmity of his owne Nature compare his own obedience with the seuerity of Gods Iustice but his heart will presently shrinke within him and his conscience shunne this tryall as much as euer Adam did Gods presence The thought of such a strict proceeding in Iudgement would make the proudest heart to stoope and tremble the boldest face to gather blacknesse filling the soule with an horrible feare in the expectation of that day should the most innocent life the most holy actions of men be there scanned according to the rigour of Iustice not graciously pittied pardoned and accepted according to that mercifull loue of God which couereth and passeth by multitudes of sinnes T were arrogant pride in any man to vtter that speach in a sober temper Whereunto Iob breakes out in a passion chased by the sense of his miserable tortures and the froward disputes of his friends Oh saith he that a man might pleade with God as a man pleadeth with his neighbour And againe Lay downe now put me in a surety with thee who is he that will strike hands with me And againe Oh that I knew where I might find him that I might come euen to his face I would order my cause before him and fill my mouth with arguments I would know the words which he would answere mee and vnderstand what he would say vnto me Speakes the man reason or is he beside himselfe what challenge God to dispute with him and hope to make his party good in the quarrell This was Iobs infirmity It s our Aduersaries arrogancy who dare set their foot against Gods and bid him pry as narrowly as hee list into their good workes they will maintaine the righteousnesse thereof against all that he can obiect to proue the least sinâ—ulnesse Iob saw his folly God grant that these may theirs In a calmer temper when conscience was not ouerclouded with griefe and anger he reades vs a quite contrary lesson In the 9 Chapter of his booke How should man be iust with God if he contend with him he cannot answer him one of a thousand v. 2. 3. And againe hauing reasoned questioned of Gods
wisdome power not to be questioned or resisted by any How much lesse shall I answere him saith he chuse out my words to reason with him whom though I were righteous yet would I not answer but I would make supplication to my iudge v. 14. 15. Further If I would iustifie my selfe mine own mouth will condemne me If I say I am perfect it shall proue me peruerse Though I were perfect yet would I not know my soule I would despise my life v. 20. 21. And once more If I wash my self with snow water make my hands neuer so clean yet that thou plunge me in the ditch mine own cloathes shall abhorre me For he is not a man as I am that I should answere him and we should come together in iudgement vers 30. 31. 32 See this holy Saint who elsewhere stands peremptorily to the defence of his Innocency and vprightnesse against that wrongfull imputation of hypocrisie which his friends charged him withall telling them that till he die he wil not take away his innocency from himselfe nor his heart shall not reproue him of his dayes yet when he sets himselfe before the Tribunall of Gods Iustice he dares not stand out in his own Iustification but submits himselfe to the mercy of his Iudge with humble supplication for his fauour These confessions of Iob be not complements out of a fained and needlesse modesty but the fruits of a conscience rightly informed and apprehensiue of its owne sinfulnesse and the seuere rigour of Gods iudgment The serious meditatioÌ„ of which two particulars we commend vnto our Aduersaries and all other of their humour that are apt to entertaine fauourable and gentle opinions touching their sinnes and withall to nourish high conceits of their owne goodnesse Whence they grow by degrees to thinke that Gods iudgement is like their owne foolish imaginations and where they out of blindnesse or selfe-loue cannot see a fault that there God himselfe can finde none We hardly see beames in our own eyes are we then so skilfull to spie the smallest moate who can vnderstand his faults saith Dauid wilt thou answere him Yes I doe A secret fault may soone sâ—â—p it a deceitfull heart may in one circumstance go beyond thy wit watchfulnesse Here then humility would doe well and prayer for thy ignorances for thy secret sinnes vnknowne to thy selfe as much as others Here true modesty would haue her place that thou preferre Gods wisedome and iudgement aboue thine owne remembring that he iudgeth not as man iudgeth but sometimes otherwise then thou doest accounting that abhomination which in thine eyes is much set by and alwayes more exactly then thou caust seeing much euill in that where thou seest little and some euill where thou think'st there is none And therefore alwayes speake vnto thy selfe in those excellent words of Saint Iohn If my heart condemne as in many things it doth God is greater then my heart and knoweth all things 1 Iohn 3. 20. God forbid then that in any thing I should presume to pleade with him in my Iustification He is wise in heart and mighty in strength who hath hardened himselfe against him and hath prospered Iob. 9. 2. Thus much touching our first Argument for the inward witnesse of the conscience Which in the most innocent life often in the most holy worke drawes backe from Gods Iudgement seat and is afraid to put it selfe vpon the tryall of his seuere Iustice. Wee haue the Scriptures to witnesse vnto vs the same Truth Psa. 143. â— 2. Heare my prayer O Lord giue earâ— vnto my supplication in thy faithfulnesse answere mee and in thy righteousnesse Here the prophet seemes to appeale to the Iustice of God requiring his helpe vpon such tearmes as if God out of pure Iustice could not haue denyed him But t is nothing so T is the mercy of God the holy Prophet sues vnto Answere me in thy faithfulnesse and Righteousnes that is in those gratious promises wherin thou hast made mee to trust where vpon I doe rely Thou art iust and faithfull in keeping promise be so to me in my distresse who according to thy promise seeke vnto thee for succour Vnto this Righteousnesse of God Dauid presents himselfe and his supplications but before that strict severe Iustice of God he dares not stand but in all submissiuenesse prayes in the next words And enter not into Iudgement with thy seruant He craues mercifull audience of his prayers but deprecates the strict examination of his Life and doings He knew well that if God should deale with him vpon so hard Termes his owne Innocency could neuer haue made his prayers exceptable For saith he in this shall no Man liuing be Iustified The force of this place Bell. seekes to decline by three poore miserable shifts That Dauid would not haue God enter into Iudgement with him to iudge him seiliâ—et according to such things as he had of himselfe but according to such things as God had giuen him that is Iudge mee not according to that righteousnesse which I haue by Nature but according to that righteousnesse which thou hast giuen by thy Grace Which interpretation how ridiculous a phantasy it is and quite besides the meaning of the Prophet t is easy for any one to Iudge by reading of that Psalme Bell. therefore hath another string to his Bow but as rotten as the Former 2 That the place is meant of veniall Sinnes without which a Man cannot liue and though they be small faults yet would it be no Iustice in God to punish them So that the meaning is Lord enter not into Iudgement that is Lord I will not contend with thee I confesse my selfe a sinner and craue pardon Diuers small faults I haue committed not against the Law but besides the Law and thou mayest easily pardon them My case is not singular I doe therein but as other Men doe amongst whome there is none so iust but some time failes and offends And therefore doe not lay such faults to my charge Men of corrupt conscience that thus sport with Sinne and play with the Scriptures The Iesuite must bring vs better proofes then he doth else wee shall neuer beleeue that Dauid was a Man of Bellarmine his mind touching Veniall Sins That doctrine is part of the dregs of corrupted Nature maynatined by Popish Moabites who are setled on thier Lees infatuated by the Loue of Sin and flattering themselues in that wickednesse as little light which God accounteth worthy to be haâ—ed wee acknowledge no Veniall Sinnes but such as deserue eternall death which hereafter we shall make good And therefore if Dauid would not that God should enter into iudgement with him because of veniall sinnes that accompany his holiest practises t is in effect that which we say the difference is onely in an Epithete We say Dauid prayed not to come into iudgement because his best workes were sinfull and Bellarmine addes Because venially or pardonably sinnefull
This must be restrained to the righteousnesse which consistes in Obedience to the Ceremoniall Law All our Righteousnesse that is all our Ceremoniall workes in Sacrifices Obseruations of Sabboaths New-moones Fasts and such like are as filthy clouts being done in that manner as wee doe them viz without Faith and Obedience To these we say That there would neuer be an end were a Man bound punctually to refute euery Cauill which an Aduersary may frame out of his fancy-full imagination and froward heart We owe the Romanists no such credit as to assent to any point of Religion vpon their bare affirmation We can as confidently deny such Exceptions as these without yeelding them a refutation as they doe boldly make them without bringing any proofe And certainely most vaine and vngodly is that course which our Aduersaries or any that tread in there steps doe hold in their Disputations about serious points of Christian Doctrine when being vrged with conuincing Scriptures they thinke they haue done the part of Schollers and satisfied the Consciences of others desirous of Truth if they can amuse and stonny you a little with two or three Interpretations and prety exceptions and so leaue you to chuse which you list They will not tell you which they will stand to but euen when there answers crosse one another yet all shall downe that if one helpe not another may and altogether may vexe you when they cannot satisfie you This quarrelsome humour of men who seeke not the truth in loue but write to maintaine to dispute is not the least vexation of the spirit and wearinesse to the flesh of man as all those will witnesse whose much reading hath led them along into the perplexed mazes of Schoole-learning whether Diuine or humane The third place of Scripture is Psal 130. 3. If thou Lord shouldest marke iniquities O Lord who shall stand This place is parallell to the former wherein the holy Prophet desires God to be attentiue to the voice of his supplications craues this audience meerely of Gods fauour not vpon any righteousnes or worth of his own As for that he confesseth That if God should be strict to obserue wherein hee and all men doe amisse neither himselfe nor any other could be able to stand in his presence Whence he flies from his Iustice vnto his mercy But there is forgiuenesse with thee that thou mayest be feared verse 4. Presumption then it is and arrogant pride for any Romanist to say Lord if thou doe obserue Iniquities yet I shall be able to stand In such and such good workes be extreame to marke what is done amisse I feare not the tryall nor will sue to thy mercy From Scriptures we come to Reason Which is thus Wheresoeuer there is concupiscence and inordinate motions of the heart wheresoeuer there 's a defect of Charity towards God and Man Wheresoeuer veniall sinnes as our Aduersaries cals them are mingled with good works there the best workes of men are not free from some corruptions and sinfulnesse But in a man Regenerate there is concupiscence and euill motions of the heart present with him when hee would doe good there is a want of that measure of loue to God and Charity to Man which he might and ought to haue there also are besides many veniall faults that accompany his best workes Ergo the works of a Man Regenerate are not euery way good but in part sinfull The Minor is cleere and confessed by our Aduersaries especially for the two former circumstances of concupisâ—â—â—ce and imperfection of Charity and for veniall sinnes they also acknowledge it a very hard matter to 〈…〉 in any good worke Wherefore they are driuen in a desperate manner to deny the Maior and to auouch That neither concupiscence nor imperfection of Charity to God or our Neighbour nor yet veniall sinnes mingled with good workes doe at all impaire the goodnesse and perfect righteousnesse oâ— our obedience to the Law but that they are as good with those infirmities as without them Bad causes must be helpt out by bold and desperate attempts and so it â—ares with our Aduersaries in this point They will vtterly deny that there is any thing euill in a man Regenerate rather then be forced to confesse there is any thing euill in the workes that he performes The impudent vnreasonablenesse of this their Assertion we shall shortly speake of In the meane we goe on vnto the consideration of such Arguments which are brought by our Aduersaries to proue That the good workes of men Regenerate are truely and perfectly good without all faultinesse in them They proue it then 1 From the examples of Iob and Dauid Of Iob is said Iob 1. 22. In all this Iob sinned not nor charged God foolishly and chap. 2. verse 10. In all this did not Iob sinne with his lippes Againe for Dauid he is conscious to himselfe of his owne innocency and that no fault can be found in his doings wherefore he prayes Psal 7. 8. Iudge me O Lord according to my righteousnesse and according to mine integrity that is in me And after all this Psal. 18. 23. 24. He professeth openly his innocency and reward for it I was saith he also vpright before him and I kept my selfe from mine iniquity Therefore hath the Lord recompensed mee according to my righteousnesse according to the cleannesse of my hands in his sight And Psal. 17. vers 3. Hee declares how GOD had throughly tryed him and yet found him faultlesse Thou hast proued mine heart thou hast visited me in the night thou hast tryed me and yet shalt find nothing I am purposed my mouth shall not transgresse How then can any man say that Iob and Dauid sinned mortally in their sayings and doings when God himselfe witnesseth for them that they dâ—e not sinne Hereto we answere That we doe not lay sinne vnto the charge of those holy men nor doe we say they did ill where the Scriptures witnesse they did well Iob in that first Act of his tryall quitted himselfe well and ouercame the Temptation He sinned not as afterwards he did breaking forth into impatiency and that is all the Scripture meant by that speech In all this Iob sinned not But whether Iobs patience were in this first conflict euery way so vnreproueable that not the least fault could be spied in it in Gods seuere Iudgement is more then we dare affirme or our Aduersaries will euer be able to proue For Dauid his innocent demeanor of himselfe in the time of Sauls raigne was such that no Imputation of vnfaithfulnesse or ambition could iustly bee layed to his charge Wherefore when Sauls followers accuse him of treason against their Master Dauid appeales vnto God desiring him to deale with him according to his Innocency in that behalfe His owne conscience and God with his conscience after tryall made acquit him from plotting and practising against Saul as his Aduersaries said hee did Thence it followes that Dauid did not offend in
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
better but then here also they deny that this imperfection of our charity and good works is any sinne Lastly they grant that no man can auoide veniall sinnes scarse in the best workes he doth but then they deny that veniall sinnes be contrary to the Law so that albeit a man commit them yet he may perfectly fulfill the Law of God I cannot stand largely in the refutation of these foule errors The confutation whereof belongs properly to the Article of remission of sinnes where the nature and kindes of sinnes are to be handled For this present I shall but touch on them briefly and proceed to the matter 1 For the first we defend this conclusion The vitious inclination and pronnesse of Nature vnto euill as also the inordinate motiâ—ns of concupiscence which goe before consent they are sinnes euen in a man regenerate That the inclination and pronnesse of Nature to sinne is a sinne we proue thus It is expresly so called by the Apostle Rom. 7. not once nor twice but almost in euery verse of the Chapter I am carnall sold vnder sinne The sinne that dwelleth in me ver 17. 20. The Law of sinne verse 23. 25. In it selfe it is sinne and deserues the wages of sinne eternall death For which cause the Apostle there cals it The body of this death verse 24. Because this inward Corruption which is like a Body that hath many members consisting of diuerse euill affections spreading themselues throughout his whole Nature made him lyable to eternall death from which onely Gods mercy in Christ could deliuer him 2 To rebell against the Law is Sinne. Ergo To haue a rebellious inclination is sinne likewise For if the act bee euill the habite must needes be naught if the Law forbid one it must needs forbid the other If it be euill to breake any Commandement in act is it not euill to haue a pronenesse and readinesse of minde to breake it The habit denominated a man sinfull and not the act Nor doth God lesse abhorre the pronnesse of man to offend him then wee doe abhorre the rauenous disposition of a Wolfe though it be a Cubb not yet vsed to the prey or one tyed vp in a chaine and kept from rauening That the euill motions of the heart without consent be sins 1 They are forbidden in the Morrall Law In the tenth Commandement Thou shalt not couet For motions with consent are forbidden in the other Commandments As appeares manifestly in Christs exposition of the Commandements Mat. 5. 22. were not only the outward act of Adultery but the inward desire is also forbidden if wee beleeue Christ the best interpreter of the Law When Ergo the tenth Commandement forbids coueting of our Neighbours Wife it either meanes the same kind of lusting with a needelesse Tautology or a different viz. that which is not consented vnto Nor can our Aduersaries shift this off though Becanus most impudently denies it with out any reason of his so doing 2 We proue it thus Whatsoeuer is inordinate and repugnant to right Reason that is Sinne. But these Motions without confent be inordinate Ergo They be Sinne The Minor is confessed That these Motions be inordinati recta Rationi repugnantes The Maior is apparant For what is Ordo recta Ratio in Moralibus but that course of doing any thing which is conformable to Gods Law and his will God is the God of order His Law is the rule of order in all humane actions Recta Ratio what is it but the conformity of mans vnderstanding and will vnto Gods will which only is the rule of righteousnesse We neuer purpose and will matters aright but when wee will them agreeably to Gods will Wherefore it is a grosse absurdity to deny the Sinnefulnesse of these disorderly motions seeing no man can breake those orders which God hath made and yet be faultlesse Nor is it possible a Man should doe that which is contrary to Gods will And yet be without Sinne in doing of it These motions then without consent be confusions in Nature opposites to the righteousnesse of the will of God and vnto that euen and streight order expressed in his Law We conclude then that Concupiscence and inordinate motions of the Soule not consented vnto are Sinnes contrary to our Aduersaries assertion They bring some Reasons to proue they are not 1 Originall sinne is taken away in Baptisme But concupiscence is not taken away in Baptisme as appeares by experience in the regenerate in whom it remaines Ergo concupiscence and pronnesse to Sinne is no sinne This Argument is friuolous In Originall sinne there are two things First the guilt Secondly the inherent corruptions We say in Baptisme the guilt is altogether washed away from the Baptized Elect by the blood of Christ. And for the corruption thereof it is part done away by the sanctifying Spirit of Christ powred out vpon the Regenerate which by degrees purgeth out the inherent sinfulnesse of Nature by replanting the graces of Sanctification in all parts Concupiscence then notwithstanding Baptisme remaines in the Regenerate and is a sinne in them the guiltinesse whereof God mercifully pardons in Christ. 2 What is not in our power to auoide that God doth not forbid vs by his Law But t is not in our power to auoide the Motions of the heart that preuent Reason and consent Ergo they be no sinnes forbidden vs. To this we answere The Maior is true in things meerely Naturall that fall out by the Necessity of Nature well disposed So we say Gods Law were vncouth should he command a man neuer to be an hungry or thirst which things he cannot auoide but they come vpon him will he nill he by the meere necessity of Nature But concerning inordinate motions there 's no such matter God hath layed no such necessity on Nature in her creation but we by our sinne haue brought it upon our selues Now such a necessity excuses vs not In this case it helpes a man no more to say I cannot auoid euill thoughts and desires then it doth a desperate sinner that by countenance hath hardened himselfe in euill courses or then it helpes the Diuels and the damned if they should say Wee cannot chuse but doe euill 3 They argue thus That which would haue beene naturall and without fault in man if he had beene created in puris Naturalibus that is no sinne nor fault in vs. But motions preuenting consent would be naturall and without fault in men so made Ergo In vs they be no faults of themselues Heere our Aduersaries haue made a Man of white Paper or the like to Materia prima that hath not any quality in him morally good or bad That is A Man that hath neither the Image of God in knowledge righteousnes and holines engrauen on his vnderstanding will affections and whole person nor yet though it haue it not hath in him any contrary euill quality that comes vpon him by
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
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
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
is a rare priviledge no doubt 4. The fourth meanes is by another liuing mans satisfaction for them For not onely the superabundant works of Christ and Saints departed but the good workes of iust men aliue will satisfie for another being done with that intent So great is God's clemency towards good Catholiques that though one man cannot confesse nor be contrite for another yet satisfie he may the Iustice of God for his sinnes Both these meanes are grounded vpon pregnant places of Scripture Gal. 6. 2. Beaâ—e yee one anothers burthen that is satisfie one for another Againe 2 Cor. 12. 15. I will most gladly bestow and be bestowed for your sakes that is to satisfie for your sinnes Againe 2 Tim. 2. 10. I suffer all things for the Elects sake that is that my sufferings may be their satisfactions So Col. 1. 24. I reioyce in my sufferings for you and fulfill the rest of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his bodies sake which is the Church That is My sufferings with Christ's sufferings make vp a Treasurie for the Church that such as want of their owne may make vse of his satisfaction and mine Againe Rom. 12. 15. We being many are one anothers Members Ergo We may impart satiâ—factory workes one to another as one member doth heate to another To conclude 'T is in our Creede I beleeue a communion of Saints Ergo There is a communion of satisfactions And so the point is very fitly proued Whereby it appeares that the Châ—lâ—ren of the Romish Church are reasonable well prouided of Meanes to recompense God's Iustice and redeeme the Temporall punishment of their sinnes in this life The other degree of the temporall punishment is in the life to come namely in â—urgatory whereinto all they drop who die in Veniall Sinnes the fault whereof was not forgiuen in this Life or in Mortall Sinnes the fault whereof was forgiuen in this Life but full satisfaction was not made for the punishment before death Such must fry awhile in Purgatory longer or shorter time according as their Sinnes are more or lesse haynous or as Mens hearts on Earth be more or lesse pitifull towards them But howeuer there they must be till the Temporall Punishment of their Sinnes be fully suffered or bought out by something else that may satisfie God's Iustice This Punishment of Sinne inflicted in Purgatory is twofold 1. Poena Damni of Losse viz. of the beautifull vision of God and ioyes of Heauen 2. Poena sensus of sense or smart viz. The bitter paines of God's wrath sensibly tormenting the Powers of the Soule inflicted vpon them either immediatly by God himselfe or by the ministery of the diuels as his Instruments For 't is a doubt not yet resolued among the Patrons of Purgatory whether the Diuels haue not to doe there also as well as in hell But whether their Tormentours be Diuels or not this is agreed vpon that the Torment and Punishment which the Soules do suffer in Purgatory is for the Substance of it the very same with the Torments of Hell differing only from it in continuance Those of Purgatory be temporall these of Hell aeternall Well now such as haue not bestirred themselues then well in this Life to make all euen by full satisfactions such must be arrested in the mid way to Heauen and cast into this Prison Out of which two Meanes there be to be deliuered 1. By suffering all this temporall punishment for so many yeares and dayes as 't is to continue How many that is you must inquire of St Michael the Church knowes not that But yet sure shee is that many Soules shall continue in Purgatory till the day of Iudgement so there shall be the same period of the World and of their Torments These haue a hard time of it 't is easier haply with others But be it as 't will be such as these pay the vtmost farthing where they endure in the flames of Purgatory so long till the time of their whole punishment be runne out Then God is satisfied and they deliuered 2. By buying out this punishment by some other satisfactory price For although God could so haue ordered it that euery Soule being once in Purgatory should suffer all the Temporall punishments due yet he is content to bee intreated to commute poenance and take some other valueable consideration by way of satisfaction for this punishment But this satisfactory payment cannot be made by the Soules themselues it must be made by some on Earth for them which is done 1. Either by laborious workes of any one iust and godly Catholique whether he be a friend of the deceased or other touched with a charitable pitty toward a poore soule Who by store of deuout prayers Almes Masses Pilgrimages founding of Coueâ—ts and Hospitals c. may procure a gaole-deliuery for that soule for which he intends those good workes 2. Or by the Pope who is purse-bearer to the Church and hath the Treasurie thereof vnder Lock and Key He now though he cannot directly absolue the Soules in Purgatory from their punishment as he can Men liuing on the Earth yet he may helpe them another way by bestowing on them so much of the superfluous sufferings of Christ and of the Saints that thereby God's Iustice may be satisfied for the whole punishment which otherwise they should haue endured Yea such is the power of his Indulgences to infuse a vertue into such and such Altâ—â— Shrines 〈◊〉 c. that whosoeuer shall frequent such places or vse such prayers all Complements duely obserued he may at his pleasure free one two three or more soules our of Purgatory Nay did not Couetousnes coole the heare of his Apostolical Charity he might so bountifully powre out the Treasures of the Church vpon these prisoners in Purgatory that they should all haue enough to weigh down the feales deserue a passe-port for Heauen Such efficacie there is in that spirituall Picke locke which the Pope hath in keeping All which is very properly proued by the former places of Scripture and others also were it needfull now to alleage them But thus we see the Catholiques are euery way furnished for satisfactions that what Christ hath not done for them they can doe for themselues either to suffer and ouercome the Temporall punishments of their Sinnes or else which is the easier course to buy out that punishment at a valuable price of other satisfactionary workes wherewith Gods Iustice shal be abundantly contented Now whereas those whom they terme Heretiques cry out aloud that such satisfactions to God's Iustice be indeed no Satisfactions at all because they are no wayes equall vnto the offence committed and so no full recompence of wrong offered vnto God for the assoiling of this doubt they giue vs this distinction very necessary to be obserued Satisfaction is double 1. Iustitiae ex rigore Iustitiae ad absolutam perfectam Aequalitatem Quantitatis That is There is a Satisfaction of Iustice consisting in
very worst Some say 't is Christ and he only satisfies Properly but we Improperly Our works being only a Condition without which Christ's satisfaction is not applied vnto vs. But such smell of the fagot For 't is a perilous Haeresie to say Christ onely satisfies for Sinnes Well others say That both Christ and we our selues doe satisfie also there 's two satisfactions for the same offence But this mettall clinketh not well neither Wherefore others are of opinion and Bellarmine likes it That Wee only satisfie not Christ. Tertius tamen modus probabilior videtur Quòd una tantum sit actualis satisfactio easit nostra Yea this is as it should be thrust out Christ and let vs only satisfie while he stands by and holds the Candle Yet the Iesuite will not doe Iesus so much wrong for marke to mend the matter hee adds Neque tamen excluditâ—r Christus vel satisfactio eius Nam per eius satisfactionem habemuâ— gratiam vnde satisfacimus Et hoc modo nobis dicitur applicari Christi satisfactio non quòd immediatè ipsae eius satisfactio tollat poenam temporalem nobis debitam sed quod mediate eam tollat quatenùs gratiam aâ— ea habemus sine quâ— nihil valeret nostra satisfactio Which wordes they may vnderstand that can For I cannot The Iesuite walkes in the darke seeking to hide this shamefull Injury to the Merits of Christ but it will not be 'T is too apparant that Christ is to them of no account Only for a fashion they make vse of his Name when they haue reckoned vp a bedrol of their own Merits S t s Merits and such other trash then to conclude all with a Per Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum That 's the burden of the Song and the oyle that seasons all the Salet as Marnix merily 4. That distinction of Satisfaction in Strict Iustice and satisfaction in fauourable acceptance is vaine in this businesse We grant indeed that our good workes done out of Faith are pleasing to God and graciously accepted of him but can it appeare that God accepts them as satisfactions to his Iustice No Scripture intimates any such thing That God's fauour doth thus dispense with his Iustice and make that satisfaction acceptable which is in it selfe no full satisfaction of his Iustice. Shall we thinke that God in this case is put vpon those termes of Necessity and complement which fall out in humane satisfactions betweene Man and Man It may so fall out that a Creditor to whom 1000 Crowns are owing may be content if the debtor will yeeld vp his whole Estate though not worth 50. Because no more can be had So in case of offence sometime a litle formality or a word or two of confession of the wrong may be accepted for satisfaction But God wants no meanes to receiue full satisfaction of vs either vpon our owne persons or vpon Christ for vs. And therefore 't is without ground to imagine such a facility and partiality of his Iustice as to be satisfied with a few poore complementall Formalities Satisfactions to God's Iustice wee acknowledge none but such as are in Iustice sufficient Such are Christ's satisfactions But as for vs we haue nothing to doe with satisfactions but with free Pardons 5. This Doctrine of humane satisfactions taught in the Church of Rome is altogether full of vncertainty and ergo brings no rest and peace vnto mens Consciences at all God pardons the fault but requires the punishment say they But when is this Is it alwaies No sometimes he pardons both But can they tell certainly when he doth when not At Martyrdome he pardons all How know they that or how know they he doth it not at other times too Contrition say they if it be veheâ—nenâ— satisfies for all But can they tell vs the iâ—st asure of that Contrition which is satisfactorie It may be the partie is contrite enough yet the Preâ—st enioynes Penance when 't is needlesse It may be he is not coâ—â—â—ite enough yet no penance enioyned Where 's the certainty what 's to be done in such a case Christ say they hath satisfied for the Aeternity of Hell punishments Well But can they tell how many yeares or daies are left vnsatisfied for that so all things may be fitted according to the Race of time Laborious workes of Praiers Fastings Almes-deâ—ds satisfie for temporall Punishments in this life say they Supâ—ose it be so Are they sure they can also satisfie the paines of Puâ—gatorie The Priest enjoynes satisfactorie penance But is he sure he enioynes iust so much as will doe the Feate Is he certaine that God will take that for paiment which he decrees to be paied What if there be not Aue-Maries enough c Againe suppose there were Evangelicall Counsailes as Vowes of Chastity Pouerty c. and that to doe these things were pleasing vnto God Are they sure they shall passe for satisfactions presently thou saiest I giue this Almes I vow Poverty I doe this and that to satisfie Gods Iustice for such or such a sinne What Is it a Match presently that God must doe as thou desirest and take what thou offerest for paiment Soft there a while Where 's the warrant for that Those that are in Purgatory when haue they satisfied enough who brings word when they are deliuered How knowes the Pope when he hath bestowed vpon them sufficient supererogatiue Money to pay the Fees of the Prison Or doth S. Michael that hold's the Scales send him word when their satisfactions weigh downe their Sinnes Not to reckon more vp there is in all this Doctrine no firme ground whereon a distressed Soule may cast anchor But when it hath once let slip that maine Cable wherevpon it might rid it out in all stormes the satisfaction of Christ afterwards it is carried a dâ—ift vpon all hazards of Windes and Seas 6. The-â—rpractise betraies their Opinion Did they indeed thinke that there were any seueritie in Gods Iustice any necessitie or sufficiencie in such their satisfactions 't is not possible they would prostitute such thing 's in so base a manner as they doe But when an Aue Maria a Pater noster before such or such an Altar a wax-Candle to such a Saint a kisse of such a cold stone a pilgriamage to Compostella for cockle-shels a lash or twaine vpon the Bare two or three meales meat forborne a pardon purchased at a few Deniers yea when the roughnes and meanesse of Adams figgleaue breeches shall be accounted a worthy matter to satisfie for his sinne as Bellarmine most ridiculously doates I say when such base trifles shal be reckoned to be valuable satisfactions to Gods Iustice they must pardon vs if we guesse at their meaning They may dispute and talke while they will in big wordes and faire glosses of Bridles against Sinnes and I know not what but in fine all proues but Gins to catch money But such as serue themselues thus