iudged according to this Righteousnesse and Innocency oh how soone his mouth would be stopped And this confession wrung out from out his Conscience All my Righteousnesse is as filthy Raggs And againe Vilis sum I am vile what shall I answere thee But that other Righteousnesse of Iustification is without vs in Christs possession but ours by Gods gratious gift and acceptation and this euery way perfect and vnreproued in the seuerest Iudgment of God And therefore when a sinner is drawne before the Barre of Gods Iudgment accused by the law Satan his Conscience conuicted by the euidence of the Fact and to be now sentenced and deliuered to punishment by the vnpartiall Iustice of God In this case he hath to alleadge for himself the al-sufficient righteousnesse of a Mighty redeemer who onely had Done and suffered for him that which hee could neuer doe nor suffer for himselfe This Plea alone and no other in the world can stop vp the Mouth of hell confute the accusations of Satan chase away the Terrors that haunt a guilty conscience and appease the infinite Indignation of an angry Iudge This alone will procure fauour and absolution in the presence of that Iudge of the whole world This alone brings downe from Heauen into our Consciences that blessed peace which passeth all vnderstanding but of him that hath it Whereby we rest our selues secure from feare of Condemnation being provided of a defence that will not faile vs when after death wee shall come into Iudgment SECT 2. CHAP. I. The Orthodoxe opinion concerning the manner of Iustification by Faith and the confutation of Popish errours in this point HAuing thus cleared the meaning of this word Iustification and shewed that the Scriptures when they speake of the Iustification of a sinner before God doe thereby vnderstand the absolution of him in Iudgement from sinne and punishment Wee are now vpon this ground to proceede vnto the further explication of this point to enquire by what Meanes and in what Manner this Iustification of a sinner is accomplished That we may goe on more distinctly I will reduce all our ensuing discourse of this point into three heads First touching the condition required in them that shall be iustified Secondly the matter of our Iustification viz. What righteousnesse is it wherefore a sinner is Iustified Thirdly touching the forme of Iustification in what the quality of this iudiciall Act of God iustifying a sinner consisteth Concerning the first at this time The condition required in such as shall be partakers of this grace of Iustification is true faith wherunto God hath ordinarily annexed this great priuiledge That by faith and faith onely a sinner shall bee iustified This the Scriptures witnesse in tearmes as direct and expresse as any can be Rom 3. 28. We conclude a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the Law and Rom. 4. 9. For we say that faith was imputed vnto Abraham for righteousnesse and Rom. 5. 1. Then being iustified by faith we haue peace towards God through Iesus Christ our Lord. With other the like places Whence it is agreed vpon on all sides that a sinner is iustified by faith but touching the manner how he is said to be iustified by faith there is much controuersie and brawle betweene the Orthodoxe of the reformed Churches and their Aduersaries of Rome and Holland the Arminians and the Papists The sentence of the reformed Churches touching this point consisteth of two Branches First that a sinner is iustified by faith not properly as it is a quality or action which by it's owne dignity and merit deserues at Gods hands Remission of sinnes or is by Gods fauourable acceptance taken for the whole and perfect righteousnesse of the Law which is otherwise required of a sinner but onely in relation vnto the obiect of it the righteousnesse of Christ which it imbraceth and resteth vpon Secondly that a sinner is iustified by faith in opposition vnto the Righteousnesse of workes in the fulfilling of the Law Whereby now no man can be iustified In this relatiue and inclusiue sense doe the Reformed Churches take this proposition A man is iustified by faith They explaine themselues thus There are two Couenants that God hath made with man By one of which and by no other meanes in the world saluation is to be obtained The one is the Couenant of workes The tenor whereof is Doe this and thou shalt liue This Couenant is now vtterly void in regard of vs who through the weaknes of our sinfull flesh cannot possibly fulfill the condition of Obedience required therby and therfore we cannot expect Iustification Life by this means The other is the Couenant of grace the Tenor whereof is Beleeue in the Lord Iesus and thou shalt be saued The condition of this couenant is Faith the performance whereof differs from the performance of the condition of that other Couenant Doe this and Liue is a compact of pure Iustice wherein wages is giuen by debt so that he which doth the worke obeying the Law may in strict Iustice for the worke sake claime the wages eternall life vpon iust desert Beleeue this and liue is a compact of freest and purest Mercy wherein the reward of eternall life is giuen vs in fauour for that which beares not the least proportion of worth with it so that he which personnes the condition cannot yet demand the wages as due vnto him in seuerity of Iustice but onely by the grace of a freer promise the fulfilling of which hee may humbly sue for By which grand difference betweene these two Couenants clearely expressed in Scriptures it appeares manifestly that these two Propositions A man is iustified by workes A man is iustified by Faith carry meanings vtterly opposite one to the other The one is proper and formall the other Metonymicall and Relatiue In this Proposition A Man is iustified by workes we vnderstand all in proper and precise termes That a righteous man who hath kept the law exactly in all points is by and for the dignity and worth of that his obedience iustified in Gods sight from all blame and punishment whatsoeuer because perfect obedience to the morall Law in it selfe for it owne sake deserues the approbation of Gods seuere Iustice and the reward of Heauen But in that other Proposition A man is iustified by Faith We must vnderstand all things relatiuely thus A sinner is iustified in the sight of God from all sinne and punishment by faith that is by the obedience of Iesus Christ beleeued on and embraced by a true faith Which Act of Iustification of a sinner although it be properly the onely worke of God for the onely merit of Christ yet is it rightly ascribed vnto faith and it alone for as much as faith is that mayne condition of that new Couenant which as we must perform if we will be iustified so by the performance thereof we are said to obtaine iustification and life For when God by
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
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
forbid For if there had beene a Law giuen which could haue giuen Life verily righteousnesse should haue beene by the Law But the Scripture hath concluded all vnder sinne that the promise by the faith of Iesus Christ might be giuen by them that beleeue Ephe. 2. 8. 9. For by grace ye are saued through Faith and that not of your selues It is the gift of God Not of workes least any man should boast Phil 3. 8. 9. Yea doubtlesse and I count all things but losse for the excellency of the Knowledge of Christ Iesus my Lord. For whom I haue suffered the losse of all things and doe count them but dung that I may winne Christ. And be found of him not hauing mine owne righteousnesse which is of the Law but that which is through the faith of Christ the Righteousnesse which is of God by Faith Out of which places not to name more expresly touching this point of our Iustification we argue thus A Man is iustified either by the workes of the Law or by faith in Christ. But hee is not Iustified by the workes of the Law Ergo He is iustified onely by faith in Christ. In this disiunctiue Syllogisme they cannot find â—ault with vs for adding the word onely in the Conclusion which was not in the Praemises For Reason will teach them that where two Tearmes are immediately opposite if one bee taken away the other remaines alone So that in euery disjunctiue Syllogisme whose Maior Proposition standeth vpon two Tearmes immediately opposite if one be remoued in the Minor the Conclusion is plainely equivalent to an exclusiue Proposition As if we argue thus Eyther the wicked are saued or the godly But the wicked are not saued Thence it followes in exclusiue Tearmes Therefore the godly onely are saued Our Aduersaries cannot deny but that the Proposition A Man is iustified by workes or by Faith consists of Tearmes immediately opposite For else they accuse the Apostle Paul of want of Logicke who Rom. 3. should conclude falsely A man is iusitified by faith without workes if he be iustified either by both together or else by neither Seeing then he opposeth Faith aÌ„d workes as incompatible and exclude workes from Iustification wee conclude infallibly by the Scriptures That a man is iustified by faith alone This Argument not auoidable by any sound aÌ„swere puts our aduersaries miserably to their shifts Yet rather then yeeld vnto the truth they fall vnto their distinctions whereby if t were possible they would shift off the force of this Argument Whereas therefore the Scriptures oppose Workes and Faith the Law of Workes and the Law of Faith Our owne righteousnesse which is of the Law and the Righteousnesse of God by Faith manifestly telling vs that we are Iustified Not by Workes by the Law of Workes nor by our owne Righteousnesse which is of the Law but that we are iustified by Faith by the Righteousnesse of God by Faith Our Aduersaries haue a distinction to salue this Matter withall They say then Workes are of two sorts 1 Some goe before Grace and Faith and are performed by the onely strength of free-will out of that Knowledge of the Law whereunto Men may attaine by the light of Nature or the bare Reuelation of the Scriptures These workes or this obedience vnto the law which a meere naturall man can performe is say they that Righteousnesse which the Scripture cals our owne By this kinde of Righteousnesse and Workes they grant none is Iustified 2 Some follow Grace and Faith which are done by Mans free-will excited and aided by the speciall helpe of Grace Such Obedience and Righteousnesse is say they called the Righteousnesse of God because it is wrought in vs of his gift and grace And by this Righteousnesse a man is iustified By this Invention they turne of with a wet finger all those Scriptures that we haue alleadged Wee are Iustified not by the workes of the Law that is by the Obedience of the Morall Law which a man may performe without Gods Grace But we are Iustified by Faith of Christ that is by that obedience of the Morall Law which a man may performe by faith and the helpe of Gods grace Boasting is excluded saith the Apostle by what Law By the Law of workes that is by the Law performed by the strength of Nature Nay For he that performes the Law by his owne strength hath cause to boast of it By what Law then By the Law of Faith that is by faith which obtaines Gods grace to fulfill the Morall Law Now he that obeyes the Law by Gods helpe hath no cause to boast Israel which followed the Law of righteousnesse could not attaine vnto the law of righteousnesse Wherefore Because they sought it not by Faith that is they sought not to performe the Law by Gods Grace But as by the workes of the Law that is by their own strength Thus Paul desires to be found in Christ not hauing his owne righteousnesse which is of the Law that is that righteousnesse he performed without Gods grace before his Conversion But the righteousnesse of God which is by faith i.e. That righteousnesse which he performed in obeying the Law by Gods grace after his Conversion For confirmation of this distinction and the Interpretations thereon grounded Bellarmine brings three reasons to shew that when workes and faith are opposed all workes of the Law are not excluded 1 It s manifest Faith is a worke and that there is a Law of Faith as well as workes If therefore Rom. 3. all workes and all Law be excluded from Iustification then to be iustified by Faith were to bee iustified without faith 2 It s plaine the Apostle Rom. 3. intends to proue that neither Iewes by the naked obseruation of the law of Moses nor the Gentiles for their good workes before they were conuerted to the faith of Christ could obtaine righteousnesse from God 3 The Apostle shewes Rom. 4. 4. what workes he excludes from Iustification viz. such whereto wages is due by debt not by grace Now workes performed without Gods helpe deserue reward ex Debito but workes performed by his helpe deserve wages ex gratia I doubt but notwithstanding these seeming Reasons the fore-named distinction and expositions of Scripture according thereto appeare vnto you at the first sight strange vncouth farr besides the intent of the Holy Ghost in all those fore-reckoned passages of Scripture Let vs examine it a little more narrowly and yee shall quickly perceiue that in this Schoole distinction there is nothing but fraud shifting By workes done by the strength of Nature wee are not iustified By workes done with the helpe of grace wee are iustified This is the distinction resolue it now into these tearmes which are more proper it runs thus A man is not sanctified by those workes of the Moraâ—l Law which he doth without grace but a man is sanctified by those workes of the Morall Law he doth by
Grace Both Sentences are squint eyed and looke quite awry from the Apostles ayme in this dispute touching Iustification Is it his intent Rom. 3. to proue that a sinner destitute of grace cannot be made inherently holy by Morality or outward workes of Piety or thus That a Sinner cannot attaine to Sanctification by his owne strength but he must attaine to it by the grace of God Take a suruey of the Chapter and follow the Apostles Argumentation All both Iewes and Gentiles are vnder sinne verse 9. therefore euery mouth must be stopped and none can pleade innocency and all the world must be guilty before God and so liable to condemnation verse 19. What followeth hence now Therefore by the workes of the Law shall no flesh be iustified in his sight verse 20. How strange were this Conclusion taken in our Adversaries Construction Ergo By Obedience vnto the Morall Law done without grace no flesh can attaine Sanctification in his sight For neither doth the Apostle speake of Sanctification but of absolution as is apparant All are sinners against the Law Ergo by pleading innocency in the keeping of the Law no Man can be wholy sanctified nor Iustified nor absolued from Blame in Gods sight Nor yet will the Reason immediately annexed admit that glosse Workes without Grace By the workes of the Law shall no flesh be Iustified in his sight Why For by the Law commeth the Knowledge of Sinne that is By the Law Men are conuinced of Sinne and declared not to be innocent Which reason is not worth a Rush according to our Aduersaries Construction He that without grace shall doe the workes of the Law he is not thereby made holy Why Because the Law is the knowledge of sinne The Law thus obserued tels him he is a sinner In which reason there is no force vnlesse it bee true on the other side He that by the helpe of grace doth the workes of the Law is thereby sanctified because the Law thus kept tels him he is not a sinner which is most vntrue In as much as not onely those which are destitute of grace but those that haue grace also and by the helpe thereof keepe the Law in some measure are by the Law notwithstanding convinced to be sinners The Apostle yet goes forward If we be not iustified by the workes of the Law by what then He answeres verse 21. But now is the righteousnesse of God made manifest without the Law We are iustified by the righteousnesse of God But what is that It is saith the distinction that obedience to the Law which we performe by Gods grace A glosse apparantly false For the righteousnesse of God here is a Righteousnesse without the Law But obedience to the Law though performed with grace is a Righteousnesse with the Law because t is the Righteousnesse of the Law For t is all one he that obeyes the Law by his owne strength if he doe it perfectly he hath the righteousnes of the law he that obeyethit perfectly by Gods grace hath still the same righteousnes of the law and no other For so the Law be kept it alters not the righteousnes thereof that we keepe it by our own strength that wee haue of our selues or another helpe that giues vs strength to doe it For then that strength which he giues vs is our owne Which point duely obserued cuts in sunder the sinewes of this distinction for t is cleare the Apostle distinguisheth the Righteousnesse of the Law and of God as different in thir kindes these make them to be one and the same thing Obedience to the morall Lawe but done by diuers helpes one by meere nature the other by Grace This is most contrary to the Scriptures and specially to that excellent place Rom. 10. 3. 4. c. where the Apostle shewing the differeÌ„ce betweene the Righteousnesse which is our owne or of the Law and that which is the Righteousnesse of God or Faith tels vs. The Righteousnesse of the Law is thus described Th Man that doth these things shall liue thereby but the Righteousnesse of Faith speaketh on this wise whosoeuer beleeueth on him i. e. Christ shall not be ashamed Can any thing be more plaine then that the Apostle opposeth heere Doing of the Law and Beleeuing in Christ Not doeing the Law by our owne strength and doeing of the Law by Gods grace These are Iesuiticall glosses that corrupt Apostolicall Doctrine and strangely peruert the worke of Christ in our Redemption as if he had done no more for vs but this viz. procured that where as we could not liue by doeing of the Law through our owne strength God will now aide vs by his grace that we may fulfil the Law and by that Legall Righteousnesse obtaine Iustification and remission of Sinnes We abhorre such Doctrine and doe reiect as vaine and imaginary that distinction wheÌ„ce such absurdities necessarily follow More might be sayed in confutation thereof were it needefull but we haue dealt long vpon this point and t is time to hasten forward By the way vnto the Iesuits Arguments in the defence of this Distinction We answere 1 We confesse Faith is a worke and in doeing of it we obey the Law because as Saint Iohn speakes Iohn 3. 23. This is Gods Commandment that we beleeue in the name of his Sonne Iesus Christ. And therefore the Gospell is called The Law of Faith because the promise of grace in Christ is propounded with Commandment that Men beleeue it But now we deny that Faith iustifies vs as 't is a worke whiâ—h we performe in Obedience to this Law It iustifieth vs onely as the Condition required of vs and an Instrument embracing Christs Righteousnesse Nor can the contrary be proued 2 The Iesuits are mistaken in the scope of the Apostle Rom. 3. whose intent is not to shew the Iew or Gentile could not attaine Sanctification without Gods grace by such Obedience to the Law as they could performe through the meere strength of Naturall Abilities They affirme it strongly but their Proofes are weake being manyfestly confuted by the whole File of the Apostles disputation who clearely and plainely exclude both Iewes and Gentiles from being Iustified by the workes of the Law without making mention or giueing the least Intimation by what meanes these workes must be performed whether without grace or by the Helpe of grace Yea it had been quite besides his purpose so to haue done For the Apostles argument is cleare as the Light and strong as a threefold cord All are Sinners against the Law therefore by obedience vnto the Law Let Men performe which way they list or can without grace or with grace no Man is in Gods sight pronounced innocent 3 To the Last argument out of Rom. 4. 4. we answere The Apostle there proues that the Faithfull children of Abraham are not iustified by workes Because Abraham the Father of the Faithfull was Iustified by Faith and not by workes Where wee affirme
That the Apostle excludeth all the workes of Abraham from his Iustification both such as he performed when he had no grace and those he did when he had grace For those workes are excluded wherein Abraham might glory before Men. Now Abraham might glory before Men as well in those workes which he did by the helpe of Gods grace as those which he did without it Nay more in those then in these As in his obedient Departure from his owne Country at Gods command his patient expectation of the promises his ready willingnesse euen to offer his owne Sonne out of Loue and Duty to God his religious and Iust demeaning of himselfe in all places of his abode In those things Abraham had cause to glory before Men much more then in such works as he performed before his Conuertion when he serued other Gods beyond the Flood Therefore we conclude that Abraham was Iustified neither by such workes as went before Faith and grace in him nor yet by such as followed after This is most cleare by the v. 2. If Abraham where iustified by workes he had wherein to glory but not with God Admit here the Popish Interpretation and this speach of the Apostles will be false Thus If Abraham were iustified by workes that is by such workes as he performed without Gods gratious helpe he hath wherein to glory viz. before Men but not with God Nay that 's quite otherwise For its euident If a Man be Iustified by obeying the Law through his own strength he may boldly glory before God as well as before Men seing in that case he is not beholding to God for his helpe But according to our doctrine the Meaning of the Apostle is perspicuous Abraham might glory before Men in those excellent workes of piety which he performed after his vocation and in mens sight he might be iustified by them But he could not glory in them before God nor yet be iustified by them in his sight So then all workes whatsoeuer are excluded from Abrahams Iustification and nothing lest but Faith which is imputed vnto him for Righteousnâ—sse as it is v. 3. Whence it followes That as Abraham so all others are Iustified without all Merit by Gods free grace and fauour For so it followes verse 4. 5. Now vnto him that worketh the wages is not counted by fauour but by Debt but to him that worketh not but beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly his faith is counted for Righteousnesse These words runne cleare till a Iesuite put his Foote into the streame to raise vp the Mudde To him that worketh that is which fulfileth the Righteousnesse of the Morall Law the wages of Iustification and Life is not counted by fauour but by debt for by the perfect Righteousnesse of the Law a Man deserues to be iustified and saued But to him that worketh not that hath not fullfilled the righteousnesse of the Law in doing all things that are written therein But beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly That is relyeth vpon Christ who by his Righteousnesse obtained absolution for him that is Rightousnesse in himselfe His Faith is imputâ—d for Righteousnesse that is He by his Faith obâ—aynes Iâ—stification in Gods sight not by Merit of his owne but Gods gratious acceptation of Christs Righteousnesse for his But here our Aduersaries trouble the water by a false Inteâ—â—retation To him that worketh that is say they that fulfil the Law by his owne strength Wages is not counted by fauour but by debt but if he fulfill it by Gods grace his wages is paiâ—â— him by fauour not of debt Where vnto we reply That 1 This glose is a plaine corruption of the Text. For by workes in this fourth verse the Apostle vnderstands that kind of workes were of mention is made v 2 By which Abraham was not Iustified and these as we haue shewed where works done by the helpe of Grace not by the meere strength of Nature 2 And againe for the Assertion it selfe namely He that fulfils the mâ—rrall Law by the helpe of Gods grace is iustified by fauour not by debt we say t is ether a manifest falshood or at best an ambiguous speech For t is one thing to bestow Grace on a Man to fulfill the Law and t is another thing to Iustifie him when he hath fulfilled the Law If God should giue strength to a Man exactly to fulfill the Morralâ— Law that were indeed of his free fauour and grace but when this man that hath receaued this streâ—gth shall come before God with the perfect Righteousnesse of the Law pleading that in euery point he had done what was required God is bound in Iustice to pronounce him innocent and of due Debt to bestow on him the wages of eternall Life Adams case is not vnlike to such a Man For God gaue Adam what strength he had yet Adam fulfilling the Law by that strength should haue merited Iustification and Life Therefore when the Apostle speake 〈◊〉 all workes in the perfect fulfilling of the Law he saiâ—h that to him that worketh Wages is not counted by fauour but but by debt he speaketh exactly and the Iesuits in excluding workes done by Grace comment absurdly Thus much touching the third point concerning Mans Iustification by Faith alone as also of the first generall Head promised in the Beginning Namely the condition required of vs vnto Iustification viz. Faith SECT 3. CHAP. I Of the righteousnesse whereby a man is iustified before God that it is not his own inherent in himselfe that in this life no 〈◊〉 hath perfection of holinesse inherent in him I Proceede vnto the second Generall of the Matter of our Iustification where we are to enquire what Righteousnesse it is for which a Sinner is Iustified in Gods sight Iustificatâ—on and Iustice aâ—e still coupled together and some Righteousnesse there must be for which God pronounceth a Man Righteous and for the sake whereof he for Giâ—eth vnto him all his Sinnes Noâ— is a Sinner iust before God because Iustified buâ— hee is therfore Iustified because he is some way or other Iust. The Righteousnesse for which a Man can be Iustified before God is of necessity one of these two 1 Eyther inherent in his owne Person and done by himselfe 2 Or inherent in the Person of Christ but imputed vnto him A Man is Iustified either by something in him and performed by him or by some thing in another performed for him The wisedome of Angels and Men hath not bin able to shew vnto vs any third Meanes For whereas it is affirmed by some that God might haue reconciled Mankind vnto himselfe by a free and absolute parden of their Sins without the interuention of any such Righteousnesse eitheâ— in themselues or in Christ whereby to procure it to that we say That God hath seene it good in this matter rather to follow his owne most wise Counsailes then these Mens foolish Directions T is to no purpose now to dispute what God might
apparant that perfect obedience was the condition required for the establishing of Adam in perpetuall blisse Other meanes there was not nor needed any be proposed vnto him But when Man had failed in that Condition and so broken the Covenant of Workes God to repaire Mans ruined Estate now desperate of euer attaning vnto happines by the first means he appoints a second offering vnto Adam a Sauiour that by Faith in him and not by his owne vnspotted Obedience hee might recouer Iustification and Life which he had lost So that what Adam should haue obtained by workes without Christ now hee shall receiue by Faith in Christ without Workes Since the time of Mans fall we must consider that the Law and Gospell though they goe together yet as they still differ in their vse and office betweene themselues so also the Law differs from it selfe in that vse which it had before and which it hath since the Fall To vs now it hath not the same vse which it had in Mans innocency It was giuen to Adam for this end to bring himselfe to Life and for that purpose it was sufficient both in it selfe as an absolute Rule of Perfection and in regard of Adam who had strength to haue obserued it But vnto Man fallen although the Band of Obedience doe remaine yet the End thereof viz. Iustification and Life by it is now abolished by the promise because the Law now is insufficient for that purpose not of it selfe but by reason of our sinfull flesh that cannot keepe it This is most manifest by the renewing of the first Couenant of Workes with the Iewes when God deliuered vnto them the Morall Law from Sinai at which time God did not intend that the Iewes should obtaine Saluation by Obedience to that Law God promised Life if they could obey and the Iewes as their duty was promised they would obey but God knew well enough they were neuer able to keepe their promise and ergo 't was not God's intention in this Legall couenant with the Iewes that any of them should euer attaine Iustification and Life by that meanes As that first the Promise need not to haue bin made vnto Adam if the Law could haue suffised for the attaining of Life so after the Promise was once made the Law was not renewed with the Iewes to that end that Righteousnes and Life should be had by the obseruation of it This is the plaine doctrine of the Apostle Gal. 3. in that his excellent dispute against Iustification by the Law The doubt that troubled the Galatians was this God had made an Evangelicall couenant with Abraham that in Christ he and his faithfull seed should be blessed that is Iustified Afterward 430 yeares he made a Legall couenant with Abraham's posterity that they should liue that is be justified and saued if they did fulfill all things written in the Law The Quaestion now was which of these two couenants should stand in force or whether both could stand together The Apostle answere that the former couenant should stand in force and that the later did not abrogate the former not yet could stand in force together with the former This he expresseth v. 17. 18. And this I say that the couenant that was confirmed afore of God in respect of Christ the Law which was 430 yeares after cannot disanull that it should make the Promise of none effect For if the inheritance viz of Righteousnes and life be by the Law it is not by the Promise but God gaue it to Abraham by Promise Heere now they might object Wherefore then serueth the Law If Men cannot bee iustified by keeping the Law to what end was it giuen so long after the Promise was made To this the Apostle answeres It was added vnto the Promise because of the transgressions Here 's the true vse of the Morall Law since the fall of Man not to justifie him and giue life but to proue him to be vniust and worrhy of death It was added because of transgressions that is 1. To convince Man of Sinne that he might be put in remembrance what was his duty of old and what was his present infirmity in doing of it and what was God's wrath against him for not doing it That seeing how impossible it was for him to attaine vnto life by this old way of the Law First appointed in Paradise he might be humbled and driuen to looke after that new way which God had since that time layed forth more heedfully attending the Promise and seeking vnto Christ who is the End of the Law vnto euery one that beleeues in him Which vse God pointed out vnto the Iewes figuring Christ vnto them in the Mercyseate couering the Arke wherein the Tables of the Couenant were kept and in the Sacrifices appointed for all sorts of Transgressions against this Couenant To admonish the Iewes a further thing was aimed at in giuing them the Law namely the bringing of them to Christ the promised seed in whom Remission of Sinnes and Life Eternall was to bee had 1. To restraine Man from Sinne. That the Law might be a perpetuall rule of Holinesse and Obedience whereby Man should walke and glorifie God to the vtmost of his power That so those Iewes might not thinke that God by making a gracious Promise had vtterly nullified the Law and that now Men might liue as they list but that they might know these bounds prescribed them of God within which compasse they were to keep themselues that so the ouer-flowing of Iniquity might be restrained These most excellent perpetuall and necessary vses of the morall Law God intended in renewing of the Legall couenant with the Iewes ergo the Apostle concludes that God did not crosse himself when first he gaue the Inheritance to Abraham by promise and afterwards made a Legall couenant with the Iewes his posterity Is the Law then against the Promises saith the Apostle God forbid For if there had beene a Law giuen which could haue giuen Life surely Righteousnesse should haue bin by the Law But the Scripture hath concluded all vnder Sinne that the promise by the Faith of Iesus Christ might be giuen to all that beleeue ver 21. 22. Whence it is most cleare that the Law and the Gospell in some things are subordinate and vphold one another in other absolute and destroy one another As the Law by the discouery of Sinne and the punishment of it humbles man and prepares him to receaue the Gospell 2. As the Law is a sacred direction for Holines and Obedience to those that haue embraced the Gospell and all others 3. As the Law requires satisfaction for the Breach of it and the Gospell promiseth such satisfaction thus the Law and Gospell agree well together and establish one another But as the Law giues life to them that perfectly obey it and the Gospell giues Life to them that stedfastly beleiue it thus the Law and Gospell are one against the other and ouerthrow one another And
them without breach of Conscience in disobeying and violâ—ting also Gods Commandement But otherwise for any immediate power over the conscience to restraine the inward liberty thereof no man without praesumption may arrogate its nor any without slauish basenes yeeld to another as the Apostle commands ye are bought with a price be not yee seruants of men This is in breife the Doctrine of Christian or spirituall lâ—berty which we call Christian 1. from the cause of it Christ by whose purchase we enioye it 2. From the subject of it Christians in opposition to the Iewes who had not this liberty in all parts of it as we haue Namely in freedome from the Ceremoniall Law and restraint in things indifferent In all other parts they in their measure were freed by Christ as well as we Againe we call it spirituall in opposition to ciuill and bodily Liberty because it stands in the freedome of Soâ—le and Conscience not in the freedome of the outward man the bondage and subjection whereof is no impeachment to this spirituall freedome As Anabaptisticall Libertines would perswade the world contrary to the Apostles decision 1. Cor. 7. 22. He that is called in the Lord being a seruant is the Lords Free-man CHAP. II. Iustification by workes subjects vs to the rigour and curse of the Law WE are now in the next place to see which braunch of our liberty is cut off by the doctrine of Iustification by workes Not to meddle with others whereat it giues a backblow but to take that which it directly strikes at we say it destroies our Liberty from the moral Law which stands heerein that we are not obliged vnto the perfect fulfilling of that Law vpon paine of aeternall Daemnation if we doe it not This gratious liberty Christ hath enfranchised vs withall whosoeuer beleiue in him and they that now teach we are justified by workes of the Law doe rob our Consciences of this heauenly Freedome bringing vs again vnder that miserable boÌ„dage vnto the Law wherein all men are holden which are in state of infidelity vnregeneration from whom the Law in extremest rigour exacts perfect ObedieÌ„ce if they will be sauâ—d For the cleering heereof this in the first place is manifest That he which will be justified by the workes of the Law is necessarily tied to fulfill the whole Law seeing ti 's impossible the Law should justifie them that transgresse it In the next place then we must proue that for a mans Conscience to be thus tyed to the fulfilling of the Law for the obtayning of Iustification is an vnsupportable yoake of spirituall Bondage contrary to that liberty wherewith Christ hath made euery beleeuer free This shall appeare in confirming of this Proportion A Man regenerate endued with true faith in Christ Iesus is not bound in Conscience vnto the fulfilling of the whole Law for his Iustification This Proposition seemes very strange vnto our adversaries and to be nothing else but a ground-plot wherein to build all licenciousnes and Libertinisme as if we did discharge men of all Alleageance to God subjection to his Lawes But their Calumnies are not sufficient confutations of orthodox Doctrine for the stopping of their mouthes we throw them this distinction whereon they may gnaw while they breake their teeth before they bite it in pieces Mans conscience stands bound vnto the Law of God in a two fold obligation Either 1. Of Obedience that according to the measure of Grace receiued he endevour to the vtmost of his power to liue conformably to the Law of God in all things 2. Of fulfilling the Law that in euery jot and tittle he obserue all things whatsoeuer it commands vpon paine of everlasting condemnation for the least transgression We teach that no true Beleeuer is freed from the Obligation vnto Obedience but so farre as by grace giuen him he is enabled he ought to striue to the vtmost to performe all duties towards God man commanded in the Law if he will justifie his faith to be sound without Hypocrisy And ergò our Doctrine is no doctrine of Licentiousnes But on the other side we teach That euery true beleeuer is freed from that obligation vnto the fulfilling of the Law for the attaining of life justification by it Which materiall difference for the cleering of our doctrine not obserued or rather suppressed by Bellarmine causeth the Iesuite to labour much in a needlesse dispute to proue against vs That a Christian man is tyed to the obseruation of the morall Law He tells vs that Christ is a Law-giuer aswell as a Redeemer of his Church praescribing orders for all in common for each one in particular That he is a Iudge that sentenceth according to Law That he is a King that ruleth ouer subjects vnto a Law That Christ by his comming did not destroy but fulfill the Law expounded it enioyned it to be observed by vs. That his Apostles vrge it in euery Epistle That a Christian man sinniug offends against the Law ergò is bound to keepe the Law In all which the Iesuite encounters his owne phantasy not our doctrine which is not wounded by such misguided weapons For we grant without striuing that every Christian is tyed to obserue the Morall Law and we averre that it is a most vnchristian Iesuiticall slaunder to affirme as he doth that we teach Christianum nulli Legi obnoxium subjectum esse in Conscientia coram Deo Nay we teach that he is bound to obey to the vtmost of his power and from this obligation no authority of Man or Angell Pope or Deuill can discharge him So much we grant the Arguments alleaged by the Cardinall doe enforce and nothing else They proue Obedience necessary to a beleeuing Christian but they can neuer proue perfect fulfilling of the Law to be necessarily required of him From this heauy burthen Christ hath eased the shoulders of all such as are in him by a liuely Faith of whom God doth no longer exact perfect Obedience to his Law in those strict and rigorous termes that they shall be accursed if they fulfill it not This we proue by these Scriptures 1. Gal 1. 2. 3. Stand fast saith the Apostle in the Liberty wherein Christ hath made vs free and be not entangled againe with the yoake of bondage But what is this Yoake of Bondage Is it onely the obseruation of the Ceremoniall Law No. That was indeed part of the yoake which the Apostles sought to lay on the Consciences of the Galatians But 't was the least and the lightest part the weightiest burthen was the fulfilling of the Morall Law wherevnto by the doctrine of the false Apostles the Galatians stood obliged This is plaine by the Text in the words following Behold I Paul say vnto you that if you be circuÌ„cised Christ shall profit you nothing For I testifie againe to euery man which is circumcised that he is bound to keepe the whole Law The Apostles
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
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
suspition of crime be layed to their charge they are iustified either by a plaiâ—e denyall of the fact alledging that the fault whereof they are accused was neuer by them committed or by denying the euill of the fact alledging that in so doing they haue done well because they haue done what the Law commanded and that 's their warrant Thus Samuel iustifies his gouernment against all surmise of fraudulent and wrongfull dealing that the people might imagine by him In 1 Sam. 12. 3. c. Thus Dauid cleares himselfe before God from that crime of conspiracy against Saul his Master and seeking of the Kingdome which Cush and other Courtiers accused him of professing his innocency and desiring God to iudge him according to his righteousnesse and integrity in that behalfe as it is Psal. 7. 3. 4. 8. There need not other instances in so plaine a matter Those that are iustified by this meanes are iustified by that Righteousnesse which is of the Law and of Workes By which plea though man may be iustified before man yet in the sight of God no flesh liuing shall be iustified As hereafter we shall see 2. Some are not truely righteous in themselues but are in their owne persons transgressors of the Law These when they are accused haue no other meanes whereby they may be iustified but by confessing the crime and pleading satisfaction that for their transgression against the Law and offence thereby against the Law-giuer they haue fully satisfied by doing or suffering some such thing as by way of iust penalty hath beene required of them Now hee that can plead such a full and perfect satisfaction ought therefore to be accounted innocent and free from all desert of further punishment for t is supposed he hath endured the vtmost of euill the Law could inflict and so he is to be esteemed of as if he had not at all violated the Law For plenary satisfaction for a fault and the non-Commission of such a fault are of equall Iustice and deserue alike Iustification In which point it must be noâ—ed that if the party offended doe pardon without any satisfaction taken there the offender is not iustified at all And againe if the offence be such as there can be no satisfaction made then it is vtterly impossible that the offender should euer be iustified Now this satisfaction which an offender may plead for his Iustification is threefold 1 That which is made by himselfe in his owne person He that can plead this kinde of satisfaction is iustified Legally by his owne righteousnesse and merits 2 That which is made by another for him When another by consent and approbation of the party offended interposeth himselfe as surety for the party delinquent in his stead and name to make that satisfaction which is required of the party himselfe Whether this be done by doing or suffering the same things which the delinquent should haue done or suffered or some other things but of equivalent worth and dignity He that pleades this kinde of satisfaction is iustified Euangelically by grace through the righteousnesse of another imputed to him and accepted for as his 3 That which is made partly by himselfe and partly by another Which kinde of satisfaction may haue place betweene Man and Man but betweene God and Man it hath none at all Neither by this nor by that first kinde of satisfaction which is done in our owne Persons can any man be iustified in the sight of God but onely by the second sort that satisfaction which is made by another for vs. As wee shall see afterwards CHAP II. In what sense the word Iustification ought to be taken in the present controversie and of the difference betweene vs and our Adversaries therein HAuing thus distinguished of these words it followeth that in the first place we enquire in which of the fore-named senses wee are to take this word Iustification The difference betweene vs and our adversaries of the Romish Church is in this point very great and irreconcileable They affirme that Iustification is to bee taken in the first acception for making of a Man Iust by infusion of Reall Holinesse into him So that with them to Iustifie beares the same sense as to purifie or sanctifie that is of a person vncleane vnholy vniust to make him formally or inherently Pure Holy and Iust by working in him the inherent Qualities of Purity Sanctity and Righteousnesse We on the coÌ„trary teach according to the Scriptures That Iustification is to be taken in the second acception for the pleading of a persons innocency called into Question wherby he is iudicially absolved and freed from fault and punishment So that with vs to justifie a person is in iudiciall proceeding to acquit him of the crime whereof hee is accused and to declare him free from desert of punishment Whether of vs twain be in the right is very materiall to be determined of considering that all ensuing disputation touching the Iustification of a Sinner is to bee framed vpon one of these grounds rightly taken and an error here is like a threed misplaced at first that runnes awry afterward through the whole piece Our Adversaries plead for their Assertion the Etymâ—logy of the word iustificare is iustum facere in that sense say they as Pâ—rificare Mortificare Viâ—ificare and many the like signifie to make pure to make dead or aliue by the reall induction of such and such Qualities Againe they alleadge Scriptures as namely Dan 12. 3. They that turne many to righteousnes Heb. that iustifie many shall shine as the Starres for euer Apoc. 22. 11. Hee that is righteous iustificetur Let him be righteous still Tit. 3. 7. He hath saued vs by the washing of Regeneration renewing of the holy Ghost That being iustified by his grace wee should bee made Heires according to the hope of eternall life Againe 1 Cor. 6. 11. And such were some of you but yee are washed but yee are sanctified but yee are iustified in the name of the Lord Iesus and by the Spirit of our God Out of these with some other places but such as haue scarce any shew of good proofe they would faine conclude that by Iustification nothing else is meant but the Infusion of the Habite of Iustice vnto him that was before sinfull and vniust Hereto wee answere 1. First for the Etymology that the signification of words is to bee ruled not by Etymologies but by the common vse Quem penes arbitrium est et vis norma loquendi as the Poet truly defines Now it s a thing notorious that in the custome of all Languages this word Iustificare imports nothing but the declaration of the Innocency of a person and lawfulnesse of any fact against such accusations as impleade either of vniustice and Wrong I will iustifie such a Man or such a Matter say wee in English and what English Man vnderstands thereby any thing but this I will make it appeare such a Man is honest
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 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere dico imputari in iustitiam idque sensu proprio non metonymice The same is the opinion of his fellowes the Remonstrants of Vorstius of Peter Bertius of Episcopius and the rest With whom Bellarmine agrees pat Liber â— de Iust. cap. 17. When vpon that Rom 4. His faith is imputed for righteousnesse he saith thus Vbiipsa fides censetur esse Iustitia ac per hoc non apprehendit fides iustitiam Christi sed ipsa fides in Christum est iustitia In summe their opinion runnes thus God in the Legall Couenant required the exact obedience of his Commandement but now in the Couenant of grace he requires faith which in his gracious estimation stands in stead of that obedience to the Morall Law which wee ought to performe Which comes to passe by the Merit of Christ for whose sake God accounts our imperfect saith to be perfect obedience This Assertion we reiect as erronious and in place thereof we defend this Proposition God doth not iustifie a man by Faith properly impuring vnto him faith in Christ for his perfect obedience to the Law and therefore accounting him iust and innocent in his sight Which we proue by these Reasons 1 We are not Iustified by any worke of our owne But beleeving is an Act of our owne Therefore by the Act of beleeving we are not Iustified The Maior is most manifest by the Scriptures which teach that we are saued by grace Ephes. 2. 5. and therefore not by the workes of Righteousnesse which we had wrought Tit. 3. 6. For if it be of Works then were grace no more grace Ro. 11. 6. The Minor is likewise evident That Faith is a worke of ours For though Iohn 6. 29. it bee said This is the worke of God that ye beleeue in him whom hee hath sent yet will not our adversaries conclude thence that Faith is Gods worke within vs and not our worke by his helpe For so should they runne into that absurdity which they would fasten vpon vs. viz. That when a Man beleeues t is not man beleeues but God beleeues in him To beleeue though it be done by Gods aide yet 't is we that doe it and the Act is properly ours And being so we conclude that by it we are not iustified in Gods sight Here two Exceptions may be made 1 First that we are not iustified by any worke of our owne viz which we our selues doe by our owne strength without the help of grace But yet we may be iustified by some worke which we doe viz by the aide of Grace and such a worke is Faith Wee answere This Distinction of workes done without Grace and workes done by Grace was devised by one that had neither Wit nor Grace being a Tâ—icke to elude the force of such Scriptures as exclude indefinitely all workes from our Iustification without distinguishing either of Time when they are done before or after or of the ayde helpe whereby they are done whether by Nature or by Grace Wherefore it is without all ground in Scripture thus to interpret these Propositions A man is not iustified by workes that is by workes done by worth of Nature before and without Grace A Man is iustified by Grace that is by workes done by aide of Grace These Interpretations are meere forged inventions of froward Minds affirmed but not proved as we shall more hereafter declare 2 That we are not Iustified by any workes of our own that is by any works of the Law but by a worke of the Gospell such as faith is we may be iustified Male res agitur vbi opus est tot Remedijs saith Erasmus in another case T is a certaine signe of an vntrue opinion when it must be bolstered vp with so many distinctions Nor yet hath this distinction any ground in Scripture or in Reason for both tell vs that the workes commamded in the Law and workes commanded in the Gospell are one and the same for the substance of theÌ„ What worke can be named that is enioyned vs in the New Testament which is not also coÌ„manded vs in that summary precept of the Morall Law Thou shalt loue the Lâ—rd thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soule and with all they strength and with all thy mind and thy neighbour as thy selfe Luc. 5. 27. Deut. 6. 5 What sinne is there against the Gospell that is not a transgression of the Law If the Gospel coÌ„mand Charity is it any other then that which the Law commands If the Gospell coÌ„mand Faith doth not the Law enioine the same you will say No. It doth not command Faith in Christ. I answere yea it doth For that which commands vs in generall to Beleeue what euer God shall propose vnto vs commands vs also to beleeue in Christ assoone as God shall make knowne that t is his will we should beleeue in him The Gospell discouers vnto vs the Obiect the Law commands vs the obedience of beleeuing it Wherefore Faith for the Substance of the Grace and works done by vs is a worke of the Law and so to be Iustified by the Action of beleeuing is to be Iustified by workes and by our owne Righteousnesse contrary to the Scriptures and that Phil 5. 9. That I may be found not c. This of the first Reason 2 God accounts that only for perfect Righteousnâ—sse of the Law which is so in deed and truth But Faith is not the perfect fulfilling of the Law Therefore God doth not account it â—or such The Minor is granted by our adversaries That Faith is not the exact Iustice of the Law such as can stand before the severity of Gods Iudgments The Maior must be proued That God accounts not that for perfâ—ct Iustice which is not perfect indeed This appeares by that Rom. 2. 2. The iudgement of God is according to trueth Where therefore any thing is not truly good and perfect there God esteemes it not so Here also twil be excepted That God some time Iudgeth Iudicio iustitiae according to exact Iustice and then he â—udgeth nothing perfectly iust but that whiâ—h hath true perfection of Iustice in it Sometimes he iudgeth iudicio misericordâ—ae according to mercy and so he may esteeme a Man perfectly righteous for that which is not perfect righteousnesse in it selfe namely for his Faith Surely this is a trimme distinction thus applyed that sets Gods Mercy and Truth together by the Eares As who would say When God iudgeth out of Mercy hee then doth not iudge according to truth The Scriptures doe not acquaint vs with any such mercifull iudgement of God This they doe acquaint vs with That God iudgeth according to mercy not when he doth pronounce and cleare a Sinner to be perfectly righteous for that righteousnesse which is truely imperfect but when he iudgeth a Sinner to be righteous for that righteousnesse which is perfect but is not his owne In this Iudgement there is both Truth
Hope If it be true viz. That which makes not ashamed Which is the Anchor of the Soule sure and stedfast that entereth within the Vaile It would bee knowne what difference the Iesuite will put betweene that Hope which is in a man before and that which is in him after his Sanctification If he say It differs onely in degree then hee grants t is the same in substance whence wee haue a faire position That man sanctified and vnsanctified is alike capable of the sauing graces of Gods Spirit The like we say for Loue of God if it be sincere and without dissimulation bred in the heart Vpon those spirituall considerations not onely of Gods Mercy in Christ but also of his Iustice and infinite Righteousnesse For so the Trent Fathers will haue this Loue to respect God vt fontem Iustitiae then we affirme this spirituall Loue is not to bee found but onely in those Hearts that are in some measure Regenerate and made spirituall In whom this Loue of God is shed abroad by the Holy Ghost that is giuen to them as the Apostle speaketh This Bellarmine is soâ—ne forced to grant yet he puts it off with a distinction No man can loue God perfectly with all his heart without the Holy Ghost but loue him he may imperfectly without the Holy Ghost dwelling in him though not without the speciall aide of God Whereto we answere 't is one thing to loue God perfectly and another to loue him truely To loue him perfectly is to loue him with all the heart all the soule all the minde all the strength which we grant no man can doe without the Holy Ghost but we also affirme that no man did or shall euer doe it in this life so long as there is lustfull corruption in him causing any the least auersion of his soule from God in any motion thereof So that if none haue the Holy Ghost abiding in them but such in whom Loue is thus perfected he must be confined with the Saints in heauen and not haue his dwelling with the faithfull on earth But if imperfect Loue of God be also from the Holy Ghost dwelling in the hearts of the Godly who loue God truely in vnfeigned vprightnesse of heart though in much imperfection by reason of sinne which diuerts the heart vnto other pleasures then it must be knowne of the Iesuite what he meanes by imperfect Loue. Is it false Loue such a meere naturall Man may conceiue vpon generall grounds That God is good the chiefest good iust holy and full of all excellency He will not say for shame this is a true preparatiue vnto Iustification Is it true loue but in its degree imperfect not so vigorous so vehement so hot as coales of Iuniper yet such as hath some strength and warmth of spirituall affection Then we require that these men will draw vs out a line by the Rule of the Scriptures and to tell vs how farre the true Loue of God may come without the grace of the Holy Ghost sanctifying the heart But after t is past such a degree then there is required the sanctifying grace of the Holy Ghost for it T will trouble their Mathematickes to describe vnto vs in what degree of Perfection that Womans loue was situated whose example they alleadge for a proofe of this point out of Luke 7. 47. Her sinnes which were many are forgiuen her for she loued much Can Bellarmine tell vs how much this was that so by that patterne we may know how farre men goe in the true Loue of God before they bee at all sanctified by inherent Grace For such wonders they would make vs beleeue concerning this penitent Sinner that when her soule was full of Faith and Loue to Christ her heart full of sorrow her eyes full of teares for her sinnes yet for all that she was a gracelesse vnholy person whose Loue and Faith and Sorrow came not from the sanctifying grace of the Holy Ghost but onely from free-will helped with some kinde of externall aide of God We haue not Faith to beleeue such Mysteries as these Nor yet in the last place can we conceiue how there should be true repentance with a sincere purpose of Reformation and obedience where the Heart is not changed and renued by the Holy Ghost That Godly sorrow and Hatred of sinne should spring out of a gracelesse heart that so holy a Resolution of Amendment of Life should be in an vnholy person be Assertions so contradictory and iarring that no Christian Eare can with patience endure to heare them We conclude then touching these dispositions vnto Sanctification that if these Graces be true they are parts and chiefe Branches of inherent Righteousnesse But if they be false and counterfeit they are not so much as Preparations therevnto So much of this first Argument wherein yet one of these 7 dispositions first reckoned vp is omitted viz. a Desire of receauing the Sacrament of Baptisme that is A Man that 's baptised in his youth afterward before he be Iustified must haue a desire to be Rebaptised For what is it for one baptised to desire to receaue that Sacrament againe This conceit is so absured that howeuer Bellarmine reckon it vp among the other Dispositions because of the Authority of the councell of Trent yet Becanus giues it ouer in plaine Feild numbring these fore naming sixe graces onely choosing rather to venter the Councells credit then his owne by defending an vnreasonable position 2 Argument If Faith alone doe iustifie vs then it may dâ—eâ—t when other graces are absent as well as when they are present For seeing the Vertue of Iustifing vs depends vpon Faith alone and that in this act it receaues no aide from any other grace It followeth that it needs not the coÌ„pany of any other grace as in the law of sense If the whole force of Burning proceed onely from Heat then where Heat is though there be no other Qualities yet there will be burning yea if Faith only haue force to Iustifie it will follow that it may iustifie not onely in the absence of other graces but in the presence of the coutrary vices For as the absence of other graces doth not hinder so the presence of other vices will not hinder Faith one jot in it office of Iustifying But t were absurd to affirme that Faith can Iustifie without other vertues with other vices Ergo The force of Iustifying is not in Faith alone To this we answere That this sophisme is fashioned vpon the same Block with the former that to Iustifie and Sanctifie are all one In which sense we confesse the Consequence is vnauoydable If Faith alone by it owne vertue and force did sanctifie then it would effect this not onely in the absence of other graces but in the presence of their contrary Corruptions and the similitude which we bring to illustrate our assertion would confirme that of the Aduersaries T is
the eye onely sees say our Men yet the Eare is in the Head too Yea reply they But the eie could see well notwithstanding the Eare were deafe T is the Heate onely of the fire or Sunne that warmes though there be light ioyned with it True say they But if there were no Light yet if heate remained it would warme for all that as the Heate of an Ouen or of Hell burnes though it shine not Thou holdest in thy hands many seedes T is the old comparison of Luther on the 15 of Gen. I enquire not what t is together but what is the vertue of each one single Yea reply our Aduersaries that 's a very needelesse question indeed For if among them many seedes there be some one that hath such soueraigne vertue that it alone can cure all diseases then t is no Matter whether thou haue many or few or none at all of any other sort in thy hand Thou hast that which by it owne vertue without other ingredients will worke the Cure Nor haue we ought to make answere in this case If as the Eye sees heate warmes seeds and other simples doe cure by their owne proper Vertue so Faith alone by its owne efficacy did sanctifie vs. But there is the Errour Faith works not in our sanctification or Iustification by any such inward power vertue of its own from whence these effects should properly follow For Sanctification Faith as we haue seene is part of that inherent Righteousnesse which the Holy Ghost hath wrought in the Regenerate and t is opposed to the Corruption of our Nature which stands in Infidelity Faith sanctifies not as a cause but as a part of insused grace and such a part as goes not alone but accompanied with all other Graces of Loue Feare Zeale Hope Repentance c. Inasmuch as Mans regeneration is not the infusion of one but of the Habit of all graces Againe 't is not the Vertue of Faith that iustifies vs The grace of Iustification is from God he workes it but t is our Faith applies it and makes it ours The Act of Iustification is Gods meere worke but our Faith onely brings vs the Benefit and Assurance of it Iustification is an externall priuiledge which God bestowes on beleeuers hauing therein respect onely to their Faith which grace onely hath peculiar respect to the Righteousnesse of Christ and the promise in him Whereby t is manifest that this argument is vaine Faith alone is respected in our Iustification therefore Faith is or may be alone without other graces of Iustification Bellar would vndertake to proue that true saith may be seuered from Charity and other Vertues but wee haue heretofore spoken of that Point and shewed that true Faith yet without a Forme true Faith dead and without a soule be Contradictions as vaine as A true Man without reason A true Fire without heate We confesse indeed that the faith of Iesuites the same with that of Simon Magus may very well bee without Charity and all other sanctifying graces a bare assent to the truth of Divine Reuelations because of Gods Authority As t is in Diuels so t is in Papists and other Heretickes But we deny that this is that which deserues the name of true Faith which whosoeuer hath hee also hath eternall life As it is Iohn 6. 47. 3 Argument That which Scripture doth not affirme that is false doctrine But the Scripture doth not affirme that wee are Iustified by Faith alone Ergo so to teach is to teach false Doctrine This Argument toucheth the quicke and if the Minor can be prooued we must needs yeeld them the Cause For that the Iesuites conceiue that this is a plaine case for where is there any one place in all the Bible that saith Faith alone Iustifies They euen laugh at the simplicity of the Heretickes as they Christen vs that glory they haue found out at last the word Onely in Luc. 8. 50. in that speech of Christ to the Ruler of the Synagogue Feare not beleeue onely and shee shall be made whole And much sport they make themselues with Luther That to helpe out this matter at a dead lift by plaine fraud hee foysted into the Text in the 3. to the Romans the word Onely When being taught with the fact and required a Reason He made answere according to his Modesty Sic volo sic iubeo stet pro ratione voluntas T is true that Luther in his Translation of the Bible into the Germane tougue read the 28. verse of that Chapter thus We conclude that men are iustified without the workes of the Law onely through Faith Which word onely is not in the Originall Where in so doing if he fulfild not the Office of a faithfull Translator yet he did the part of a faithfull Paraphrast keeping the sense exactly in that Alteration of words And if he be not free from blame yet of all men the Iesuites are most vnfit to reproue him whose dealing in the corrupting of all sort of Writers Diuine and humane are long since notorious and infamous throughout Christendome What Luthers Modesty was in answering those that found fault with his Translation we haue not to say Onely thus much That the impudent Forgeries of this Generation witnesse abundantly that it is no rare thing for a Lie to drop out of a Iesuites or Fryers penne But be it as it may be T is not Luthers Translation Nor that place in the 8. of Luke that our Doctrine touching Iustification by Faith alone is founded vpon We haue better proofes then these as shall appeare vnto you in the confirmation of the Minor of this Syllogisme Whatsoeuer the Scriptures affirme that 's true doctrine But the Scriptures affirme a man is iustified by Faith alone Therefore thus to teach is to teach according to the word of whole-some doctrine Our Aduersaries demaund proofe of the Minor We alleadge all those places wherein the Scriptures witnesse that we are Iustified by faith without the workes of the Law Such places are these Rom. 3. 28. Therefore we conclude that a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the Law Rom. 4. 2. 3. If Abraham were iustified by workes hee hath whereof to glory but not before God For what saith the Scripture Abraham beleeued God and it was counted to him for righteousnesse And vers 14. 15. 16. For if they which are of the Law be heires faith is made void and the promise made of none effect Because the Law worketh wrath for where no Law is there is no transgression Gal. 2. 16. Knowing that a man is not iustified by the workes of the Law but by the Faith of Iesus Christ Euen we haue beleeued in Christ that we might be iustified by the Faith of Christ and not by the workes of the Law For by the workes of the Law shall no flesh be iustified Gal. 3. 21. 22. Is the Law then against the promises of God God
haue done whether God by his absolute omnipotency could not haue freed Men from Hell by some other Meanes without taking satisfaction for Sinne from Christ whether God ought not to haue the same priuiledge which we giue vnto any mortale King freely to pardon a Rebell and receaue him to fauour without consideration of any goodnesse in him or satisfaction made by him or anoâ— for him Or whether Sinne doe make such a deepe wound in Gods Iustice and Honour that he cannot with the safegard of either passe by it without amendes Such question as these are vaine and curious prosecuted by idle and vnthinkfull Men who not acknowledging the Riches of Gods 〈…〉 and grace in that course of their Redemption which god hath followed would accuse God of Indiscretion for making much adoe about nothing teach him to haue goâ—e a more compendious way to worke then by sending his owne sonne to 〈◊〉 for vs. 〈…〉 stand what God hath not tell him what he might or should haue done According to which course of his now reuealed will we know that God hath declared his euerlasting hatred against Sinne as that thing which most directly and immediately opposeth the Holynesse of his Nature and the Iustice of his Commandments We know that for this hatred which God beareth to Sin no sinfull creature can be able to stand in 〈…〉 And therefore before reconciliation it was needefull Satisfaction should be made where offence had bin giuen Which seeing man could not effect by himselfe God thought it good to prouide a Mediator who should in make peace betweene both So that what euer may be imagined of possibility of other meanes to bring man to Life yet now wee know that sicioportuit Thus Christ ought to suffer Luc. 24. 26. and that it Behoued him to be like vs that being a Faithfull high Priest he might make Reconciliation for our Sines Heb. 2. 17. Leauing then this new way to Heauen neuer frequented but by Imagination let vs follow the old wayes of Iustification that the Scriptures haue discouered vnto vs which are two and no more Either by our owne Righteousnesse and workes or by the Righteousnesse workes of another viz Christ. The former is that way whereby Man might haue obtayned Iustification and life had hee not bin a Sinner But now Man that is a Sinner cannot be Iustified and saued but onely in the later way viz. by the Righteousnesse of Christ the Mediator This Duine trueth is of most infallible certainty and soueraigne consolation vnto the conscience of a Sinner as shall appeare in the processe of our Discourse wherin we shall first remoue our owne Righteousnesse that so in the second place we may establish the Righteousnesse of Christ as the onely Matter of our Iustification in Gods sight By our owne Righteousnesse we vnderstand as the Apostle doth Rom. 10 The Righteousnesse of the Law or of workes which is twofold 1. The fulfilling of the Law whether by the Habituall Holynesse of the Heart or by the Actuall Iustice of good workes proceeding thence For the Law requires both That the Pâ—rson be Holy endued with all inward qualities of Purity and Iustice and that the workes be Holy being performed for Matter and all the Circumstances according to the Commandment 2 The satisfying for the Breach of the Law For he that makes full satisfaction to the Law which is broken is afterward no debter to the Law but to be accounted Iust and no Violater thereof We must now enquire touching these two whether a Man can be Iustified by his owne O-Obedience to the Morall Law Secondly Whether he can be iustified by his owne Satisfaction for Transgression of the Morrall Law Concerning which two Quaeres we lay downe these two Conclusions which are to be made good 1 No Man that is a Sinner is Iustified by his owne Obedience to the Morrall Law 2 No Man is Iustified by his owne satisfaction for his Transgression For the former It is the Conclusion of the Apostle Rom. 3. 20. Therefore by the workes of the Law shall no flesh be Iustified in his sight which we proue by these Arguments The first shall be that of the Apostle in the forenamed place which stands thus Whosoeuer is a Transgressor of the Morall Law he cannot be Iustifiâ—d by his Obedience thereto But euery Man is a Transgressor of the Morall Law ergo No Man can be Iustified by his obedience thereto The Maior is an vndeniable Principall in Reason It being a thing Impossible that a party accused as an offender should be absolued and pronounced innocent by pleading Obedience to that Law which he hath plainely disobeyed Wherefore the Apostle takes this Proposition for granted in these words of his For by the law commeth the Knowledge of Sinne v. 20. That which conuinceth vs to be sinners by that t is impossible we should be declared to be righteous that plea wilneuer quit vs which proues vs guilty Yea t were not onely folly but madnesse to alledge that for ones iust excuse which it selfe is his very fault whereof hee is accused The Maior then is certaine The minor is no lesse viz. That euery man is a transgressor of the Morall Law If any Sonne of Adam will deny this his owne conscience will giue his tongue the Lie and the Scriptures will double it vpon him Which hauing concluded all vnder Sinne averre That If we an Apostle not excepted say We haue no sinne we deceaue our selâ—es and the truth is not in vs. Yea If we say we haue not sinned we make God a her and his word is not in vs The conclusion then is vnfallable That by the Obedience of the Morall Law no Man shall be iustified that is quitted pronounced innocent before Gods iudgment seate This Aposticall argument vtterly ouerthrowes the pride of Man in seeking for Iustification by the Law and it is of so cleare euidence that the Aduersaries of this Doctrine cannot tell how to avoide it But for asmuch as many exceptions are taken and shifts sought out for the further manifestation of the force hereof against gainsayers of the truth it will be requisite to examine there euasions Which we shall doe in the next argument Which is this 2 Whosoeuer hauing once broken the Law can neuer after perfectly fullfill it he cannot be Iustified by his obedience thereto But Man hauing once broken Gods Law can 〈◊〉 after that perfectly fullfill it Ergo Man cannot be Iustified by Obedience of the Law The Maior of this Argument is framed vpon another ground then the former opposed vnto that erronious tenent of our Aduersaries That howsoeuer a man be a sinner against the Law yet neurthelesse afterward be may be iustified by his obedience of the Law Because God for the time following giues him grace perfectly to fulfill it Which opinion is directly contrary to the reason of the Apostle which is That once a sinner and alwayes
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
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
ergo if God had giuen such a Law to the Iewes as could haue brought Saluation to them through the perfect fulfilling of it 't is apparant that God had made voide his former Couenant vnto Abraham because Righteousnes should haue bin by the Law and not by Christ. But now God gaue no such Law as could be kept by the Iewes as the Apostle proues because all were sinners against it and therefore it followes that notwithstanding the giuing of the Law the Promise standes good for euer and Righteousnes is to be odtained onely by the Faith of Iesus Christ. From hence we conclude firmely That the difference betweene the Law and the Gospell assigned by our Diuines is most certaine and agreable to the Scriptures viz. That The Law giues Life vnto the Iust vpon Conâ—ition of perfect Obedience in all things The Gospell giues Life vnto Sinners vpon Condition they repent and beleiue in Christ Iesus Whence it is plaine That in the point of Iustification these two are incompatible and that therefore our minor Proposition standes verified That Iustification by the workes of the Law makes voide the Couenant of Grace Which Proposition is the same with the Apostles assertion else-where Gal. 2. 21. If Righteousne be by the Law Christ died in vaine and Gal. 5. 4. Ye are abolished from Christ whosoeuer are iustified by the Law yee are fallen from Grace By somuch more iuiurious are these of the Romish Church vnto the Gospell of Christ when by denying this difference they would confound the Law and Gospell and bring vs backe from Christ to Moses to seeke for our Iustification in the fulfilling of the Morall Law They would persuade vs that the Gospell is nothing but a more perfect Law or the Law perfected by addition of the Spirit enabling men to fulfill it That the promises of the Gospell be vpon this Condition of fulfilling the Law with such like stuffe Their Doctrine touching this point is declared vnto vs by Bellarmine Lib 4. de Iustificat cap. 3. 4. Where he comes many distinctions betweene the Law and Gospell but will by no meanes admit of that which our Reformed Diuines make to be the chiefe The cheife distinction which he conceaues to be betweene them he frameth thus The Gospell saieth he is taken in a double sense 1. For the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles by them preached and written 2. For the Grace of the Holy Ghost giuen iu the New Testament which he makes to be the Law written in our Hearts the quickening Spirit the Law of Faith Charity shed abroad in our Hearts in opposition to the Law written in stone to the dead and killing Letter the Law of Workes the Spirit of bondage and feare Vpon this he proceeds to the difference betweene the Law and the Gospell Thus. The Law teacheth vs what is to be done the Gospell if it be taken for the Grace of the holy Ghost so it differs from the Law because it gaines strength to doe it but if it be taken for the Doctrine deliuered by Christ and his Apostles so it agrees with the Law teaching vs as the Law doth what things are to be done This Argument the Iesuite illustrates and proues in three particulars 1. The Gospell containes Doctrinam operum or Leges For Morall praecepts they be the same in the Gospell that be in the Law euen those praecepts that seeme most Euangelicall viz of louing our Enemies witnes of this all the writings of the New Testament wherein euery where we find praecepts exhortations to the same virtues Prohibitions and dehortations from the same vices which the Law forbids or commands So that for Morals the Doctrine of the Gospell is but the Doctrine of the Law newly that is most cleerely and fully expounded Nor is the Gospell in a more perfect substance but in Circumstance a more perspicuous Doctrine Which though a Trueth yet is very ridiculouslie proued by the Cardinall out of Mat. 5. Nisi abundauerit c. Vnlesse your Righteousnes exceed What He saieth not the righteousnes of the Law and Prophets but of the Scribes and Pharisees yee shall not enter c. A profound Glosse Christ would not add to the Burden of the Law but take away from the false glosse of the Scribes and Pharisees Surely good cause had our Sauiour to taxe both the Doctrine of the Pharisees in interpreting and their manners in their hypocriticall practice of the Law in outward matters without inward Obedience But litle Reason was there that Christ should require of man more perfection then Gods Law required and 't is a fancie to dreame of any such meaning in our Sauiours speach 2 The Gospell containes Comminations and threatnings as the Law doth Witnes the many woes from Christ's owne mouth against the Scribes and Pharisees together with those frequent denunciations of Iudgement and Damnation to such as are vngodly that doe not repent and obey the Gospell 3 Thirdly the Gospell containes promises of Life and happines but these Euangelicall promises be not absolute but vpon the same Condition that the Legall are viz Cum conditione implendae Legis Cum conditione Iustitiae actualis operosae quae in perfecta Mandatorum obseruatione consistit Cap. 2. This the Iesuite would proue vnto vs. 1. From that Math. 5. Vnlesse your Righteousnes aboud c. that is in Bellarmines Construction so far as vnto the perfect keeping of the Law you shall not enter into the Kingdome of Heauen 2. From Mat. 19. 17. Mat. 10. 19. Where Christ speakes to the yong man Asking him what he should doe to be saued If thou wilt enter into Life keepe the Commandements And to the Lawyer 10. 28. who asked the like Question he answeres This doe and thou shalt liue That is Fulfill the Law and thou shalt be saued In which wordes they say That Christ did preach the Gospell and shewed vnto these men the very Evangelical way to Saluation 3. From the many places of Scripture Wherein Mortificatiâ—n of Sinne and the studious practice of Holines and Obedience is required of vs. As. Rom. 8. If yee mortifie the deed 's of the flesh by the Spirit yee shall liue So. Ezekiel 18. 21. If the wicked will returne from all his Sinnes that he hath committed and keepe all my statutes and doe that which is lawfull and Right he shall surely liue and not die With a Number such like places 4. From the very Tenor of the Gospell He that belieueth shall be saued but he that belieueth not shall be damned Where we see the Promise of Life is not absolute but conditionall If we doe such and such workes From hence the Romanist concludes That seeing the precepts threatnings and promises of the Gospell be for matter the same that those of the Law are the true difference betweene the Law and Gospell shall be this That the Law nakedly proposeth what is to be done without giuing grace to performe it but the
Gospell not only proposeth what is to be done but withall giueth Grace and strength to doe it and therefore the Law giuen by Moses the Law-giuer cannot iustifie because it was giuen without the grace of fulfilling it but the Gospell giuen by Christ the Redeemer doth justifie because it is accompanied with the grace of the holy Ghost making vs able to keepe the Law For which cause also the Law of Moses is a yoake vnsupportable the Law of feare and bondage because it giues not grace to keepe it but onely conuinceth our Sinne and threatens vs punishment but the Law of Christ the Gospell is a light yoake a Law of loue and liberty because it giues grace to keepe it and of loue to God and man and so by fulfilling frees a man from feared punishment This is the summe of the Romish Doctrine touching the difference betwixt the morall Law and the Gospell in the point of Iustification as it is deliuered vs by Bellarmine the rotten pillar of the antichristian Synagogue Wherein we haue scarce a syllable of distinct Trueth but all peruerted by aequiuocations and grosse Ambiguities as shall appeare by a short surucy of the former discourse Whereas then he distinguisheth the Gospell into the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and into the Grace of the Holy Ghost let vs follow him in these two parts First for Doctrine We grant that the Gospell is often so taken but in this matter about Iustification this acception on is too large and not distinct enough For although by a Synecdâ—che of the chiefest most excellent part the whole Doctrine and Ministry of Christ and his Apostles with their successors be called the doctrine of the Gospell and the Ministery of the Gospell yet all things which they preached or wrote is not the Gospell properly so called But as Moses chiefly deliuered the Law vnto the Iewes though yet with all he wrote of Christ and so in part reuealed vnto them the Gospell so Christ and his Ministers though chiefely they preach the Gospell yet in its place they vrge the law withall as that which hath its singular vse in furthering our Christian faith and practise Wherefore when we speak of the Gospell as opposite to the Law t is a Iesuiticall equiuocation to take it in this large sense For the whole doctrine of Christ and his Apostles preached by them and written for vs in the Booke of the New Testament we follow the Apostle in his dispute of Iustification Gal. 3. 4. 5. And according as he doth take the Gospell strictly for the promise of Iustification and life made vnto man in Christ Iesus This is in proper tearmes the Gospell viz. that speciall Doctrine touching mans Redemption and reconciliation with God by the meanes of Iesus Christ the Reuelation whereof was indeed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the gladdest tidings that were euer brought to the eare of mortall man Which Gospell in strict teaÌ„rmes the Angels preached Lue. 2. 10. 11. Behold I bring you glad tidings of great ioy which shall be to all people That vnto you is borne this day in the Citie of Dauid a Sauiour which is Christ the Lord. And afterward Christ and his Apostles fully explained the mysteries thereof vnto the world According to this necessary distinction we answer That if we take the Gospell in that large Acception t is true which Bellarmine hath That the Gospell containes in it the Doctrine of workes viz. the Morall Law euen the very same precepts prohibitions threatnings promises which are deliuered in the Law All which as Christ and his Hpostles preached so may all Ministers without blame yea they must if they will auoid blame presse the same vpon their hearers seasonably and discreetly that the Law may make way for the better receiuing and entertainment of Grace in the Gospell But hence it followes not that the Gospell properly so taken is to be confounded as one and the same thing with the Law because the Law is conjoyned with it in the preachings and writings of the Ministers of the New Testament They still are deuided in their Nature and Offices nor hath the Gospell any affinity with the Law in praecepts threatnings or promises Wherefore when Bellarmine teacheth vs. That Euangelicall promises be made with condition of perfect fulfilling the Law T is a desperate errour and that in the very foundation You heard his proofes before recited see now a little how passing weake they be 1 Mat. 5. Except your righteousnesse c. To this wee answere The plaine meaning of the place is this Our righteousnesse must abound more then that of the Pharises that is It must not be outside onely as theirs was but inward Righteousnesse of the heart in inward sanctity of the thoughts and affections as well as of the outward Action or else such our hypocrisie will keepe vs from entring into Heauen But doth it hence follow that because we must be more perfect then these Pharisees we must be as perfect in all things as the Law requires we must exceed them ergo equall the holinesse of the Law in all points Because wee must be syncere without hypocrisie ergo we must be perfect in all things without blame Such consequents as these the Iesuit hath coÌ„cluded out of his own head not out of the text Touching that speech of Christ to the yong man Mat. 19. and the Lawyer Matt. 10. That if they did fulfill the Law they should liue We answere that Christ in so speaking vnto them did not preach the Gospell but shewed vnto them the Legall way to Saluation For these erring that grand error of the Iew in seeking for righteousnesse not by faith but by the works of the Law seuering the Law from Christ the end thereof as the Apostle shewes Rom. 9. 31. 32. 10. 3. and so supposing to be saued by doing some good thing Christ answeres them in their humour as euery one should be answered that swels with high conceits of his own righteousnesse workes That there was a Law to be kept and if they could fully obserue the righteousnes of it they should be saued sending them of purpose to the Law that they might be humbled thereby and see their great folly in seekeing for life by that which they were so vnable to keepe Against which answere the Iesuit hath nothing to rely but stands much in confuting of another answere made by some of our Diuines That Christ spake these things Ironically This Bellar. seeks to confute nor do I labor to confirm it though it might be justified for any thing he brings to the contrary 3 Vnto those those places of Scripture that euery where almost promise life blessednesse the fauour of God vpon condition of holinesse in life and conversation that we mortifie the lusts of the flesh walke in the Spirit ouercome the world c. We answere that Obedience is one thing perfect obedience is another We say that the promises of
dispute is heere evident The Galatians may not be circumcised not obserue the Ceremoniall Law why Because if they did Christ should not profit them at all But what reason is there for this that Circumcision the Ceremonies should frustrate the benefit of Christs death The Apostle alleageth a good reason because the obseruation of the Ceremoniall Law tied them also to the fulfilling of the whole Morall Law The Argument is thus framed They who are bound to keep the whole Law haue no profit at all by Christ. But they who are circumcised are bound to keepe the whole Law ergo They that be circumcised haue not profit at all in Christ. The minor in this Argument is the expresse words of the Text and the proofe of it is euident in Reason because the retaining of Legall ceremonies did in effect abolish Christ's comming in the Flesh who by his comming in the Flesh had abolished them And ergo they who in reviving them denied Christ's death had no meanes at all to be saued but only by the fulfilling of the Morall Law Wherevnto they were necessarily bound if they meant not to perish Which reason yet is of no force before Christ his comming and ergo then circumcision and other legall ceremonies did not lay vpon the Iewes such a strict obligation to fulfill the whole Law The Maior Proposition is the very reason of the Apostles Enthymeme thus Men circumcised are bound to keep the whole Law Ergo Christ shall not profit them The Reason of the consequence is this Proposition Whosoeuer are bound to keepe the whole Law Christ profiteth them nothing at all This Argument and the Reason thereof will hardly passe with approbation in the Iesuites Schooles Men are bound to the whole Law ergo Christ shall not profit them Nay will they reply That 's a non sequitur For by that doctrine Christ's death hath cancelled that streight obligation of fulfilling the Law But euery one that beleeues the promise of saluation in Christ is yet notwithstanding obliged to fulfill the whole Morall law For this is say they the very Condition wherevpon he must haue benefit by the promise euen Perfecta Mandatorum â—bservatio and therefore he is so farre from being freed by Christ from this obligation vnto the Law that for a certaine except he fulfill it he shall neuer be saved as Bellarmine peremptorily and bloodily determines These Men when they list are wondrous mercifull toward Sinners and can teach them trickes by very easie meanes to merit Heauen and Remission of Sinnes But their crueltie betrayes their kindnes in other matters in as much as when all comes to the vpshot a Sinner is driuen to this If he wil be saued by Christ he must as he is bound perfectly keepe the whole law else there 's no hope for him This is cold comfort for the poore beleeuer but 't is happy we haue not Iesuites Pharaoh's taske-masters set ouer vs to exact the whole Tale of Bricke but a Iesus who hath freed our soules from this bitter thraldome and deliuered vs from the power of so rigorous and strict commands of the Law We beleeue an Apostle of Christ against all the Sycophants of Rome and tell them that they giue the holy Ghost the lie when they teach that in beleeuers the obligation to keepe the whole Law stands still in full force vertue not discharged by the death of Christ directly contrarie to this Argument of the Apostle Ye are bound to keep the whole law ergo Christ shall not profit you Whence we argue thus Whosoeuer are bound to keepe the whole law to such Christ is vnprofitable But vnto true beleeuers Christ is not vnprofitable Ergo True beleeuers are not bound to keepe the whole law A conclusion most certaine as from these irrefutable praemisses so from most euident Reason For if such as beleeue in Christ Who through the Spirit waite for the hope of Righteousness through Faith as the Apostle speakes here v. 5 if such be yet bound to fulfill the whole Law for their Iustification to what end is it to belieue in Christ vnto Righteousnesse and Iustification If when all is doen we must be saued by doing what profit comes there by beleeuing Can the conscience find any benefit and comfort at all in Christ when we shall come to this wofull Conclusion that notwithstanding there is in Scripture much talke of Faith of Christ of Promises of Grace yet all this will bring vs no commoditie except this condition be performed on our parts that we perfectly keepe the Law of God If any thing in the World this is to imprison the soule in wretchlesse slauerie and to lay the conscience vpon the racke of continuall Terrors if Heauen be not to be had but vpon such hard termes And this is most apparantlie to frustrate all benefit of Christ of Promise of Faith of Grace of the whole worke of Redemption seeing in fine 't is the Law that we must liue by and not by Faith the perfect fulfilling of the Law must make vs righteous in God's sight and not our beleeuing in Christ that we may be justified For he that keepes the whole Law is thereby righteous and by nothing els Here 't is but a bare shift to say Though we be bound to fulfil the Law yet Christ profits vs because he giues vs Grace to performe our Band in exact Obedience This evasion might it stand good Saint Paul were indeed finally confuted as a weake disputant But the Errour of this hath bin touched before and if nothing els were said this Apostolicall Argument is sufficient to refute it I proceed to other Scriptures 2. 1 Tim 1. 9. Ye know that the Law is good if a man vse it lawfully knowing this that the Law is not made for a righteous man but for the lawlesse and disobedient for the vngodly for Sinners for vnholy and prophane c. The Law is not giuen to the Righteous How must this bee vnderstood Is it not giuen quoad directionem as a Rule prescribing what is to be done what is not to be done Yes vve all agree in that Hovv is it then not giuen 'T is ansvvered quoad coactionem maledictionem as it compels to obedience and curseth the Transgressors Thus is it not giuen to the Iust. This ansvver is full of ambiguitie and needes some explication that vve may knovv vvhat is the coaction or compelling force of the Lavv from vvhich the Iust are freed In vnfolding vvhereof our aduersaries and vve differ Whether are in the right we shal see by the proposal of both our Interpretations They say The Law hath no coactiue or compelling power ouer the Iust because the Iust doe obey it spoute libentèer alacritèr ex instinctu charitatis that is vvillinglie out of Loue but it hath a compulsiue force ouer the vniust because they recalcitrant cogi quodammodò debent ad obsequium that is they obey vnvvillinglie being forced to
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.
true Faith we are now by the same help to goe forward to the third generall head namely concerning the Consequents of Faith which were two our Iustification in regard of God our Obedience in regard of our selues The former will shew vs how to iudge of the dignity and excellent worth of Faith being so farre honoured in Gods gracious acceptance as to be made the blessed Instrument of our spirituall peace and comfort flowing from our Iustification The later will direct vs how to make triall of the truth of our faith in the discouery of that vnseparable Vnion which there is betweene beleeuing and obeying Let vs begin with the former our Iustification the doctrine whereof I shall endeauour to deliuer vnto you as briefely and plainely as so large and difficult a subiect will giue leaue Wherein because the opening of the word will giue vs some light for the vnderstanding of the matter wee are in the first place to see what is meant by these words Iustification and Iustice or Righteousnesse Iustice therefore or Righteousnesse that I meane which is created for of vncreated Righteousnesse wee haue not to speake is nothing but a perfect conformity and agreement with the Law of God For Gods will being originally essentially and infinitely righteous must needs be the patterne â—ule of all derivatiue finite righteousnesse Now this righteousnesse though but one in its substance neuer thelesse admits a double consideration being called either 1 Legall and of Workes which stands in that conformity vnto Gods law which is inherent within our selues when in our owne persons and workes we possesse and practise that righteousnesse which is required of the Law This Legall Iustice is also double 1 Of Obedience when all such things are done as the Law commandeth or left vndone which it forbids Hee that doth so is a iust man 2 Of Punishment or Satisfaction when the breach of the Law is satisfied by enduring the vtmost of such penalties as the rigour of the Law required For not onely hee who doth what the Law commandeth but euen he also that suffereth all such punishments as the Law-giuer in Iustice can inflict for the breach of the Law is to be accounted a lust man and reckoned after such satisfaction made as no transgressor of the Law The reason of this is plaine from the name of penall Lawes For first where the penalty is suffered there the will of the Law-giuer is satisfied for as much as his will was either that the Law should be obserued or the punishment vndergone If therefore he to whom the Law is giuen doe either he satisfies the will of the Law-giuer Had his will beene absolute so that nothing else could haue contented him but onely obedience then it had beene a vaine thing to haue prescribed a determinate penalty But when as a penalty is limited in case of disobedience 't is manifest that though the intent of the Law-giuer was in the first place for Obedience yet in the next place it should suffice if there were satisfaction by bearing of the penalty Secondly the good and benefit of the Law-giuer is hereby also satisfied For it is to be supposed in all penall lawes that the penalty limited is euery way proportionable and equivalent vnto that good which might accrew by the obseruation of the Law Else were the wisedome of the Law-maker iustly to be taxed as giuing an apparant encouragement to offenders when they should see the penalty not to be so much hurtfull to them as their disobedience were gainfull He therefore that suffers the penalty is afterward to be reckoned as if he had kept the Law because by his suffering he hath aduanced the Law-giuers honour or benefit as much as he could by his obeying 2 Euangelicall and of Faith which is such a conformity to Gods Law as is not inherent in our owne persons but being in another is imputed vnto vs and reckoned ours The righteousnesse of the Law and of the Gospell are not two seuerall kindes of righteousnesse but the same in regard of the matter and substance thereof onely they differ in the Subiect and Manner of application The righteousnesse of workes is that holinesse and obedience which is inherent in our owne persons and performed by our selues the righteousnesse of Faith is the same holinesse and obedience inherent in the person of Christ and performed by him but imbraced by our faith and accepted by God as done in our stead and for our benefit These are the diuers acceptions of this word Iustice or Righteousnesse so farre as it concernes the point in hand In the next we are to enquire of this word Iustification which being nothing but the making of a person iust or righteous may be taken in a double sense For a person is made iust either by Infusion or Apology Wee will take it in these tearmes for want of better Iustification by Infusion is then when the habituall quality of Righteousnesse and Holinesse is wrought in any person by any meanes whatsoeuer whether it bee created infused into him by the worke of another or obtained by his owne art and industry Thus Adam was made iust Eccle 7. 29. God hauing giuen vnto him in his creation the inherent qualities of Iustice and holinesse Thus also the regenerate are made Iust in as much as by the holy Ghost they are sanctified through the reall infusion of grace into their soules in the which they increase also more and more by the vse and exercise of all good meanes 2 Iustification by Apology is when a person accused as an offender is iudicially or otherwise acquitted and declared to be innocent of the fault and so free from the punishment When the innocency of a party accused is thus pleaded and declared he is thereby said to bee iustified or made iust according as on the contrary by Accusation and Condemnation a party is said to be made vniust As 't is plaine by that of Isaiah 5. 23. They iustifie the wicked for a reward and take away the righteousnesse of the righteous from him that is they condemne the righteous which is a making of them vnrighteous in the sight estimation of men So in 1 Ioh. 5. 10. He that beleeueth not God hath made him a lyer because vnbeleeuers do in their hearts call Gods truth into question and accuse him to be false of his word So againe Psal. 109. 7. When he is iudged let him be condemned 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let him goe out a wicked person For so his condemnation makes him that is declares him to be But here further it must be obserued that this Iustification of a person by pleading to and absolution in Iudgement is of two sorts according as the Persons to be iustified are likewise of two seuerall conditions 1 Some are truely and inherently iust being no Transgressors of the Law either at all or not in that whereof they are accused In this case if any crime or
such a fact lawfull howeuer questioned to the contrary In other Languages my skill serues mee not nor is it needfull to trouble you with Instances Those that haue written of this subiect of every Nation witnesse every one for their owne Language And further this word Iustificare being of a latterâ—stampe vnknowne to such Latine Authors as are of ancient and purer Language fitted by Ecclesiasticall writers to expresse the meaning of those two words of the Originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is apparent the Copy must follow the Originall and the Latine word beare the same sense as the Hebrew and Greeke words doe And that this is that Legall sense which wee haue spoken of is a point so manifest throughout the whole Bible that nothing but impudency can deny it As wee shall presently perceiue For in the next place 2 As to the Scriptures which they alleadge for proofe of their Interpretation of the word We answere That of a Multitude of places of Scripture wherin the word Iustifie is vsed our Adversaries may truly pick out one two or three that seem to fauor their Assertion of Infusion of habituall Iustice yet haue they gained little thereby For where tenne or more may be alleadged against one in which the contrary signification is vsed reason tels vs that an Article and Doctrine of Religion ought to bee framed out of the signification of words and phrases which is vsuall ordinary and regular and not out of that which sometimes comes in by way of particular exception Might he not be iudged destitute of sense or modesty that would quarrell at the signification of the word Ecclesia that in the New Testament it is not taken for the Company Assembly of the faithful because in a place or two as Act. 19. it is taken for any ordinary ciuill meeting of people together Wherefore we may grant them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that of Dan. 12. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Apoc. 22. is to be made iust formaliter by infusion of inherent Holinesse in a Sinner For so Ministers may be said to iustifie many as it is in Daniel viz. by Ministery turne many to righteousnesse directing them to the meanes of Holinesse and as Gods Instruments working in them the graces of Conversion and Regeneration And so he that is iust in the Apoc. may be iustified still that is encrease in the inward Habite and outward Exercise of Holinesse more and more thus we may yeeld them in these two places without seeking too other Interpretations further off And yet will this be no prejudice to our Doctrine grounded vpon the other signification so generally vsed Wee answere that of all those other places alleadged by Bell and Becanus there is not any one that doe necessarily enforce such a meaning of the word as hee and his fellowes stand for These aboue the rest haue most apparance namely 1 Cor 6. Tit. 3. Rom 8. 30. where Iustification is say they confounded as one and the same with Sanctification Regeneration Wherevnto I answeare that they doe ill to confound those things that the Apostle hath distinguished very plainly Hee tels the Corinthians that the Vnrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdome of God and that themselues had bin such euen of the most notorious rancke but now they were washed sanctified and Iustified By three words the Apostle expresseth the change of their former condition One Metaphoricall yea are washed The meaning whereof hee declareth in two proper words following yee are Sanctified that 's one degree of washing or clensing from the corruption of Nature in part by the Spirit of our God of whome is the gift of inherent grace And ye are iustified that 's another sort of washing from the guilt of Sinne in the whole in the name of the Lord Iesus that is by the Righteousnesse aâ—d Merits of Iesus Christ. Nothing can be more perspicuous and elegant That place to Tit. Chap. 3 is also as plaine God sayeth the Apostle speaking of the Heires and sonns of GOD in Christ hath saued vs not by any workes of ours but by his owne mercy ver 5. This salvation is set forth to vs in the Meanes and in the End The meanes are two Regeneration and Iustification He hath saued vs by the washing of Regeneration renewing of the Holy Ghost This is the first Meanes viz. Regeneration expressed 1. by its properties or parts 1. Washing or doing away of the filthy Qualities of our corrupted Natures 2. Renewing the Investing of it with new Qualities of Graces and Holynesse 2 By the cause efficient the Holy Ghost whome hee hath shed on us abundantâ—y or richly following the Metaphore comparing the Holy Ghost in this operation to water powred out 2 The Meritorious Cause of it Through Iesus Christ our Saviour who hath procured the sending downe of the Holy ghost into the hearts of the elect ver 6. This is one stepp to Heauen our Regeneration but it is imperfect and cannot abide the severity of Gods Iudgements now we must be absolutely free from all fault and guiltinesse before we can haue hope of obtaining eternall Life Therfoâ—e followes the other meanes of salvation viz. our Iustification by the free grace of God which vtterly frees vs from all blame whatsoever both of obedience to the law and satisfaction for Sins against the law that thus being Regenerate and Iustified we might obtaine the end of our salvation eternall Life The third place is that Rom. 8. 30 Whom God hath Praedestinated these he hath called whome called iustified whome iustified glorified In this place Becanus triumphs For sayth he The Apostle here describing the order of Mans salvation first in Gods decree then in the Execution of it by three degrees of Vocation Iustification and Glorification it followes necessarily from thence that either Sanctification is left out or that it is confounded with one of those three degrees named T is a desperate shift to say that Sanctification is signified by Vocation or Glorification therefore it must be the same with Iustification And this cannot be avoyded by any Elusion We leaue shifts to the Iesuites returning him to this place this plaine direct answere That Sanctification is here comprised in the word Vocation For whereas the linkes of this golden chaine are inseparable and all those that are called must needes be iustified and glorified by vocation must here be meant that calling which is inward and effectuall not that alone which is outward by the externall Ministery of the Word For all that are thus called bee not iustified as is apparent and againe some as Infants are iustified that are not capable of such a Calling But now wherein stands the inward vocation of a sinner Is it not in the Infusion of inherent sanctifying Grace enlightning his Eyes opening his Eare changing his Heart turning him from darkenesse to light from the power of Satan to the obedience of
my selfe in my minde serue the law of God but in my flesh the law of sinne Euen Paul serues God in the better halfe of him doe what he can sinne will haue a place in his heart a part of his seruice though he be vnwilling to yeeld it If any will compare and preferre himselfe to this holy man he may prooue himselfe prouder but better then him he cannot T is arrogance for a simple Fryer to claime perfection when so great an Apostle disauowes it He that will not acknowledge that corruption in himselfe which Paul in the name of all confesseth in his owne person t is not because such a one is more holy then the Apostle but because he is ignorant and sees it not or high-minded and scornes to be knowne of it Furthermore Reason confirmes what Scriptures and experience doe witnesse viz. that sinfull corruption will hang fast vpon vs vnto our dying day for if we suppose an vtter abolishment of sinne and corruption in our Nature it must needes follow there will neuer be any sinfulnesse at all in our workes and liues Where the Habit is perfect the Action is so too and a sweet Fountaine cannot send forth bitter waters Wherefore seeing not the best of men can liue without manifold actuall sinnes It it apparent that this ill fruit comes from a bad humour in the tree and this defect of actuall obedience comes from the imperfection of habituall holinesse This is sufficient for Iustification of the truth of our first Preposition That inherent holinesse in this life is not perfect Because t is alwayes coupled with some sinfull corruption But here our Adversaries cry out with open mouth that we maintaine moastrous propositions Namely That there is nâ— inherent holinesse in a man that 's iustified that after Iustification a man still remaines a sianer and vniust That in Iustification sinne is not abolished but onely couered with Christs mantle Thence they fall to their Rhetoricke That all Calvinists are but painted Sepulchers faire without full of rottennesse within Like foolish Virgins that haue no oyle of their owne But thinke to be supplyed by that of other folkes Like Wolues in a Lambes skinne which hides but takes not away their rauening and fierce nature Like a leprous person in fine cloathes that lookes to be fauoured and imbraced by his King because his is well apparelled For this is say they to teach That a Man iustified is yet a sinner in himselfe That corruption filthinesse and vncleannesse remain in him when yet in Gods sight he is accounted pure and cleane because hee hath hid himselfe vâ—der the cloake of Christs righteousnesse Whence also they tell vs it well follow Wee make Christs body monstrous a holy beautifull head ioyned to filthy leprous members Christs marriage polluted A most holy and faire Bridegroome coupled to a foule deformed Spouse To this we say Truth is modest yet shee will not bee out-faced with bigge words Their eloquence hath slandered partly vs partly the truth Vs in that they affirme we deny all inherent righteousnesse in a person iustified which is an impudent calumny The truth in condemning that for an error which is sacred verity taught vs by God in the Scriptures viz. That a person iustified is yet after that in himselfe in part sinfull This we still teach and maintaine for a truth firme as the foundation of the earth that cannot bee shaken namely That although a Iustified person is by the grace of the Holy Ghost dwelling in him made inherently holy yet this sanctity is not that perfect purity of the heart which the Law requires because some degrees of impurity and corruption doe dwell in him till death And therefore the most iustified person liuing is yet in himselfe partly sinfull and vniust but the sinfulnesse is pardoned vnto him in CHRIST Against this the Râ—manists contend labouring to proue that in him that is iustified Sinne doth not remaine at all but is vtâ—erly abolâ—shed They proue it by such Arguments as these 1 The Scriptures testifie That Christ is the Lambe of God that taketh away the sinnes of the world That Hee was offered to take away the sinnes of many That in Repentance our sinnes are blotted out That God will subdue our iniquities and cast our sinnes into the bottome of the Sea in allusion to the drowning of the Aegyptians in the red Sea Wherefore if sinne be taken away blotted out drowned in the Sea like the Aegyptians then sure it is abolished and remaines no longer 2 They prooue it from the Properties which are ascribed to Sinne as namely these 1 Sinne is compared to spotts staines and filthynesse but from thence we are washed by the powring on of cleane water vpon vs and by the Blood of Christ. 2 Sinne is compared to Bonds Fetters the Prison whereby we are holden captiue vnder the power of Satan Now Christ hath broken these Chaines and opened these prison doores hauing deliuered us from the power of darknesse and redeemed us from all iniquity made us free from Sinne to be come the seruants of Righteousnesse 3 Sinne is compared to sicknesses diseases wounds Now God is the best Phisition the most skilfull Chirurgian and where he vndertakes the Cure he doth his worke throughly he cures all diseases and each on perfectly He doth not spread on a sick Man a faire Couerlid or couer a festred wound with a faire cloth as Caluin imagines but by a purgatiue potion he expelles the disease by a healing plaister he cures the wound So that there is not left nor corrupt matter nor dangerous sore that can proue deadly according to that Rom. 8. 1. There is no condemnation to those that are in Christ Iesus that is There is no matter at all for which they deserue Condemnation as those expound 4 Sinne is likned to death nay it is the spirituall Death of the Soule Now he that is iustified is restored to Spirituall Life and where Life is there death is quite taken away seing a Man cannot be aliue and dead both together Wherefore the Apostle saith Rom. 6. 6. Our old Man is crucified with him that the Body of Sinne might be destroyed that hence forth We might not serue Sinne and v. 11. We are dead vnto Sinne. Hence they conclude If the filthinesse of sinne be washed away the Chaines of sinne broken the Diseases and hurts of Sinne healed the Death of Sinne abolished then it followes that Sinne is quite exstinguished and remaines no more in those that are iustified 3 They argue thus If Sinne remaine in those that are iustified and be onely couered then God either knowes of the sinne or knowes it not To say he were ignorant of it were blasphemy all things being naked and bare before his eyes If he know it then either he hates it or he hats it not If he doth not hate it how doth the Scriptures say true
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
the marke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 14. Here was diligence and we cannot say that Saint Paul did not doe his best Did Paul then fulfill the Law It seemeth so for here we see he was willing and in another place Bellarmine tels vs he was able for so we haue it Paul 4. 13. I can doe all things through Christ that strengtheneth me that is fulfill the Morall Law by the grace of Christ. Now if hee were willing and able then certainly he kept it Nay t is certaine he did not keepe it Witnesse the Testimony of himselfe I doe not the good things which I would but the euill which I would not that doe I Rom. 7. 19. Where is the fault then In the Apostles will No T is plaiâ—e he would haue done it Wast then in his ability Yea this was it to will was present with him but he found no meanes to performe that which is good verse 8. The Iesuite then abuseth vs with a false exposition of of that place to the Philippians interpreting it of the Apostles ability to performe the morall Law which himselfe meant concerning that strength where with Christ enabled him vnto contentation and patience in all conditions whatsoeuer Paul was able to beare all afflictions patiently to vse prosperity soberly but to fullfill the Law in all things perfectly he was not able And if he were not who is We conclude that the actuall Obedience of the morall Law in fulfilling all the commandements exactly is impossible to a regenerate Man in this Life Let vs now take a short survey of our Aduersaries Arguments whereby they would proue That actuall obedience to the whole Law is not onely possible but allso very easy to the regenerate and Iustified They are those â— That burden which is light may be carried without shrinking vnder it that yoake which is easy is worne without paine those commandments which are not burdensome may be obserued without difficulty But such is the morall Law My yoake is easy and my burden light Mat. 11. 30. This is the loue of God that ye keepe his cammandments and his commandments are not grieuous 1 Iohn 5. 3. Ergo The Morall Law may be easily obserued To this we answere That the place of Matthew is to be vnderstood not of the Morall Law but of the yoake and burden of the crosse and afflictions which euery one must beare that will follow Christ and obey the Gospell To those that are wearied and laden with the Crosse Christs speakes by way of Consolation telling them whether to resort for helpe Come to me and I will giue you rest that is comfort and deliuerance 2 Then he perswades them to patience vnder their affliction Take vp my yoake vpon you and beare it chearefully which is persuasion he strength theus with three arguments 1 From his owne example Learne of me to doe and suffer as I doe enduring so many persecutions and afflictions with all meeknesse and patience For I am meek and lowly in heart quietly bearing all wrongs and indignities from man without murmuring against God repining against man seeking revenge at their hands that haue vniustly persecuted mee 2 From the successe of this patient enduring according to CHRISTS example And ye shall find rest vnto your soules comfort in affliction seasonable deliuâ—rance from affliction 3 From the Nature of such crosses For my yoake is easie c. Though they be yoakes and burdens which for the present seeme grieuous yet they be easie they be light because Christs yoake and Christs burden which he layes on all his true Disciples that follow him and which hee will giue them strength to support and beare out with cheerefulnesse This seemes the most naturall interpretation of this place it is most agreeable to the twelfth Chapter to the Hebrewes Where the like Arguments are vsed to comfort the godly in such afflictions as follow the profession of the Gospell But yet if we vnderstand it of the yoake and burden of the Law We answere to it and that place in Iohn That the Commandements of God are not grievous to the Regenerate not because they can perfectly and easily fulfill them but because that which made them intollerable and vnsupportable vnto them is now taken away What 's that The rigor of the Law in requiring of euery man exact obedience vnder paine of the curse of eternall death Here was the vneasinesse of the yoake which punched man in his sinfull state this was the waiâ—ht of the burthen vnder which euery man out of Christ must needes be crushed and sinke downe to Hell Now Christ hauing fulfilled the Law and satisfied for all our trangressions thereof hath made this yoake easie for the neckes and this burthen light vpon the shoulders of the Regenerate because though they be tyed to obey yet not vpon those seuere tearmes of being eternally accursed if they at any time disobey Now they are assured their hearty obedience shall be accepted so farre as they are able to performe it and where they faile they shall be mercifully pardoned Which is a singular encouragement of a Christian heart to shew all willing and cheerefull endeauour in obeying Gods Commandements whereby he may giue good proofe of his vnfained loue vnto God himselfe Againe we answere that his vneasinesse and burdensomenesse of the morall Law is to be taken in regard of the Enmity and opposition which a carnall man beares vnto the obedience thereof Vnto a naturall man it is the greatest toyle and wearisomnesse in the world for him to be made to draw in this yoake For him to bridle his desires to checke his disordered affections to restraine himselfe of his pleasures to be tyed to the exercises of Religion to haue a lawlesse minde brought in subiection to a strict Law Oh what a wearinesse is it how he snuffes at it Hee chafes and sweats vnder such a burden more then vnder the waight of ten talents of Lead But now vnto a heart sanctified by grace all such obedience becomes sweet pleasant and delightfull The heart now loues the holinesse of the Law it delighteth in the Law takes contentment in the obedience of it and is full of singular affection and desire after it Whence though it faile in many things through manifold infirmities and temptations yet it ceaseth not in a willing constant and cheerefull endeauour to performe all Grace fighteth with may difficulties and in the combate takes many a foyle but yet at last the victory falls on her side For saith Saint Iohn He that is borne of God ouercommeth the world So that The lust of the eyes the lust of the flesh and the pride of life which he vnderstands by the world 1 Iohn 3. 16. preuaile not against him to turne him away from the holy Commandement giuen vnto him But he still obeyes cheerefully and syncerely though not euery way perfectly This of the first Argument The second is this 2
But a Man may doe more then the Law requires Ergo He may doe as much The minor Bellarmine proues by the example of the young Man Mat 〈◊〉 9. who telling Christ that he had obserued all the commandements and that from his youth our Sauiour bids him doe one thing more and then he should be perfect If thou wilt be perfect go sell that thou hast and giue to the poore and follow me ver 20. Now if the young Man had done this he had done more then the Law required In as much as whatsoeuer the Law required he had obserued formerly For do you not beleeue him that he spake true All these things haue I obserued from my youth verse 9. Whereto we answere That we doe not beleeue the Testimony of that vaine young Man touching his owne Righteousnesse Who boosted of keeping the 2. Table in the outward duties thereof when as yet he wanted inward Charitie towards his Neighbuor and Loue towards God He auouâ—hed that he had kept all perfectly fulfilling that commandment Thou shalt loue thy neighbour as thy selfe and there vpon is so bould as to aske Christ. what lacke I yet Christ to conuince him of his pride and wants put him to the Triall If thou hast such perfect Charity towards Man then certainely if God command thee to bestow that a part but all thy goods vpon the poore vpon promise of better things to thy selfe thy duty vnto God and singular Charity to Men will make thee doe so Goe then sell all that thou hast and giue to the poore Vpon this speciall Commandment this couetous mind shews it selfe Nay 't is plaine he loued not his Neighbour so well as his riches He is neither so dutifull to God nor charitable to the poore as for either of their sakes to part with his possessions But might he say what will not ordinary almes or a little more then ordinary serue the turne Must I giue away all Indâ—ede the Law requires that I be mercifull to the poore but where 's any Law that bids me sell my whole estate and distribute to them that want Christ layes an vnnecessary burden vpon me if I cannot be perfect without vndoâ—ing my selfe I will content my selfe as I am and not seke after such perfection Heere a Papist will say he speake reason seeing Christs speech was but acounsaile of more perfection then the Law required Now a Man is not to be blamed if he chuse only to be as perfect as the Law commands him and so this young man was if you 'le beleeue him or them But the Scripture makes it plaine that he did euill in disobeying Christ and that if he had obeyed him in that particular he had done no more then the Law required at his hands For obedience to euery speciall Commandment is included in the generall The Law indefinitely commands vs to giue almes now if God by a speciall commandment limite how much we shall giue whether halfe or all our Estates to obey such a perticular precept is not to do more then the generall Law requires vs. Such a particular Commandment was this of Christ vnto the young Man wherein he sets him a spell according to that conceit of perfection which he had of himselfe putting him to the practise of the highest duty which the Law of Liberality can possible require of a Man viz. to part with all This he ought to haue done vpon Christs particular commandment in not doing of it he brake the Law and proclaimed his heart to be full of couetousnesse deuoide of faith in God and true Charity towards his Neighbour From this place then our aduersaries cannot proue that this young Man might haue doen more then the Law required or that wee are bound at any time to doe as Christ bid him Christs command was for his particular Triall not for our Imitation They that take it otherwise be a generation of men that professe Beggery and possesse Kingdomes who were willing enough to part with that little they had of there owne that so they may liue the more Largely and plentifully vpon other Mens Wee goe forward to the next argument 4 If the Law were impossible to be kept it were no Law for there is no Law of things impossible Yea God were more cruel and foolish then any Tyrant too command vs to doe that which is impossible for vs to doe To this wee answere That the consequences were true if God had giuen a Law which Men neuer had strength to performe But now the Law written in tables on Mount Sina was but a reuiuing and repetion of the same Law which was written in Adams heart the Characters whereof were now defaced in his sinnefull Posterity Adam had strength sufficient to fulfill it which as he receaued for himselfe and vs so he lost it for both Neuerthelesse though Strength to obey be lost yet the obligation to Obedience remaines We are no more discharged of our duties because we haue no strength to doe it then a debter is quitted of his Bands because he wants money to make payment Nor is this cruelty or folly in God that when he published this Law vnto the Isralites he did not qualifie the exactnesse thereof fitting the precepts to there abilities commanding theÌ„ to do iust as much as they could or would do Had God made a Law in that sort in fauour of mans sinfull nature they might with better reason haue layd folly to his charge for bending the rule to the crokednesse of mans heart and not leuelling it according to the streightnesse of the Rule God was to set forth a Law of Liberty that should not flatter but freely rebuke Man of all vnrighteousnesse a perfect Law containing in it a full description of Holynesse and Iustice which Man ought to haue and performe towards God and his Neighbour in this case God had iust reason to haue respect vnto mans duty not his ability which once he had but now had forfited and lost The next Argument is 5 Euery Prayer made in Faith according to Gods will is heard and granted But we pray that we may fulfill the Law perfectly For we pray that we may doe Gods will in Earth as it is in Heauen Ergo God heares vs and giues vs such grace that we can doci Hereto we answere That this prayer shewes vs what we are bound too and what is our duty continually to endeuour That we may doe Gods will euery day more perfectly cheerefully and constantly then other And so farre God heares the faithfull prayers of his louing children enabling them to better performance the longer they liue But that such perfection of Obedience is giuen to vs in this life as the Saints enioy in Heauen will not be graunted by our Aduersaries themselues Wherefore they must also grant that that Prayer is heard and granted vs by degrees In this Life we attaine such perfection as God sees fit for vs afterwards that which is
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
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
the Gospell bee all vpon condition of obedience but none vpon condition of perobedience T is an iniury done vnto vs whē they say we teach that Euangelicall promises be absolute and without condition as if God did promise and giue all vnto vs and wee doe nothing for it on our parts We defend no such dotage The promises of the Gospell be conditionall viz. Namely vpon condition of repentance and amendment of life That we study to our power to obey God in all things but this is such a condition as requires of sincerity and faithfulnesse of endeauour not perfection of obedience in the full performance of euery jot and Tittle of the Law Vnto the last Argument from the tenour of the New Couenant viz. That we must beleeue if we will be saued ergo the promise of the Gospell is with condition of fulfilling the Law This is an Argument might make the Cardinals cheeke as red as his Cap were there any shame in him Faith indeed is a worke and this worke is required as a condition of the promise but to doe this worke To beleeue though it be to obey Gods Commandement yet it is not perfectly to fulfill the whole Law but perfectly to trust in him who brings mercy and pardon for transgressions of the Law CHAP. II. Of Bellarmines erroneous distinction of the word Gospell SO much of the first member of the Iesuits distinction wherin his sophisticall fraud appeares taking the Gospel for the whole doctrine of the New Testament published by Christ and his Apostles and ergo confounding the Law Gospell as one because he findes the Law as well as the Gospell deliuered vnto vs by our Sauiour and his Ministers I proceed to the second branch of it The Gospell saith he is taken for the grace of the holy Ghost giuen vs in the New Testament whereby men are made able to keepe the Law T is so taken But where is it so taken The Iesuit cannot tell you that Vt verum fatear saith he nomen Evangelij non videtur in Scripturis uspiam accipi nisi pro doctrind No good reason for it in as much as t is euident to all me that there is great difference betweene the doctrine of Mans saluation by the Mercy of God through the Merits of Christ which is properly the Gospell and the graces of the Holy Ghost bestowed on man in his Regeneration whereby he is made able in some measure to doe that which is good But the fault is not so much in the name in calling the grace of God in vs by the name of Gospell as in the mis-interpretation of the matter it selfe Wherein two errours are committed by the Iesuite 1 In that he maketh the grace of the New Testament to be such strength giuen to man that thereby he may fulfill the Law 2 In that he saith The Law was giuen without grace to keepe it In both which assertions their is ambiguity and Error For the first We grant that grace to doe any thing that is good is giuen by the Gospell not by the Law The Law commands but it giues no strength to Obey because it persupposeth that he to whome the command is giuen hath or ought to haue already in himselfe strength to Obey it And Ergo we confesse it freely that we Receaue th◠Spirit not by the workes of the Law but by the hearing of Faith preached as it is Gal. 3. 2. The Donation of the Spirit in any measure whatsoeuer of his sanctifying graces is from Christ as a Sauiour not as a Lawgiuer Thus when we agree That all Graces to doe well is giuen vnto vs by the Gospell but next we differ They teach that the Gospell gies such grace vnto man that he may fulfill what the Law commands and so be Iustified by it we deny it and say that Grace is giuen by the Gospell to obey the Law sincerely without hyppocricy but not to fulfill it perfectly without infirmities In which point the Iesuite failes in his proofes which he brings 1 Out of those places where contrary Attributes are ascribed to the Law and Gospell Vnto the Law That it is the ministry of death and Condemnation Killing Letter that it workes wrath that it is a Yoake of Bondage a Testament bringing forth Childeren vnto Bondage But vnto the Gospell that it is The ministry of Life and of Reconciliation the Spirit that quickeneth the Testament that bringeth forth Childeren to Liberty which opposition Bellarmine will haue to bee because The Law giues precepts without affording strength to keepe them but the Gospell giues grace to doe what is Commanded But the Iesuite is here mistaken These opposite attributes giuen to the Law are ascribed to it in a twofold respect 1 Inregard of of the punishment which the Law threatens to offenders viz. Death In which regard principally the Law is said to be the ministry of Death to worke wrath to be not a dead but a Killing Letter in asmuch as being broken it leaues no hope to the Transgresser but a fearefull expectation of eternall Death and condemnation of the Law vnder the Terrors whereof it holds them in bondage But on the Contrary the Gospell is the ministery of Life of reconciliation of the quickening spirit and of Liberty because it reueales vnto vs Christ in whom we are restored to Life from the deserued Death and condemnation of the Law vnto Gods fauour being deliuered from the wrath to come vnto liberty being freed from slauish feare of Punishment This is the cheefe Reason of this opposition of Attributes Secondly the next is in regard of Obedience In which respect the ministry of the Law is said to be the Ministery of the Letter written in tabels of stone but that of the Gospell is called the ministery of the Spirit which writes the Law in the fleshly tables of the heart Because the Law bearely commands but Ministers not power to obey so is but as a dead Letter without the Vertue of the Spirit But in the Gospell grace is giuen from Christ who by the Holy Ghost sanctifieth the heart of his Elect that they may liue to Righteousnesse in a sincere thought not euery way exact conformity to the Law of God The like answere we giue vnto another proofe of his 2 Out of that place Iohn 1. 17. The Law came by Moses but Grace and truth by Iesus Christ. that is saith Bellarmine The Law came by Moses without grace to fulfill it but grace to keepe it by Christ. We answere The true interpretation of these words is this Moses deliuered a twofold Law morall and ceremoniall Opposite to these Christ hath brought a twofold priuiledge Grace for the morall Law whereby we vnderstand not only power giuen to the regenerate in part to obserue this Law which strength could not come by the Law it selfe but also much more Remission of sinnes committed against the Law and so our Iustification and freedome
from the guilt of sinne and course of the Morall Law Secondly Truth for the Ceremoniall Law the substance being brought in and the shadowes vanished wherefore the Iesuite erres greately in this point when he makes the grace of the New Testament to consist in this That strength is thereby giuen us to fulfill the Law The grace of God in the Gospell is chiefely our Iustification and Redemption from the curse of the Law and in the next place strength afforded vs to Obey the Law in some measure not perfectly as our Aduersaries would haue it In the next point he erres as much in saying that the Law of Moses was giueu without grace to obey it A false assertion For although the Law of it selfe giue not grace yet t is certaine that grace was giuen by Christ euen then when Moses published the Law Sufficient for the proofe hereof are 1 These excellent properties ascribed vnto the Law of God as in other places of the old Testament so spetially in the Booke of the Psalmes And amongst them in the 19. and 119. Psalmes Where the Law of God is said to giue light to the eiâ—s to conuert the Soule to reioice the Heart c. which it could not doe of it selfe had not the grace of the Holy Ghost being giuen in these times without which the Law could worke no such sauing Effects 2 Experienee of those times in the Faith Patience and â—bedience and all sorts of graces shining in those ancient Saints who liued before and after the Law was giuen Which graces they receaued from the Holy Ghost shed vpon their hearts by vertue of Christs mediation whereby they receaued strength to liue holily in Obedience vnto the Law of God The difference betweene these times and those vnder the Law is not That we haue grace and they had none but only in the mâ—asure and extent of the same grace bestowed both on vs and them In those times as the Doctrine of the Gospell was more obscurely reuealed so the grace which accoÌ„panies it was more sparingly distributed being confined to to a Church collected of one nation and bestowed vpon that Church in a lesser measure then now though yet suffitiently in that measure But in the times of the New Testament the light shines more brightly and grace is dispenced more liberally being extended indifferently to all Nations and poured vpon the Godly in a larger Abundance according as was promised Ieremiah 31. Though also this comparison must be restrained vnto whole Churches what generally is now done for no doubt in many particulars some men vnder the Law exceede for abundance of Grace many vnder the Gospell Wherefore it is a notable iniury vnto the Bounty of God and the honour of those Saints of old to exclude them from partaking of the Gospell to affirme that they were led only by the Spirit of Feare and not of loue that they receaued not the Spirit of adoption to cry Abba father as well as wee though not plentifully as wee and so that they were not Sonnes though vnder Tutors and gouernors as we confesse they were but very Seruants held in Bondage and excluded from the inheritance of Grace and glory till after Christs Death So that at best their adoptioâ— was but conditionall with regard of Time to come but for the preseÌ„t they were handled as slaues fear'd with temporall punishments allured by temporall rewards like a heard of Swine fed with base achors and huskes These be absurd Errors bred out of Scripture misvnderstood Especially that of Iohn 1. Grace came by Christ. Ergo not before Christs Inâ—arnation A sily Argument Christ is as old as the World and his Grace as ancient as the Name of Man vpon Earth grace alwaies came by Crhist was in its measure giuen by him loÌ„g before he appear'd in the flesh He was euer the head of his Church and that his Body which he alwaies quickned by the blessed influence of his Spirit ministered therevnto Whereby the Godly before as well as since his incarnation were made liuing members of that his misticall Body Wherefore it is apparant that grace is not to be tied to the Times of the Gospell and seuered from the Law Nay as of old the Law was not alwaies without grace so now many times the Gospel it selfe is without grace Christ himselfe being a stumbling stone and rocke of offence the Gospell a Sauiour of Death to those many vpon whome Grace is not bestowed to beleeue and embrace it I conclude then That this difference with our Aduersaries make betweene the Law and Gospell is false and that their Error is pernitious in makind the Gospel to be nothing but a Spirit added to the Law that man may fulfill it to his Iustification That thus a man may be saued by Christ through the perfect fulfilling of the Law Which is a monstrous and vncouth Doctrine laying an vnsupportable burthen vpon the conscience of man and hazarding his soule to â—ternall distruction whiles by this meanes he frustrates the Grace of God in Christ and withall frustrats his owne hopes of life expecting to obtaine it by that Law which he is neuer able to fulfill SECT 5. CHAP. I. Iustification by fulfilling the law ouerthrowes Christian libertie the parts of our Christian libertie SO much of the Third Argument The last followes drawne from the Nature of Christian Liberty Which is this 4. Arg. That which ouerthrowes our Christian Liberty purchased for vs by the death of Christ that 's no Euangelical but an Haereticall Doctrine But Iustification by the workes of the Law ouerthrowes the spirituall Liberty of Man obtained for him by Christ. Ergò 'T is an Haeresie against the Gospell For the proofe of the minor Proposition let vs in briefe consider wherein stands that Liberty wherewith Christ hath made vs free that so we may the better perceiue what part thereof this doctrine of Iustification by works doth nullifie and depriue vs of The Liberty wee haue in Christ is either in regard of the Life to come or of this praesent life The first is the Liberty of Glory consisting in a fuâ—l deliuerance from that state of vanity and misery both sinfull and painfull wherevnto we are now subiect And not we only but the whole Creation which with vs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 groaneth and trauaileth in paine till with vs it also be deliuered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From the bondage of Corruption into the Glorious libertie of the Sonnes of God as the Apostle declares Rom. 8. 19. seq This Liberty we haue in hope not in possession The next we actually injoy in this life and that is the Liberty of Grace This we may diuide not vnfitly into 3 branches 1 Freedome from Sinne. 2 Freedome from the Law 3 Freedome from Men. 1 Our Freedome from Sinne stands in 2 things 1 In our deliuerance from the Punishment of Sinne. For whereas euery Sinne of it's owne Nature brings with it guiltines and
it by Terrors and Threatnings and therefore The law rules not ouer the iust as seruants who obey for feare but sonnes who obey for Loue. We expound it otherwise The Law hath not coactiue power ouer the just because the just that is true beleeuers in Christ Iesus are freed from the necessity of perfectly fulfilling it for the obtaining of saluation But the Law hath a coactiue power ouer the vnjust vnbeleeuers because they are obliged vnto the perfect fulfilling thereof or else to be certainly accursed And ergo we say the Law command's ouer the just as ouer Sonnes requiring of them a faithfull and willing endeavour but it commands ouer the vnjust as ouer Seruants of whom it exacts the vttermost farthing and vpon the legall default threatens eternall malediction The difference then betwixt them vs is this They make the coaction of the Law to consist in the manner or quality of mans obedience to it The Law compels when men obey vnwillingly We make the coaction of the Law to consist in the quality of the command condition wherevpon Obedience is required The Law then compels when it exacts full obedience vpon poenalty praecisely threatned to the disobedient Wherein the trueth is manifestly on our side For 't is plaine that compulsion in a Law must be taken in opposition to direction not persuation for Lawes persuade not but command For if we speake properly a Law cannot be sai'd to compell those to whom 't is giuen as if by any real and physicall operation it did enforce them to obedience It proposeth what is to be done it setteth before a man the punishment for disobedience but it workes not on the will of man to force it one way or other Wherefore if we know what direction in a Law is we shall soone know what Compultion is Direction as all agree is the bare praescription of what is to be done or left vndone Compulsion that is the exaction of obedience vpon paenalty to be inflicted What other coactiue force there is in a Law no man can imagine Well then to apply this The just are sub directione Legis but not sub coactione This must of necessity be vnderstood thus the just are not vnder the coactiue power of God's Law â—â—cause it doth not exact of them full obedience vpon paenalty of aeternall death to be otherwise inflicted on them As it doth exact of the vnjust For otherwise there will be no difference betweene the just and the vnjust in regard of this coactiue power of the Law if both the one and the other be obliged to yeeld alike perfect obedience vpon the like paenalty In this case the Law will be as coactine to one as the other exacting aequall obedience vpon aequall termes both of the just and vnjust viz obey fully in all things or you shall be cursed The Sonne and Seruant shall be all one and the Law shall still command over the children with as much terrour as ouer the Bondslaue There is no difference in the world in our adversaries doctrine both sorts are bound to obey perfectly or else certainly they shall not be saued So that the Law of itselfe shall be as rigorous towards one as the other But we know the Scriptures offer vnto vs more mercy and that Christ hath discharged vs from this rigour of the Law vnder which euery one that is out of him in the state of vnbeleefe is holden in bondage As to the difference they make the iust obey willingly the vnjust vnwillingly ergo the Law compels these and not those this is nothing to the purpose For it alters not the nature of the Law that it is obeyed with diuers affections The Law is the same for its command authority howsoeuer it be obeyed willingly or vnwillingly that matters not The Law ceaseth not to be coactiue because ti 's willingly obeyed euen as a slaue ceaseth not to be vnder the coaction compelling power of his Master though he loue his master and out of a willing mind be content to abide in thraldome And as Adam though he obeyed the Law willingly yet was vnder the coactiue power of it because he was tyed to obey it or else he should certainly die the death for his transgression of it Wherefore I conclude that the just are not freed from the Laws direction nor from the Lawes compulsion as it compels or enioynes them absolute obedience in all things and for default thereof threatens the vnauoydeable malediction of Gods aeternall wrath 3 Lastly for proofe of this point we haue those places formerly alleaged Rom. 6. 14. We are not vnder the Law but vnder Grace Gal. 5. 18. If we be led by the spirit we are not vnder the Law 2 Cor. 3. 17. Now the Lord is the Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is Liberty Gal. 3. 13. Christ hath redeemed vs from the Curse of the Law being made acurse for vs. All which with other the like doe establish this orthodoxe Doctrine That beleeuers haue ohtained freedome by Christ from the rigour of the Morall Law and are not any longer bound in conscience to the perfect fulfilling thereof vpon this assured perill that if they keepe it not they shall not be saued We might stand longer vpon each Testimony but let that which we haue said suffice for the vindicating of our conscience from that Torture and Bondage wherewith these â—â—opish Doctors would ensnare vs. The knowledge of which our Liberty is not to giue vs occasion of security or licentiousnesse as these Men calumniate but to restore peace spirituall rest vnto our soules knowing that we are now deliuered from the necessity of obeying or of perishing which before we were in Christ lay more heauy vpon our soules then a mountaine of Lead That so being freed from this thraldome we might serue him who hath freed vs thankfully and chearefully obeying him in all duty by whom wee haue obtained this glorious priuiledge that whereas perfect obedience was sometimes strictly exacted of vs now our sincere though imperfect indeauours shal be mercifully accepted at our hands SECT 6. CHAP. I. The reconciliation of that seeming opposition betweene S. Paul and S. Iames in this point of Iustification THus much of this Argument and of the first Branch of mans Righteousnes whereby if it were possible he should be justified viz. His Obedience to the Law of God By which meanes we haue shewed no flesh shall be justified in Gods sight We are to proceed vnto the text branch heereof viz. Mans satisfaction for his transgression of the Law Wherein we haue also to proue that a Sinner cannot be acquitted before god's judgment seat by pleading any satisfaction that himselfe can make for his offences But in our passing vnto that point we are to giue you warning of that stumbling stone which St. Iames as it may seeme hath layed in our way lest any should dash his Faith vpon it and
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
manner of their Connection is the same that just in euery point as the Soule is to the Body or the Body to the Soule so Workes are vnto Faith and Faith vnto Works It sufficeth to his intent that as in the absence of the Soule the Body so in the absence of Obedience Faith is dead But thence it followes not that workes by their presence doe the same thing to Faith as the Soule to the Body by it's presence or that Faith in the absence of Workes remaines the same as the Body doth in the absence of the Soule If we must needs be tied to the strict termes of the Similitude let vs a little examine the comparison and we shall see our Aduersaries all flye off first from it Let the comparison be first thus Betweene the Body and the Soule Faith and Workes as the termes be in the Text. As the Body without the Soule is dead because the Soule giues life i. e sense breathing and all other Motion to the Body So Faith without Workes is dead because Workes giue life vnto Faith But now this Comparison will not runne on all foure For Workes are not vnto Faith as the Soule is to the Body but as sense and motion is to the Body Seeing Workes are externall acts not internall habits and so are proportionable not to the Soule but to the liuing actions thence issuing Wherefore 't is as absurd to say that Workes giue life vnto Faith as 't is ridiculous to affirme that Sense Motion giue life to the Body which are not Causes but Effects signes of Life Therefore when Faith without Workes is dead 't is not spoken in that sense because Workes giue life to Faith as the Soule doth to the Body Lâ—â— then the Comparison bee thus Between the Body and the Soule Faith and Charity As the Body without the Soule is dead because the Soule is the forme of the body and giues life to it So Faith without Charity is dead because Charity is the Forme of Faith and giues life to it But neither will the Comparison hold vpon these termes For 1. our Adversaries here put in Charity the habit for Workes the act which is more then themselues ought to doe seeing they will tye vs at short Bitts to the very letter of the Text. For though we can be content to admit that interpretation would they admit of the Apostle's plaine meaning not straine for querkes yet seeing they argue so precisely from the Words of the Comparison they must not now haue libertie from vs to goe from them but be content to take the Words as they lie in the Text and make their best of them Yet seeing 't is most senselesse to make Workes that is externall Actions the Forme of Faith an internall habit let them take Charity insteed of them an internall habit likewise Wil it be any better now belike so TheÌ„ 't is thus As the Soule is the Forme of the Body so Charity is the forme of Faith and as the Soule giues life and action to the Body so Charity vnto Faith Will they stand to this No. Here againe they fly off in both Comparisons Charity is one habit Faith another distinct betweene themselues and therefore they deny as there 's good reason that Charity is either the Essentiall forme of Faith as the Soule of the liuing Body or the accidentall Forme as whitenes of Paper They say 't is onely an externall Forme But this now is not to keepe close to the Apostle's comparison but to runne from it at their pleasure when they fall vpon an absurdity in pressing of it so strictly The Soule is no externall but an internall essentiall Forme therefore Charitie must be so if all runne round Againe doth Charitie giue life or liuing actions vnto Faith as the Soule doth vnto the Body Neither dare they hold close to this Comparison For the proper worke or action of Faith is to assent vnto the Trueth of diuine reuelations because of Gods authoritie as themselues teach Whence now comes this assent From the Habit of Faith or of Charity They grant that it comes immediatlie from the Habit of Faith which produceth this action euen when it s seuered from Charity Then 't is plain that it is not Charitie that giues life to Faith which can performe the proper action that belongs to it without it's helpe How then doth Charity giue life vnto Faith For this they haue a sillie conceit Charity giues Life that is Merite vnto Faith The beleefe or assent vnto diuine Trueth is meritorious if it be with Charity If without then 't is not meritorious This is a fine toy wherein againe they runne quite from the Comparison of the Apostle For the Soule giues liuing Actions to the Body not only the Qualifications of the Actions and so Charitie is not like the Soule because it giues only the qualification of Merit vnto the Action of Faith not the action it selfe Beside A most vaine interpretation it is without any ground from Scripture to say a liuing Faith that is a meritorious Faith when euen in common sense the life of any habit consists onelie in a power to produce those actions that naturallie and immediatlie depend vpon that Habit. And what Reason is there in the World why the Habit of Charity should make the actions of Faith meritorious or why Charity should make Faith meritorious rather then Faith make Charity meritorious seing in this life there is no such praeeminency of Charity aboue Faith Wherefore we despise these speculatiue Sophismes which with much faire glozing our Aduersaries draw from the Text but yet when all comes to the Triall themselues will not stand to the strict application of the similitude because it breeds absurdities which euen themselues abhorre Now if they take liberty to qualifie and interpret they must giue vs leaue to doe so too or if they will not we shall take it To shut vp all Their other Collection is as weake as the former namely A dead body is a true body ergo a dead Faith is true Faith This Argument forceth the Similitude and so is of a Force In materiall things which haue a diuerse being from different Causes it may hold But 't is not so in Vertues and Graces Trueth and Life are both essentiall to such qualities True Charity is a liuing Charity i. e. actiue as the Apostle himselfe proues v. 15. True Va Valour And so of euery vertuous quality if it be true 't is liuing and stirring in Action if it be otherwise 't is counterfeit some other thing that hath onely a shadow of it All these Trickes are pin vpon the Apostle to pervert his plaine meaning viz That as it is necessary to the being of a liuing body that it be coupled with the â—oule so 't is necessary to the being of a liuing true Christian Faith that it bring forth Workes of Obedience SECT 7. CHAP. I. None can be iustified by their owne satisfaction