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
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
Iustification are reckoned vp 1 Faith 2 The Feare of God 3 Hope in his mercy 4 Loue of God as the Fountaine of Iustice ad benefactoris saith Bellarmine 5 Repentance a sorrow and detestation of sinne 6 A desire of receiuing the Sacrament of Baptisme 7 A purpose to leade a new life and keepe Gods Commandements All these saith Bellarmine doe iustifie a Man Praeparatoriè antecedentèr dispositiuè Faith that 's the roote and beginning of our Iustification the rest follow in order all must goe before as needfull preparations and Iustification followes as the effect of all in common c. Ergo Not of Faith alone The Iesuite goes ouer euery particular to shew by Scriptures what force each of those graces haue to Iustifie But t is not worth-while to repeate his proofes Vnto the Argument wee answere two things 1 That it is framed vpon the errour which puts out of frame the whole dispute of our Aduersaries about this Article of Iustification namely that Regeneration and Sanctification is all one thing with Iustification and that to Iustifie a sinner is nothing but to doe away inherent corruption by infusion of inherent righteousnesse This we haue heretofore by the Scriptures cleared to be false and therefore this Argument proouing our Sanctification to be wrought by other graces as well as by faith toucheth not the point of Iustification in the Remission of sinnes which faith alone obtaineth through the promise 2 Touching these graces which they make preparatory vnto Iustification that is to Sanctification Wee answere that t is a Philosophicall dreame of such as measure out the workes of Gods Spirit in mans conuersion according to Aristotles Physickes and those disputes touching praeuious or fore-going dispositions that qualifie the matter for receiuing of the Forme We acknowledge that in mans Regeneration all graces of the Spirit are not perfected at once But as the ioynts and sinewes in the bodily so the graces of Sanctification in the spirituall New-birth are at first weake and feeble Which in continuance of time gather more strength according to our growth in Christ. But yet these are true for the substance though imperfect in their degrees and measure There is now true Spirituall life in such a one which was before dead in sinne although there be not the free and able exercise of all the vitall powers Health there is but not entire from all degrees oâ— sicknesse and euery kinde of disease Wherefore we affâ—â—me that these vertues which are by our Aduersarics reckoned onely as dispositions vnto Regeneration are if they be true and not counterfeit Mettall the maine parts and fruits of Regeneration Hence we beleeue that these are foule errors viz. To teach that a man without grace by the power of his free-wil may dispose himselfe to his Regeneration by beleeving in Christ fearing and louing of God hoping of his Mercy repenting of his sinnes resoluing vpon amendment and all this with true and sincere affection or to teach if a man cannot do these things of his owne meere strength and free-will yet by the Spetiall aide of God inciting and helping him 〈◊〉 may doe them whilst he is vtterly vnsâ—nctified in statu peccati That true Faith and Feare and Hope and Loue and Repentance and purpose of Reformation are Vertues and Graces in a Man that is yet gracelesse and without Vertue because destitute of Sanctification That these Graces consisting in the inward motion of the soule and change of the Affections are wrought in Man not by any sanctifying Grace of the Holy Ghost inwardly touching the heart but by some other kind of Vertue and aid they know not what externall exciting and helping forward the strength of Nature All these are monstrous and mis-shapen imaginations bred in proud hearts that would faine share the glory of their Conversion betweene Gods grace and their owne free-will and maintained by curious heads whom Philosophicall speculations haue transported beyond the simplicity of diuine Truth The Scripture speaks otherwise of these Graces as of those that belong to such as are not in the way to be made good but are made so already Ye are al the Children of God by Faith in Iesus Christ saith the Apostle Paul Gal. 3. 28. Whosoeuer shall confesse that Iesus is the sonne of God God dwelleth in him and he in God saith Iohn 1. 1. Ioh. 4. 15. and Chap. 5. 1. Whosoeuer beleeueth that Iesus is that Christ is borne of God Doe we by true Faith become the Children of God borne of him in whom hee dwelleth and we in him when as yet in the meane time we are yet vnsanctified vnholy vncleane not in the state of Grace Bellarmine will proue that a man may haue Faith yet not the Child of God ouâ— of Iohn 1. 12. As many as receiued him to them he gaue power to become the Sonnes of God euen to them thâ—t beleeue on his name See sâ—â—th he they that beleeue are not yet but haue power if they list to become the Sonnes of God viz. by going on further from Faith to Hope and Loue and the rest of the Tridentiâ—e dispositions For t is Loue properly and not Faith that makes vs the Sons of God as he would proue contrary to that expresse place of the Galat. out of the 1 Ep. of Iohn where the Apostle hath much excellent matter but nothing to that purpose To the place of Iohn wee answere that the Iesuite playeth with the ambiguity of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is not here a liberty to doe what we list as if we could at our pleasure become Gods adopted sonnes but t is a right and priuiledge which Christ the naturall Sonne bestowes on true beleeuers to be made Gods adopted sonnes and so coheires with him of the heauenly inheritance When is this priuiledge of Adoption bestowed Then when they beleeue and assoone as they beleeue before they be Regenerate No Saint Iohn denies it He giues power to be the Sonnes of God euen to those that beleeue in him Who be they Hee answeres vers 15. Which were borne not of bloud nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man but of God Faith then is not a Preparatiue to Iustification but a part of it And is not Feare of GOD too No saith Bellarmine That is the beginning of wisedome that is of a perfect Iustification A bad interpretation but a worse Argument T is the beginning therefore not part Nay If the feare of God be the Alpha of Christian graces certainely it selfe makes one Letter of that Alphabet T is such a beginning of wisdome as its selfe is wisdome too Else God himselfe deceaues vs who as it is Iob 28. 28. Sayd vnto man Behold the feare of the Lord that is wisdome and to depart from euill is vnderstanding And therefore to take it in the Iesuits glosse Feare of God is Iustification as well as the beginning of it For
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