Vindiciae fidei, or A treatise of iustification by faith wherein that point is fully cleared, and vindicated from the cauils of it's aduersaries. Deliuered in certaine lectures at Magdalen Hall in Oxford, by William Pemble, Master of Arts of the same house: and now published since his death for the publique benefit. Pemble, William, 1592?-1623. 1625 Approx. 517 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 116 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2007-01 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A09274 STC 19589 ESTC S114368 99849594 99849594 14751 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A09274) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 14751) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1475-1640 ; 931:6) Vindiciae fidei, or A treatise of iustification by faith wherein that point is fully cleared, and vindicated from the cauils of it's aduersaries. Deliuered in certaine lectures at Magdalen Hall in Oxford, by William Pemble, Master of Arts of the same house: and now published since his death for the publique benefit. Pemble, William, 1592?-1623. Capel, Richard, 1586-1656. [8], 16, 19-154, 171-239, [3] p. Printed by Iohn Lichfield and William Turner, for Edward Forrest, Oxford : 1625. Editor's note "To the Christian reader" signed: Rich. Capel. Running title reads: A treatise of iustification. Reproduction of the original in the Henry E. Huntington Library and Art Gallery. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Grace (Theology) -- Early works to 1800. Faith -- Early works to 1800. Justification -- Early works to 1800. 2003-09 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2005-12 Aptara Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2006-04 Elspeth Healey Sampled and proofread 2006-04 Elspeth Healey Text and markup reviewed and edited 2006-09 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion VINDICIAE FIDEI , OR A TREATISE OF IVSTIFICATION BY Faith , wherein that point is fully cleared , and vindicated from the cauils of it's aduersaries . Deliuered in certaine Lectures at Magdalen Hall in Oxford , By William Pemble , Master of Arts of the same house : And now published since his death for the publique benefit . PHILIP . 3. 9. — And he found in him not hauing mine owne righteousnes , which is of the Law , but that which is through the faith of Christ , the righteousnesse which is of God by faith . OXFORD Printed by IOHN LICHFIELD and WILLIAM TVRNER , for Edward Forrest . 1625. TO THE RIGHT WORSHIPFVLL MASTER DOCTOR WILKINSON Principall of Magdalen Hall : The Masters , Batchelours , and other Students of that flourishing Societie . SIRS CVstome hath made dedication of bookes almost as common , as Printing of them : and Wisdome directs there to dedicate , where we owe either respect , or thankes : this worke therefore is yours by right , the Author thereof ( who is now with God ) vndertaking it at your request , and performing it amongst you for your good , so that now to bestow it vpon you is not a gift , but retribution : and I hope , it will both stirre you vp to be carefull to continue fit men to stand vp in his place , and remaine to his successours as a patterne of imitation , if it be too high for aemulation . To commend this Authour to you , were to bring Owles to Athens , and for me to commend the worke , would not adde much worth to it : I know nothing can disparage it , vnlesse it be a naked Margent : but you and all that will be pleased to take notice of his yeares , and great abilities in all humane learning , wil confesse he could not haue time to reade many Fathers , and so that defect may be easily pardoned . For he had fully finished sixe lusters of yeares , yet had hee throughly traced the circle of the Arts , and attained to an eminency , not only in those ordinary Sciences , wherein all Schollers haue some smattering , but euen in those sublimer speculations of which all are not capable , few search after : For hee was export in the Mathematickes both mixt , and pure : his skill in Histories was also praise-worthy : sometime he spent ( and not without successe ) in trauailing to learne 〈…〉 and much trauaile in the study of our home-taught tongues , that he had worth to lai●e beene Professour 〈…〉 , or H●brew : all which indowments , as they 〈◊〉 afterwards haue enabled him to read with much profit , so could they not chuse but preuent younger yeares from reading at all the ancient Fathers , so it was not want , but abundance of learning , that tooke vp his time , and preuented his Margent , and therefore I hope shall not disparage this worke . The first weapon young Fencers learne to vse is single sword , when they are masters of that , they inlarge their skill ; our Author was but yong , let it not preiudice him , that he first vses onely the sword of the Spirit , the word of God ; especially sith that is so dextrously weelded , that by it alone he hath deadly wounded the Romish Leuiathan : Therefore ( as in my knowledge ▪ these Lectures were heard with much applause , so doe I perswade my selfe , they wil be read with great approbation , and occasion the publishing of other Lectures , and priuate labours , wherein hee tooke no lesse paines , nor deserued lesse praise , then in his publike indeauours . So hoping that you will accept this small paines of mine , I take my leaue , and rest From Tewkeisbury this 9th of Iuly . 1625. Yours : willing to doe you greater , though not more acceptable seruice , IOHN GEREE . To the Christian Reader . GEntle Reader , this Treatise was neither finished nor polished by the Author : He left it with mee when hee died , to bee dealt with as cause should require ; vpon perusall , I found it fit for the time , so full of lif● so sound & cleere in proofe , that in my conceit it will doe much good : and here thou hast it , as he left it . The argument is of all , indifference betwixt vs and Papists the chiefest , no controuersie more disputed , and lesse agreed vpon then this . Christ and his bloud is the maine cause of our spirituall peace ; Papists and others diuide with him , and take something to themselues : the spirituall pride that is in the heart of man , would faine haue a finger in the work of saluation , of other controuersies betwixt vs & the other party : some befor the Popes Kitchin , some for the Popes crowne , but this of our Iustification , toucheth the life of Grace to the quicke , breeds more in our flesh then any , and th●se sicknesses are most dangerous , that come from within . It is a fundamentall case , wherein to faile , takes away the essence of a Christian : Wherefore sith there is now such need to haue the world confirmed in this truth of God , I thought good to send this booke abroad , wherein this is put out of question to any man of a single eie ; that we are not iustified by any thing wee any thing we can doe or suffer . Many write bookes , and confute them themselues when they haue done ; but this our Author what hee wrote , he beleeued ; for being to die , he confirmed this Truth , in a discoursefull of life and power , and professed to take his last vpon it , that it was the very truth of God. Wee reade that some learned Papists , when they are to giue vp the ghost , disclaime their owne merits , and would faine finde all in Christ alone : but this our Author did it before sundry , with that life , and feeling , 〈◊〉 cleare apprehension of the loue of God in his Sonne , that such is heard him , and loued him well and long , could not well tel , whether they should weepe , or reioice ; weepe , to see a friend die , reioyce to see him die so . Good Reader , learne this holy instruction out of this booke : that we are not to be found in our owne righteousnes at all , and beleeue it ; thou shalt haue as he had , peace passing all vnderstanding , in life , and in death , for being iustified by saith ( not by workes ) we haue peace with God saith Saint Paul. If any ingenuous learned Papist would vndertake to answer this booke , me thinkes I might prophecy that as Vergeziꝰ ( Bishop of Capo d' Istria , and Nuncio to Clement the seuenth , and Paul the third ) reading Luther , to answere Luther , was conuerted , and had his soule saued . And as Pighius , tho of a peeuish Spirit enough , yet reading Caluin , to confute Caluin , was in the very doctrine of Iustification confuted himselfe , and wrote with vs. So I say , would a modest Papist read this booke to reply vnto it , he could not but see the truth , and yeeld vnto it . For tho many have done excellently in this argument , yet to speake my opinion freely , at least for perspicuitie , this surpasseth them all . Farewell . Thine in Christ , Rich. Capel . A TREATISE OF IVSTIFICATION . CHAP. I. The explication of these tearmes . First , Iustice , or Righteousnesse . Secondly , Iustification . HAuing by Gods Assistance dispatched two of those generall points at first proposed ( touching the Antecedents and Nature of 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 & ●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 suspition of crime , be layed to their charge ; they are iustified ; either by a plai●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 no●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 cōtrary 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 Etym●logy of the word iustificare is iustum facere , in that sense ( say they ) as P●rificare , Mortificare , Vi●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 , 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 latter●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 a●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 abundant●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 : Therfo●e followes the other meanes of salvation ( viz. ) our Iustification , by the free grace of God which vtterly frees vs from all blame whatsoever , both of obedience to the law and satisfaction for Sins against the law ; that thus being Regenerate and Iustified we might obtaine the end of our salvation , eternall Life . The third place is that [ Rom. 8. 30 , Whom God hath Praedestinated , these he hath called , whome called , iustified ; whome iustified , glorified ] In this place Becanus triumphs . For ( sayth he ) The Apostle here describing the order of Mans salvation , first in Gods decree ; then in the Execution of it by three degrees of Vocation Iustification and Glorification : it followes necessarily from thence ; that either Sanctification is left out : or that it is confounded with one of those three degrees named . T is a desperate shift to say that Sanctification is signified by Vocation or Glorification : therefore it must be the same with Iustification ; And this cannot be avoyded by any Elusion . We leaue shifts to the Iesuites , returning him to this place , this plaine direct answere . That Sanctification is here comprised in the word Vocation . For whereas the linkes of this golden chaine are inseparable , and all those that are called must needes be iustified and glorified : by vocation , must here be meant that calling which is inward and effectuall , not that alone which is outward by the externall Ministery of the Word . For all that are thus called , bee not iustified , as is apparent ; and againe , some , as Infants , are iustified that are not capable of such a Calling . But now ; wherein stands the inward vocation of a sinner ? Is it not in the Infusion of inherent sanctifying Grace , enlightning his Eyes , opening his Eare , changing his Heart , turning him from darkenesse to light , from the power of Satan , to the obedience of God ; in a word , in the Renovation of his Fac●lties ? Which what is it else but Sanctification ? or Regeneration ? or Conuersion ? Only stiled by that tearme of Vocation in regard of the meanes whereby it is ordinarily effected ( that is ) the preaching of the word . He must needs coyne vs some new Mystery in Divinity : who will perswade vs that some other worke of Grace is meant by Vocation ; and not that of Sanctification . Therefore wee haue neither one Linke snapt out , nor two shuffled together in this chaine of our Saluation : But foure , as distinct , as vndivideable . Election , Sanctification , ( whereto we are called by the Gospell preached , 2 Thess. 2. 14. ) Iustification by Faith , ( which is a fruit of Sanctification ) and Glorification . The fourth place is that in the Epistle to the Hebrewes , Chap. 13. 14. [ For if the blood of Bulls and Goats , and the ashes of an Heifer , sprinkling them that are vncleane , sanctifieth as touching the purifying of the flesh : how much more shall the blood of Christ , who through the eternall Spirit offered himselfe without fault to God , purge our consciences from dead workes , to serue the liuing God. ] Hence they argue ; That as Leuiticall Sacrifices and Washings did sanctifie the flesh from outward Legall impurity : so the Sacrifice of Christ doth purge the Conscience from inward spirituall vncleanenesse of dead Workes or Sinnes . This purging of the conscience is nothing , but iustification of a sinner . Wherefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be all of one meaning . To which I answere , That the Apostle in that Chapter , and the next disputing of the vertue and efficacy of Christs death , far exceeding the force of all Leuiticall Sacrifices ( the shadowes of it ) ascribes vnto it what could not be effected by those , ( viz. ) eternall Redemption [ verse 12. ] purging of the conscience from dead workes [ verse 12. ] the putting away of sinne , [ verse 26. ] The Sanctification of the Elect , [ Chap. 10. 7. 10. ] made Heires according to the hope of eternall life . In neither then of those places is our sanctification confounded with our Iustification : but both distinctly declared , as two seuerall partes of graces and meanes of the Accomplishment of our eternall Happinesse . 'T is scarce worth the labour to examine those other Scriptures produced by our Aduersaries , whereof some part doe directly crosse , and the rest doe but onely in apparance confirme their assertion . In generall therefore for them , thus much wee confidently affirme , that let the Concordance be studied , and all those places examined wherein either [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] is vsed in the Old or [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] in the New Testament : there will not one be found , no not one , in which those wordes carry any other meaning , then that which we stand for ( viz. ) the clearing of a parties innocence questioned as faulty , and blame-worthy . Take a taste of some places . 1 Iustification is sometimes applyed to 1. God , when Man iustifies God. As Psal. 51. 4. Rom. 3. 4. [ That thou mightest be iustified [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] in thy saying , and mightest ouercome when thou art iudged . ] Matth. 11. 19. [ And wisedome is iustified [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] of her children , ] Luke 7. 35. Luke 7. 29. [ And the Publicans iustified [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] God , being baptized with the baptisme of Iohn . ] Can there be any other meaning of Iustification here● : but this onely ? That God is then iustified , when his workes , his wisedome , his sacred ordinances , being accused by prophane men , as vntrue , vnequall , vn●ust , and foolish , are by the Godly acknowledged , or any other meanes evidently cleared vnto all men , to be full of all Truth , Equity , Wisedome , and Holinesse ? 2 Man and that 1 Before Man in things betweene Man and Man. When Man iustifies Man , Deut. 25. 1. [ If there be a controversie betweene Men , and they come vnto iudgement , that the Iudge may iudge them , then they shall iustifie [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] the righteous and condemne the wicked , ] Isaiah 5. 23. [ Woe to them wh●ch iustifie the wicked for a reward , and take away the righteousnesse of the righteous from him ] Prouerb . 17. 15. [ He that iustifieth th● wicked , and condemneth the iust , euen they both are an abomination to the Lord. ] 2 Sam. 15. 4. [ Oh that I were made Iudge in the Land , that euery man that hath any suit or cause , might come to me , and I would doe him Iusti●e . [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] In these & many the like places , to Iustifie is in iud● ciall proceeding to absolue a party from fault & blame : whether it be rightfully or wrongfully done . Ezek. 16. 52. [ Be thou confounded and beare thy shame , in that thou hast iustified thy sisters ] speakes God vnto Ierusalem ; in comparison of whose abhomination the sinnes of Sodome and Samaria , were scarce to be accounted any faults . They were Saints to her . Of the Pharises Christ speakes , Luke 16. 15. [ Yee are they that iustifie your selues before men : but God knoweth your hearts . ] That is , You stand vpon the defence and ostentation of outward Holinesse , and deeming it sufficient to make it appeare before Men you are holy : without regard of acquitting the sincerity of your hearts before God. 2 Before God , where God iustifies Man Exod. 23. 7. [ The innocent and the righteous slay thou not , for I will not iustifie the wicked . ] by esteeming him as innocent , and letting him goe from punishment . Isaiah 50. 8. ( Hee is neere that iustifieth me , who will contend with me ? ) saith the Prophet in the person of Christ , signifying God would make it appeare that he was blamelesse , for the rejection of his people the Iewes who perished for their owne and not his fault . Rom. 5. 18. ( As by the offence of one iudgement came on all Men to condemnation : So by the righteousnesse of one , the free gift came vpon all men to the Iustification of life , ) Rom ▪ 8. 33. 34. [ Who shall lay thing to the charge of Gods Elect ? It is God that iustifies ; who shall condemne ? 1 Cor. 4. 4. [ I know nothing by my selfe : yet in this am I not iustified . Hee that iudgeth me is God. q. d. I haue kept a good conscience in my Ministery , but God is my iudge , though my conscience pronounce me innocent , yet God is my sole Iudge that iudgeth me and my conscience . Acts 13. 38. 39. [ Through this Man is preached vnto you the forgiuenesse of sinnes ; and from all things from which yee could not be iustified by the Law of Moses ; by him euery one that beleeueth is iustifyed . By which places ( not to name more ) it appeares pl●inly : that Iustification is opposed to Accusation and Condemnation : and therefore can signifie nothing else but the defence & absolution of a persō accused for an offender . Which thing is so cleare and euident that it cannot be gaynsayed , except by those alone who are wilfully blind , and obstinately resolued to cōtradict any truth , that makes against their inveterate errors . For our selues , we may not , nor dare not shut our eyes against so cleare Light : nor ought we to be so bold whē God hath acquainted vs with his meaning ; as to follow another of our owne making . And there fore according to the Scriptures we acknowledge and maintaine , that as in other places where mention is made of the Iustification of a sinner before God : so in the 2 and 4 Chapters of the Ep. to the Rom. and third Chapter of the Gal. ( where the Doctrine there of is directly handled ) by Iustification nothing else is meant ; but the gracious Act of Almighty God whereby hee absolues a beleiuing sinner accused at the Tribunall of his Iustice , pronouncing him iust and acquitting him of all punishment for Christs sake . CHAP III ▪ The Confutation of our Aduersaries cauils against our acception of the word Iustification . OVR Adversaries haue little to reply against these so plaine places . Somthing they answere , namely . 1 That it cannot be denied but that Iustification , doth many times beare that sense we stand for . But with all they would haue vs obseru this rule that [ Quotiescunque in Scripturis Deus dicitur iustificare impium : semper intelligendum est ex impio facere iustum . God cannot declare a man to be iust : but of vniust he must make him iust . ] And they giue the Reason . Because the Iudgment of God is according to Trueth Rom. 2. 2. We embrace this Rule and the Reason of it , acknowledging that where euer there is Iustification , there must be Iustice some way or other in the party Iustified . But the Question stands still in what manner God makes a sinner iust : whom hee in Iudgemenr pronounceth so to be . They say by bestowing on him the grace of Sanctification & perfect Righteousnesse inherent in his own Person . We affirme , that it is by imputing vnto him the perfect Righteousnesse of Christ , accepting Christs obedience for his . In which diuersity let vs come as neere them as Trueth will giue leaue . Thus ●arre we goe along with them . 1 That there is inherent Righteousnesse bestowed vpon a Sinner , whereby of vnholy , impure , vniust ; he is made holy , cleane , and iust . We all confessed this worke of the Holy Ghost renewing Man in the spirit of his mind , restoring in him the a Image of God in a Knowledge , Righteousnesse , and Holinesse . That the Holy Ghost dwelles in the Elect , as in b Temples dedicated to his service , which he adornes by communicating vnto them his Heauenly graces . That hee makes them Liuing c Members of Christs Body : and fruitfull d Braunches of that true Vine . That this grace infused is a fountaine of e Living water springing vp to eternall Life . These things we beleeue and teach . Wherfore whereas the Popish Doctors fall foule on our reformed writers , charging Calvin & others for denying all Inherent Righteousnesse in Beleeuers , & maintaining only an Imputed Righteousnesse without them : We tell them 't is a grosse Calumny forged by perverse . Minds , that list not to vnderstand Mens playnest writings . Nor Calvin 1 nor any that euer maintained the trueth with him , euer denied the Righteousnes o● Sanctification . But this he denies & we also with the Scriptures that the Righteousnesse which iustifies vs in Gods Iudgment is not in our selues : but all in Christ. That inherent Righteousnesse or sanctification allway keepe company with Iustification , in the same Person . Severed they are never in their common Subiect ( viz ) a True Beleeuer . as appeares Rom. 8. 30. But that therefore they must be confounded for one and the same Grace and worke of God ; may be affirmed with as good Reason : as that in the Sunne Light and Heate are all one : because alwaies ioyned to geather . That by this grace of Inherent Righteousnesse , a Man is in some sort iustified before God. That is so farre as a Man by the grace of God is become truly holy and good : so farre God esteemes him holy & good . God taketh notice of his owne graces in his Children , he approues of them and giues Testimony of them in case it be needfull ; as appeares by the Righteousnesse of Iob , Dauid , Zachary and other holy Men ; who were good and did good in Gods sight . Yea in the Life to come when ( all corruptions being vtterly done away ▪ ) the Saints shall be invested with perfection of Inherent Holinesse : by the Righteousnesse of their owne , and not by any other shall they then appeare iust in Gods fight . Thus farre we agree with them . But herein now wee differ , that although by the grace of Sanctification infused , God doe make him righteous and holy in some measure that was before altogether vnholy and wicked : neuerthelesse we affirme that by and for this Holynesse , the best of Saints living never were nor shall be Iustified in Gods sight ; that is pronounced iust and innocent before the Tribunall of his Iustice. For we here take vp the forenamed Rule layed downe by our adversaries , Whomsoeuer God pronounceth to be perfectly iust ; he must needs be made perfectly iust . For Gods Iudgment is according to trueth . Now that no man in this life , is made perfectly iust by any such inherent Holinesse in him as is able to outstand the severe and exact triall of Gods Iudgment : is a Trueth witnessed by the Scripture and confessed alwaies by the most holy Saints of God. Our Aduersaries indeed stiffly pleade the contrary : teaching that sinne and Corruption in the Iustified is vtterly abolished . The error and pride of which Imagination we shall shortly haue occasion more at Large to Discouer vnto you . Meane while let that much stand for good : that Man being not made perfectly iust in himselfe cannot thereby be declared perfectly iust before God : and therefore some other Righteousnesse , & not that of Sanctification is to be sought for , whereby a sinner may be Iustified in Gods sight . To that argument of ours from the Opposition of iustification to Accusation and Condemnation confirmed by so many places of Scripture ; They answere . That this hinders nothing at all Both may agree to God who of his mercy iustifies some ; ( that is ) makes them inherently Iust ; of his Iustice condemns other ( that is ) punisheth them . To which slight Answeres wee make this short reply . That where words are opposite , ( as they acknowledg these to be ) there according to the Lawes of opposition , they must carry opposite Meaning . But vnto Accusation , Comdemnation , and punishment nothing is opposite but defence , Absolution , and Pardon . Where therefore Iustificare is coupled with these words ; it must needes beare this and no other meaning : of a bad man to make a good is not opposite to Accusation , Condemnation , or punishment of him : Accused he may be , Condemned and punished iustly , and after made good . I should but trouble you to alleadge more of their Cavills . Let thus much suffice for the clearing of this point : That Iustification and Sanctification are to be Distinguished and not confounded . The Righteousnesse of the one is in vs , in its Nature , true and good : but for its degree and measure , Imperfect ; and alwaies yoaked with the remaynder of naturall Corruption ▪ And therefore if a sinner should plead this before the Iudgment seate of God , ( offering himself to be iudged according to this Righteousnesse and Innocency ) oh how soone his mouth would be stopped ; And this confession wrung out from out his Conscience ; All my Righteousnesse is as filthy Raggs ! And againe Vilis sum ; I am vile , what shall I answere thee ! But that other Righteousnesse of Iustification is without vs in Christs possession : but ours by Gods gratious gift and acceptation , and this euery way perfect and vnreproued in the seuerest Iudgment of God. And therefore when a sinner is drawne before the Barre of Gods Iudgment , accused by the law , Satan , his Conscience ; conuicted by the euidence of the Fact , and to be now sentenced and deliuered to punishment by the vnpartiall Iustice of God : In this case he hath to alleadge for himself the al-sufficient righteousnesse of a Mighty redeemer who onely had Done and suffered for him that which hee could neuer doe nor suffer for himselfe . This Plea alone and no other in the world , can stop vp the Mouth of hell , confute the accusations of Satan , chase away the Terrors that haunt a guilty conscience , and appease the infinite Indignation of an angry Iudge . This alone will procure fauour and absolution in the presence of that Iudge of the whole world . This alone brings downe from Heauen into our Consciences that blessed peace , which passeth all vnderstanding ; but of him that hath it . Whereby we rest our selues secure from feare of Condemnation ; being provided of a defence that will not faile vs , when after death wee shall come into Iudgment . SECT . 2. CHAP. I. The Orthodoxe opinion concerning the manner of Iustification by Faith , and the confutation of Popish errours in this point . HAuing thus cleared the meaning of this word [ Iustification ] and shewed that the Scriptures , when they speake of the Iustification of a sinner before God , doe thereby vnderstand the absolution of him in Iudgement from sinne and punishment . Wee are now vpon this ground to proceede vnto the further explication of this point , to enquire by what Meanes and in what Manner , this Iustification of a sinner is accomplished . That we may goe on more distinctly : I will reduce all our ensuing discourse of this point into three heads . First , touching the condition required in them that shall be iustified . Secondly , the matter of our Iustification . ( viz. ) What righteousnesse is it wherefore a sinner is Iustified . Thirdly ; touching the forme of Iustification , in what the quality of this iudiciall Act of God , iustifying a sinner , consisteth . Concerning the first at this time . The condition required in such as shall be partakers of this grace of Iustification is true faith , wherunto God hath ordinarily annexed this great priuiledge ; That by faith and faith onely , a sinner shall bee iustified : This the Scriptures witnesse in tearmes as direct and expresse , as any can be . [ Rom 3. 28. We conclude a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the Law. ] and Rom. 4. 9. [ For we say that faith was imputed vnto Abraham for righteousnesse . ] and Rom. 5. 1. [ Then being iustified by faith we haue peace towards God through Iesus Christ our Lord. ] With other the like places . Whence it is agreed vpon on all sides , that a sinner is iustified by faith : but touching the manner , how he is said to be iustified by faith , there is much controuersie and brawle , betweene the Orthodoxe of the reformed Churches , and their Aduersaries of Rome and Holland ; the Arminians , and the Papists . The sentence of the reformed Churches touching this point , consisteth of two Branches . First , that a sinner is iustified by faith , not properly as it is a quality or action ; which by it's owne dignity and merit , deserues at Gods hands Remission of sinnes ; or is by Gods fauourable acceptance taken for the whole and perfect righteousnesse of the Law , which is otherwise required of a sinner : but onely in relation vnto the obiect of it , the righteousnesse of Christ ; which it imbraceth and resteth vpon . Secondly , that a sinner is iustified by faith in opposition vnto the Righteousnesse of workes in the fulfilling of the Law. Whereby now no man can be iustified . In this relatiue and inclusiue sense doe the Reformed Churches take this proposition [ A man is iustified by faith . ] They explaine themselues thus : There are two Couenants that God hath made with man ; By one of which and by no other meanes in the world , saluation is to be obtained . The one is the Couenant of workes , The tenor whereof is [ Doe this and thou shalt liue . ] This Couenant is now vtterly void , in regard of vs ; who through the weaknes of our sinfull flesh cannot possibly fulfill the condition of Obedience required therby : and therfore we cannot expect Iustification & Life by this means . The other is the Couenant of grace the Tenor whereof is , Beleeue in the Lord Iesus and thou shalt be saued . The condition of this couenant is Faith : the performance whereof differs from the performance of the condition of that other Couenant . Doe this and Liue is a compact of pure Iustice wherein wages is giuen by debt , so that he which doth the worke obeying the Law , may in strict Iustice for the worke sake claime the wages , eternall life , vpon iust desert . Beleeue this and liue is a compact of freest and purest Mercy : wherein the reward of eternall life is giuen vs in fauour for that which beares not the least proportion of worth with it : so that he which personnes the condition cannot yet demand the wages , as due vnto him in seuerity of Iustice ; but onely by the grace of a freer promise , the fulfilling of which hee may humbly sue for . By which grand difference betweene these two Couenants clearely expressed in Scriptures , it appeares manifestly that these two Propositions . [ A man is iustified by workes , ] [ A man is iustified by Faith , ] carry meanings vtterly opposite one to the other . The one is proper and formall : the other Metonymicall and Relatiue . In this Proposition ( A Man is iustified by workes ) we vnderstand all in proper and precise termes : That a righteous man who hath kept the law exactly in all points , is by and for the dignity and worth of that his obedience iustified in Gods sight from all blame and punishment whatsoeuer ; because perfect obedience to the morall Law in it selfe , for it owne sake deserues the approbation of Gods seuere Iustice and the reward of Heauen . But in that other Proposition ( A man is iustified by Faith. ) We must vnderstand all things relatiuely thus . A sinner is iustified in the sight of God from all sinne and punishment by faith ( that is ) by the obedience of Iesus Christ beleeued on ; and embraced by a true faith . Which Act of Iustification of a sinner , although it be properly the onely worke of God , for the onely merit of Christ : yet is it rightly ascribed vnto faith , and it alone , for as much as faith is that mayne condition of that new Couenant , which as we must perform if we will be iustified : so by the performance thereof we are said to obtaine iustification and life . For when God by grace hath enabled vs to performe the condition of beleeuing ; then doe we beginne to enioy the benefit of the Couenant ; then is the sentence of absolution pronounced in our consciences ; which shall be after confirmed in our death ; and published in the last iudgement . Secondly , our faith and no other grace directly respects the promises of the Gospell ; accepting what God offers , sealing vnto the truth thereof by assenting thereto , and imbracing the benefit and fruit of it vnto it selfe , by relying wholly vpon it . This interpretation of that proposition the Reformed Churches do admit , & none other : reiecting as erronious and contrary to the Scriptures such glosses as ascribe any thing to the dignity of faith ; or make any combination betweene Faith and Workes , in the point of our Iustification . Amongst which there are three erronious assertions touching mans Iustification by Faith ; which we are briefly to examine and refute . 1 That faith iustifieth vs [ Per modum Causae efficientis & meritoriae ] as a proper efficient and meritorious cause . Which by it's owne worth and dignity deserues to obtaine Iustification , Remission of sinnes , and the grace of well-doing . This is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome , which Bellarmine labours to proue ▪ in his 17. Chap. lib. pr. de Iustificatione , where disputing against Iustification by faith alone , hee tels vs. If we could be perswaded that faith doth Iustifie [ impetrando , promerendo , & suo modo inchoando Iustificationem , ] then we would neuer deny that loue , feare , hope , and other vertues did iustifie vs as well as faith . Whereupon he sets himselfe to prooue that there is in faith it selfe some efficacy and merit to obtaine and deserue Iustification . His Arguments are chiely two . From those places of Scripture , wherein a man is said to be iustified , a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . or absolutely without Article or Preposition . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per fidem , ex fide ( or ) fide . Wherein these Prepositions , signifie , saith he , the true cause of our Iustification . Which he proues 1 By the contrary , when a man is said to be iustified [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ] This notes the true efficient deseruing cause of his Iustification . Secondly , By the like in other places where we are said to be redeemed , saued , sanctified , Per Christum , per sanguinem , per mortem , per vulnera ; and in the whole 11. to the Heb. The Saints are said to doe such and such things ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) by faith . All signifying the proper cause . From those places of Scripture which ( sayth he ) plainly shew : Faith doth impetrare remissionem , & suo quidem modo mereri . Such are those [ Thy Faith● hath saued thee ] or made thee whole . A speech that Christ vsed often ; as to the a woman that washed his feet ; To her b that had an issue of Blood ; To the c blind man recovered of his sight . And that to the Cananitish woman [ O woman d great is thy Faith ] now see what the merit of this Faith was , ( For this e saying go thy way the Diuel is gone out of thy Daughter ) Thus Abraham , being f strenghened in Faith glorified God. ) who therefore iustified him for the Merit of his Faith. And againe in the eleuenth to the Heb. by many examples we are taught that ( by g Faith ( that is ) by the merit and price of Faith Enoch and other men pleased God. For answeare here vnto . 1 Vnto the Argument from the Proposition we reply ; That if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be needs strictly taken in the same kind of Causality : then the Iesuits should doe well to stand to that and make the similitude betweene Faith and workes runne thus . A Man is iustified ( by ) workes that is for the proper and only Merits of his obedience ; so a Man is iustified ( by ) Faith that is for the only merit of his Beleeving in Christ : aud by that meanes both shall be true and effectuall causes of Iustification . But if Bellarmine dare not thus presse the similitude for feare of being found guilty of despising the blood of the New Couenant , attributing that to the Merit of Faith which belongs only to the Merit of Christ ; he must then giue vs that leaue to distinguish which he takes to himselfe ; and if he fall to his Qualifications and quodammodo's : he must pardon if we also seeke out such an Interpretation of those places ; as may not crosse other Scriptures . Which for asmuch as they testifie that ( We i are Iustified by his grace through the Redemption that is in Christ ) that ( All k sinne is purged by the blood of Christ ) that ( By the sacrifice of himselfe he hath put away Sinne ) and ( With offering hath consecrated for ouer them that are sanctified . ) : we dare not without horrible sacrilege ascribe the grace of our Iustification vnto the worke and worth of any thing whatsoeuer in our selues ; but wholy and only to the Righteousnesse of Christ. And therefore when the Scriptures say we are iustified ( by ) Faith ; we take not the word ( By ) in this formall and legall sense ; we are iustified by the efficacy of our Faith , or for the worth of our Faith , according as 't is vnderstood in Iustification by workes : but we take it Relatiuely & Instrumentally : We are Iustified by Faith ( that is ) by the Righteousnesse of Christ , the benefit whereof vnto our Iustification , we are made partakers of by Faith , as the only grace which accepts of the promise , and giues vs assurance of the performance . He that looked to the Brasen serpent and was cured , might truly be sayd to be healed ( by ) his looking on , though this Action was no proper cause working the cure by any efficacy or dignity of it selfe ; but was only a necessary condition required of them that would be healed , vpon the obedient observance whereof , God would shew them favor : so he that looketh on Christ beleeuing in him , may truly be sayed to be saued and Iustified by Faith , not as for the worth , and by the ●fficacy of that act of his ; but as it is the Condition of the promise of grace , that must necessarily go before the performance of it to vs : vpon our Obedience where vnto God is pleased of his free grace to iustifie , Nor is this Trope , any way harsh , or vnusuall to put Oppositum pro opposito , Relatum pro Correlato , Habitum pro Obiecto . In Sacramentall locutions 't is a generall Custome , to put the signe for the thing signified : and the like is vsed in other passages [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . And the n word of God grew , &c. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the o mystery of faith , ) and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in the words of Faith ) and Rom. 8. 24. [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Spe seruati sumus ( id est ) Christo in quem speramus . Hope that is seene is not hope , that is , res visa non sperata est . That of Ignatius , [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] Like to that ( Christ our Ioy ) Anni spem credere Terrae ) Georg. 1. And if we list not to be contentious , 't is plaine enough , that in those places , where the Apostle treats of Iustification by faith ( viz ) the grace of God in Christ ; opposing workes and faith , that is the Law and the Gospell , the Righteousnesse of the Law , to the righteousnesse of the Gospell , which is no other but the Righteousnesse of Christ. Thus faith is taken , Gal. 3. 23. Where he expresly treats of Iustification . But before Faith came , we were kept vnder the Law , shut vp vnto the Faith , which should afterward be reuealed . ] p That is , Before Christ came , and the cleare exhibition of the Gospell , and the Righteousnesse thereof : the Church was kept vnder the Ceremoniall Law , as vnder a Schoole-master , directing her vnto Christ , that so [ Wee might be iustified by Faith. ] that is , not by the Lesson of the Law , but by Christ , typified and figured vnto vs therein . 2 Vnto the other Argument prooving the merit of faith , we reply ; That in those places is no ground , at all for such a conceit . [ Thy Faith hath saued thee , ] saith Christ to some whō he cured both in Body & Soule . But what ? was it by the efficacy and for the word of their faith that this was done ? No : As 't was vertue went out of Christ that cured their bodily diseases ; and his compassion that mooued him to it : so 't was his grace and merits and free loue that healed their soules , and brought them pardon of their sinnes in the sight of GOD : Yet he saith ; Their faith saued them , because by beleeuing in the Sonne of God , they receiued this fauour , though for their beleeuing they did not deserue it . God bestowes mercy where he findes faith , not because faith merits such fauour at his hands : but because he is pleased to disperse his fauours in such an order , as himselfe hath appointed ; and vpon such conditions as hee thinkes good . To that of the Canaanitish woman : Her great faith could not claime by desert , that fauour which Christ shewed vnto her daughter : onely Christ was pleased to honour her faith by his testimony of it ; and to helpe the daughter at the Mothers entreaty . Christ did it vpon that request of hers so instant and full of faith ; But yet who can say she merited ought at CHRISTS hands by that her faithfull and instant petition ? Her selfe yet liuing would deny it ; and shee doth deny it there , counting her selfe a dogge vnworthy of the childrens bread , when yet shee beleeued strongly , and was a child of Abraham according to the faith ▪ To that of Abraham who gaue glory to God , and of Henoch and others , who pleased God by their faith : Wee answere : That it is one thing for a man to glorifie and please God by his Obedience ; 'T is another , by so doing to deserue ought at his hands . If God in much grace and fauour accept of the honour and contentment wee are able to doe him by our Faith and Obedience : It followes not that therefore we must in iustice merit at his hands . Other Arguments for them there are : but so weakely knit ; they fall in sunder of themselues . Against them we haue to obiect the Scriptures , that so often say , [ We are iustified ] gratiâ and gratis ; and the Councell of Trent which they respect more then the Scriptures , which hath defined thus : Nihil eorum quae Iustificationem praecedunt , siue fides , siue opera , ipsam Iustificationis gratiam promeretur , Sess. 6. Cap. 8. How then can they say Faith merits Iustification . Heere our Aduersaries haue two shifts to runne vnto , whereby they would avoide the absurdity of this Assertion . 1 That this merit is not from vs : but of God. Because Faith is the gift of Gods grace ; and therefore though we be iustified by merit : yet we are iustified by grace , because merit is of grace . 'T is of grace that our faith merits . This you may be sure , is some of that smoake of the bottomelesse pit , wherein hell vented out the Iesuites , and they their darke Imaginations ; all to confound whatsoeuer is cleare and lightsome in Scripture . Scripture opposeth these paires ; Grace , and Nature , Grace and Merit . As the Pelagians of old confounded Nature & Grace , teaching that we were saued by Grace : yet affirming that we are also saued by Nature , and the naturall strength of free-will . Which they salued thus . To be saued by Nature , is to be saued by Grace : for Nature is of Gods grace and giuing . So these confound Grace and Merit , making a thing Meritorious , because it s of Grace . Faith merits because its Gods gracious gift . Nothing more contradictory . If it be his gift , how doth it merit , or of whom ? Of man it may , of God it cannot : vnlesse we will senslesly affirme , that the gift deserues something of the giuer . That he that giues an hundred pound freely , is thereby bound to giue an hundred more . Had they sayed that faith is good , because of Gods giuing ; that were true , and we may grant them that God is honoured and pleased with his owne gifts : but that euery good thing merits , and that we can deserue of God by his owne gifts , is affirmed without all Reason , or Scriptures ; and will neuer be proued by either . But there is yet another shift . 2 Faith merits Iustification [ Non de condigno ] of the worthinesse of it : but [ de Congruo ] of the fitnesse : that is , God in Iustice is not bound to bestow Iustification where there is faith : but yet in fitnesse he ought to doe it . So that if he doe not iustifie him that beleeues : he is likely to omit a thing very fit and agreeable . This distinction is a meere Imposture and collusion . Bellarmine in dealing with it seemes to haue a dog by the eares , he is loath to loose him : yet knowes not well how to hold him . If he be vrged where Scriptures make any the least Intimation of such a distinction : hee referres you to Divines , that is , Popish Schoole-men , who out of their owne imagination haue forged it , and in time made it Authenticall . But he stickes in the mire , when he is to shew what merit of Condignity and merit of Congruity is . Merits of Condignity are workes , to which wages is due of Iustice. What then are merits of Congruity ? Such workes whereto wages is not due by any Iustice. As for example : He that labours the whole day in the Vineyard , merits a penny of Condignity : because in Iustice his labour is worth his hire . But he that for an houres worke , receiues a penny , he deserues it of Congruity : because though his labour be not worth it , yet he was promised a penny by him that set him on worke : Then which fond imagination nothing can be more ridiculous , and contrary to common sense . For the merit of any worke is the proportionablenesse of 't is worth with the Reward . Now in reason wherein ariseth this proportion of any work with that reward ? Stands it in the dignity of the worke it selfe ; or in the compact made betweene him that worketh and him that rewardeth ? It is apparant that the worke is deseruing or not-deseruing according to ' its owne Nature , not according to a compact made . He that promiseth vnto one more for a little worke , then to another for a great deale in the same kinde : doth not by such a compact make the little labour of the one more deserving then the others great pains . We must look to the worke , what it is in its own Nature : & as it is of some worth or no worth , so account it deseruing or not deseruing ▪ Wherfore whē 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 t●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 Pos●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 ●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 ; no● 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 de●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 wi●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 De● iudicio oppont possit ; quanquam Deo grata : sed quod in iudicio mis●ri●ordiae triumphans supra iudicium absolutionem a peccatis obtineat & gratiose in Iustitiam imputetur . Cuius rei causaest tum Deus iustus & misericors , tum Christus obedient●● 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 ●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 c Vorstius , of d Peter Bertius , of e Episcopius , and the f rest . With whom Bellarmine agrees pat [ Liber ● . 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 T●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 thē , What worke can be named , that is enioyned vs in the New Testament , which is not also cōmanded vs in that summary precept of the Morall Law [ Thou shalt loue the L●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 cōmand Charity , is it any other then that which the Law commands : If the Gospell cōmand 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 Righteousn●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 ●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 perf●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 ●udgeth nothing perfectly iust , but that whi●h hath true perfection of Iustice in it . Sometimes he iudgeth iudicio misericord●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 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 ●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 accoūt 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 Fa●●h , sensu prop●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 a manifold graces of Gods Spirit , wrought in the heart of such as are Regenerate . Neuerthelesse for the shewing of some points which may be doubted of ; Let vs briefely take a view of the chiefe passages of Bellarmines long discourse ; which he maintaines from the twelfth Chapter of his first booke de Iustificatione , to the end . For to proue that a Man is iustified not by faith alone . Of his Arguments which are few , I shall name three onely , which are materiall . 1 If other vertues Iustifie as well as Faith , then not faith alone . But other vertues doe Iustifie — Therefore , &c. The Minor he prooues out of the Councell of Trent , Sess. 6. cap. 6. where seauen preparatory , graces to Iustification , are reckoned vp . 1 Faith. 2 The Feare of God , 3 Hope in his mercy . 4 Loue of God , as the Fountaine of Iustice ( & ad benefactoris , saith Bellarmine ) 5 Repentance , a sorrow and detestation of sinne . 6 A desire of receiuing the Sacrament of Baptisme . 7 A purpose to leade a new life , and keepe Gods Commandements . All these ( saith Bellarmine ) doe iustifie a Man , Praeparatoriè , antecedentèr , dispositiuè . Faith , that 's the roote and beginning of our Iustification , the rest follow in order ; all must goe before as needfull preparations : and Iustification followes , as the effect of all in common , &c. Ergo , Not of Faith alone . The b 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 o● sicknesse , and euery kinde of disease . Wherefore we aff●●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 vns●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 ) a externall , a exciting and helping forward the strength of Nature . a 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 : ou● of Iohn 1. 12. [ As many as receiued him , to them he gaue power to become the Sonnes of God : euen to them th●t beleeue on his name . ] See ( s●●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 Tridenti●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 b 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 Hope ; If it be true , ( viz. ) That c which makes not ashamed , ] Which is the d 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 e this Loue of God is shed abroad by the Holy Ghost that is giuen to them . ] as the a Apostle speaketh . This Bellarmine is so●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 a 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 d●e●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 cōpany 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 a 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 : b 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 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 : a 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 ●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 ād 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 āswere , 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 . b 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 . ( c 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 a naked obseruation of the law of Moses : nor the Gentiles for their good workes ; before they were b 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 c 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 Mora●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 d 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 differēce 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 a ( 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 whēce such absurdities necessarily follow b More h 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 whi●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 Righteousn●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 imput●d for Righteousnesse ] that is . He by his Faith ob●aynes I●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 Inte●●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 pai●● 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 m●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 Morral● Law that were indeed of his free fauour and grace : but when this man , that hath receaued this stre●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 sai●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 . Iustificat●on and Iustice a●e still coupled together ; and some Righteousnesse there must be , for which God pronounceth a Man Righteous : and for the sake whereof he for Gi●eth vnto him all his Sinnes . No● is a Sinner iust before God because Iustified : bu● 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 , eithe● 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 haue done , whether God by his absolute omnipotency could not haue freed Men from a 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 ano● 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 go●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 P●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 Iustifi●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 [ a all vnder Sinne ] averre . That b [ If we ( an Apostle not excepted ) say We haue no sinne we deceaue our sel●es and the truth is not in vs. ] Yea ( If c 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 ●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 G●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 cann●t doe the same things that yee would . ] Who can say that holinesse is perfect in that mā , in whō 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 no●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 a 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 b That there is n● 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 v●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 R●manists contend , labouring to proue , that in him that is iustified . Sinne doth not remaine at all : but is vt●erly abol●shed . They proue it by such Arguments as these . 1 The Scriptures testifie , That Christ is the c Lambe of God , that taketh away the sinnes of the world . That Hee was d offered to take away the sinnes of many . That in Repentance , our sinnes are e blotted out . That God will subdue our iniquities and f 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 a 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 c from the power of darknesse ) and ( redeemed d us from all iniquity ) & ( made us free e 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 f crucified with him , that the Body of Sinne might be g 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 h 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 that he is a ( God that hateth Iniquity . ) If he do hate it thē certainly he must punish it : God cannot see a fault and hate a fault but he must also punish it to . If he punish it , then he which is iustified shall yet be condemned which is absurd . Vnto these Arguments we answere . Vnto the two former thus . When we say Sin remaines in a Man regenerate and Iustified we must distinguish the ambiguity of the word Sin. In Sin , to vse that distinction which is authenticall with ou● Aduersaries ; There are three things . 1 The offence of God , which is the fault . 2 The obligation vnto eternall punishment , which is the guilt . 3 The staine or pollution of the soule , ( viz ) the inherent vitious inclination of it vnto euill . From whence the fault committed first issued , and which by committing of the fault is augmented . For euill once committed leaues a further pronnesse in the heart to doe it againe . This we call the corruption of Sinne. Thus then we answer . Sin doth not remaine in those that are iustified , & regenerate in the two first respects , viz. of the fault and the guilt , both which are takē away by the death of Christ. But Sin doth remain in the regenerate according to the 3 respect , ( viz. ) the vitious quality and corruption thereof , inherent in the soule : We shall explaine these answeres , and apply them to the Arguments . We say then ; That the fault & guilt of sinne in the regenerate , is vtterly abolished by the death of Christ. Which we doe not take in such a sense as this . That in a man regenerate there is not at all any one fault or guilt to be found , for to say that a man regenerate , when he sinnes , were neither faulty nor guilty , were a grosse vntruth , ● seeing t is impossible that man should sinne , yet God not be offended ; that man should sinne , and yet not be guilty , and deseruing eternall death . Wherefore we confesse that in the holiest of men , if they sinne , there 's a true fault , and God is displeased with it ; there is also true guilt , and for it they deserue to goe to Hell. But yet this truth also must be acknowledged withall , that all faultinesse and guiltinesse are quite abolished and taken away from them by Christ , because that both are pardoned vnto them . God is offended ; but yet they feele not the wofull effects of his indignation : because in Christ hee is graciously contented to be reconciled with them . Againe they haue deserued euerlasting death : but they come not to the paines thereof , because freed from the punishment by Christs satisfaction . Thus then we vnderstand the first part of the answere . That the fault and guilt of sinne is vtterly abolished , that is , totally pardoned vnto the Regenerate , by meanes of Christ , so that no finall eternall punishment shall befall them therefore . The other part . That Sinne ( in the uitious quality and corruption if it remaine in Men iustified ) we vnderstand with this necessary a Limitation , That it remaines in them not in its power and strength : but in its Being and Life . It hath vitam : but not Regnum . It reignes where there is no Grace at all : but it liues euen where Grace is . which though it mightily a bate to power of it : it cannot vtterly d●stroy its being . Hence now its easy to vnty the Arguments . Sinne is taken away , b●otted out , drowned in the bottome of the Sea , in regare of those mischieuous effects which sinne would haue brough on vs : God is reconciled , the obligation , to punishment cancelled ; and all the power , force , & strength of Sin defeated ; So that like the dead Egyptians they can no longer pursue the Israelites to annoy them , not shall stand vp as an aduersary in iudgment to condemne vs. The Guilt of Sinne is washed away totall by the blood of Christ : the filthynesse of corrupted Nature is in part by Degrees clensed by the Spirite of Christ powred on vs in his sanctifieing Grace . The Fetters and bonds of Sinne , whereby we were held in bondage vnder condemnation , these are quite broken asunder : but those chaines , whereby with Paul , Rom. 7 ( we are led captiue ) to disobedience are some broken , all weakened . We are freed from the power of Satan and feare of Hell : but not wholly freed from Sinne , whereby we are often captiues against our will. Sinne is a sicknesse , and God is the Phisitian ; a wound , and God is the Chirurgian , true : but the cures neither perectly , yet correct that word . He cures our sicknesse and sores perfectly : but not suddainely , where he begines the worke he will finish it : but he will not doe all in a day . The cure begins and goes onward to perfection during this life : but t is neuer finished till after death . He forgiues b all our iniquity and that 's done ●utirely and totally [ and healeth all our infirmities ] : but this is by degrees , not all at once . In which course God hath no cause to feare the censure of a Iesuite for vnskilfulnesse nor stands he in need of Mans counsaile , for prescription , nor Mans helpe to hold his hand in working , if the Cure goe on more slowly then our foolish hastinesse thinkes fit . That 's fit and best what God thinkes so : and if we count him faithfull and wise in his art ; t is our duty to take his aduice : but saucy persumption to giue him any . Lastly , where Sinne is said to be the ( Spirituall Death of the Soule ) and so Life being restored in Iustification Death must needes be quite abolished : the weaknesse of this Argument appeares streight , if the metaphoricall terme be changed in to proper . The death of Sinne is either the Separation of all grace from the Soule , or the Separation of Gods Fauour from the Soule . We are dead in trespasses and Sinnes both waies : In regard that in the state of vnregeneration the Soule is vtterly destitute of all Grace and goodnesse : and also be cause in that condition it is liable to eternall Death . Now the Death of Sinne that is eternall death in the perpetuall Losse of Gods fauour this is cleane taken a way from him that 's regenerate . Christ by his death hath purchased to him Life and immortality . But touching that other ; ( death ( that is ) the want of all inherent Grace in the Soule ) They say . That in Regeneration Grace and Holynesse is restored to the Soule , yet not so perfectly as to abolish euery degree of Sinnefull Corruption . Before Regeneration the Soule had no grace atall and so was vtterly dead but it followes not , That therefore in Regeneration , it hath all grace giuen it in all perfection , and so made perfectly aliue : what euer harshnesse there is in the Metaphore , the plaine termes in this case are smooth enough . A Man may be at once a liue and dead , that is , at once a Man may bee partly holy , and partly sinnefull . [ Our old Man is crucified with Christ vpon whose Crosse it receaued a deadly wound ; ( because Christ by his sacrifice hath procured the sending of the Holy ghost into the hearts of the Elect ; who by 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 hat● receiued a deadly wound , doth bleed out some of its life now , and shall infall●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 w●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 forb●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 Diu●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 ea●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 a●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 b●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 plai●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 . ● 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 c 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 deliu●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 wai●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 b delighteth in the Law ; takes contentment in c 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 , ) d 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 If the hardest precepts of the Law may be kept ; then much more all the rest which are easier . But the hardest precepts may be obserued , — Ergo , the rest also . They proue the minor thus . Three precepts there are , which are most hard as all confesse . 1 Thou shalt loue the Lord with all thy heart . 2 Thou shalt loue thy neighbour as thy selfe . 3 Thou shalt not couet — The tenth Commandement . But now all these three commandements may be kept by the Regenerate . Ergo the rest ; and so the whole Law. Wee deny the minor of the Prosyllogisme ; and say that those three precepts are not to be kept perfectly by any man in this life . They proue it in each particular . 1 That a man in this life may loue God with all his heart . This they prooue . ● By Scripture . Deut. 30. 6. The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart , and the heart of thy seed , to loue the Lord thy God with all thy heart , and with all thy soule , that thou mayest liue . This is a praediction or promise of that which was heretofore , and is still accomplished in the regenerate , who being sanctified and purified from sinne ( a worke of Gods Spirit in the heart figured by externall circumcision of the flesh ) should loue God with all their hearts . 2 By example of Dauid , who saith of himselfe , Psal. 1 9. 10. With my whole heart haue I sought thee ; and God also testifies of him : That he kept his commandements , and followed him with all his heart , to doe that onely which was righteous in his eyes , 1 Kings 14. 8. The like is recorded of Iosiah , 2 Kings 23. 25. And like vnto him was there no King before him that turned to the Lord with all his heart , and with all his soule , and with all his might , according to all the Law of Moses : neither after him arose any like him . These men then loued God with all their hearts . 3 By reason ; For to loue God with all the heart , carries one of these three senses . First , to loue him onely , and nothing else , and so wee are not commanded to loue God with all our heart , because we must loue our neighbour too . 2 To loue him tanto conatu , quanto fieri potest ; ( that is ) as much as may be . Nor is this commanded ( saith Becanus ) and yet if it were , who would say t were impossible to loue God as much as one can . 3 To loue God aboue all ( that is ) to preferre him before all creatures , before father and mother , as Christ did , Mat. 10. 37. and as Abraham did ; before his onely Sonne . Now this onely is to loue God with all the heart , and this , men may doe , as appeareth in the Martyres and others , who left all for Gods loue . Vnto these Arguments we answere . That it is not so easie a matter to loue God , with all the heart : as these imagine . a Bellarmine indeed makes a ( But ) at it . There is nothing required ( saith he ) of vs : But to loue God with all the Heart . As if it were as easily done , as spoken . But wee beleeue that in this ( But ) God hath set vp a white , which all the men in the world , may and must aime at : but none will shoot so steadily as to hit it . Vnto the place of Deuteronomy , we say . God therein tels vs what his gracious worke is in circumcising , or sanctifying our hearts , & what our bounden duty is thereupon ( viz. ) to loue him with all our hearts : the performance whereof wee must endeauour syncerely , chough we cannot doe it perfectly . For the examples of Dauid and Iosiah , who are said to follow the Lord with all their heart ; there is nothing else meant thereby : but a syncere intent and endeauour in the generall to establish and maintaine Gods pure Religion in their Kingdome free from corruption of Idolatry ; as also for their owne particular conversation to liue vnblameably . For Dauid , t is a cleare case that not perfection ; but syncerity is his commendations ; whose many sinnes recorded in the Scriptures witnesse sufficiently that hee had in his heart that corruption which many times turned the loue thereof from God to other things . How did he loue God with all his heart when hee defiled Vriahs bed , shed Vriahs blood , intended to murder Nabal , iudg'd away an honest mans Lands to a fawning Sycophant , with such other faults . The Prophet himselfe in that place in 119. Psal. witnesseth ; as the vprightnesse of his heart , [ With my whole heart haue I sought thee : ] so withall , the weaknesse and corruption of it ; against which he humblie craues Gods assistance in the very next words , [ Let me not wander from thy commandements . ] For Iosiah : t is plaine that this singular commendations is giuen him , because of his through reformations of the most corrupt estate of Religion , which was before his reigne . Wherein many Godly Kings before him had done something in redressing some abuses : but none went so farre in a zealous reformation of all , according to Moses Law. Wherefore the Text saith , that there was no King before him like vnto him , which cannot be meant absolutely of all , ( for Dauid is said to follow Gods will with all his heart ; as well as Iosiah : ) but since the time that Religion began to bee corrupted in the Iewish Church , there was none of all the Kings of Iudah , that was so faithfull as Iosiah , to restore all things to their first purity . Whence he hath the praise , that he turned vnto God more entirely , then any other King before or after him . But now from Iosiahs zeale in reformation to conclude , that in euery particular of his life he kept the Law perfectly , louing God with all his heart ; is a consequence , that wants strength of connexion . Vnto the reason from the meaning of the Law , we grant . That the first is not the meaning of it . But for the second , ( viz. ) That to loue God with all the heart , is to loue him as much as may be . The Iesuite hath no reason either to deny , that this is not commaunded ; or to affirme that if it were commanded , t is yet possible to doe it . Would any man say ; except he care not what he say , that God doth not command vs to loue him as much as may be ? Or will it bee a truth from any mans tongue , to say , that he loues God with as great perfection as may be ? It cannot . Which appeares thus . Gods will is , that we should loue him with all our hearts . Now Christ hath taught vs to pray . Thy will bee done in earth as it is in Heauen . Thence t is euident , Wee on Earth are bound to fulfill the Commandement of louing God : as the Saints in Heauen doe fulfill it . But now our Aduersaries themselues grant , that whil'st wee bee [ in viâ ] wee cannot loue God so much as we shall d ee [ in Patriâ ] Whence it followes , that no man can loue him so much as may be , and as he ought to doe : seeing no man hath his heart replenished with that measure of Diuine loue , whereof his Nature is capable , which either Adam had in his inoncency ; or the Saints haue in glory . Touching the third sense of the words , we grant indeed ; that to Loue God with all the heart , is to loue him super omnia , that is aboue all Creatures . But the Iesuites take here but one part of true loue of God. T is a singular part of Diuine loue , when the heart is so fixed on God : that neither the loue nor feare of any earthly thing can draw it from obeying of God. Which we say , is a matter wherein euery one failes in some kinde or other , more or lesse , though in the end may Martyrs and other holy men , haue herein by faith ouercome the world . But this is not enough vnto perfect loue , to preferre God before all Temporall paines and pleasures , profits or discommodities . He loues God with all his heart , not onely who loues him aboue all , but also obeies God in all . This is the loue of God , that we keepe his Commandements . He that for Gods loue will not obey Gods Law : he loues his sinnes more then God. Offend but in the least thing , there 's presently want of loue : for hee that will not doe as God bids him then , is voyde of that loue which moues him to obey at other times . He then that keepeth Gods word , in him is the loue of God perfect indeed . — 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 1 Iohn 2. 5. Perfect obedience and perfect loue are inseparable . Now seeing the former cannot be found in mortall men : we cannot in them seeke for the latter . And therefore this Commandement [ Loue God aboue all things ] cannot be kept in this life . 2 That a man may loue his neighbour as himselfe . For which purpose they turne vs vnto Rom. 13. 8. Hee that loueth another hath fulfilled the Law. Because the Law is comprehended in this saying , Thou shalt loue thy neighbour as thy selfe , v. 9. and loue doth not euill to his neighbour : therefore is loue the fulfilling of the Law , vers . 10. And they bid vs looke Gal. 5. 14. Where we reade , For all the Law is fulfilled in one Word : Thou shalt loue thy neighbour as thyselfe . Hereto we answere . That there 's in these places , nothing that needs answering . We grant , that the loue of our neighbour as of our selues , is the fulfilling of the Law ; that is , of the second Table of the Law , touching our duty vnto man , and so much these places witnesse , commanding vs also so to doe . But now how doe our Aduersaries prooue out of these places , that men can perfectly ob●serue this Law. We yeeld the Regenerate loue their neighboars as themselues : but that perfection of loue , which in euery point fulfils the Law , doing our neighbour no hurt , but all good , in all our thoughts words and deeds ; this we cannot grant them , vnlesse vpon better proofes . Let vs goe to the tenth Commandement , which they say may be kept , that is , 3 Thou shalt not couet . This tenth Commandement of the Decalogue , is ( say they ) possible to be fulfilled by a Regenerate man. For three things must be obserued , touching this concupiscence or coueting forbidden in the tenth Commandement . 1 The vitious pro●enesse and inclination of Nature vnto baddesires , which is styled concupiscence in actu primo . As to haue a theeuish minde . 2 The inordinate motions of the heart immediately arising from that corrupt disposition , which preuent reason , and goe before consent ; as to desire another mans money : but sodenly vanisheth of it selfe , or vpon deliberation t is checkt . 3 The consent of the will , when either it takes 〈◊〉 mediate delight in such desires themselues ; as speculatiue f●rnication &c. or when it resolues to put in execution what the heart imagined ; as to lay a plot to spoyle another of his goods . The two former , the vitious disposition of Nature , and the inordinate desires that goe before consent : these be no sinnes ( say the Romanists ) and so not forbidden in the tenne Commandements . The last ( viz. ) Euill desires with consent , they be the very sins which are forbidden in that Commandement ; Whence they conclude that a Regenerate man may auoid the breach of this commandment ; seeing it is in the power of his will , whether he will consent vnto such motions of the heart or no : and if he doe not consent : then , hee sinnes not . Herevnto wee answere . That whereas they of Rome teach , that the Habituall vitiousnesse of Nature and the disorderly motions of the Heart which goe before Consent , are no Sinnes : they therein erre grossily against Scriptures and sound Reason . This the gift of these Men alwayes to iudge flatteringly and fauourably on Natures side : they concipt to themselues a God in Heauen like their God in Rome , Facilem Deum , one that will wincke at small faults , and graunt Indulgence by the Dozen . Looke what they iudge a small Matter God must be of there mind : or else they are not pleased . His Loue must fit there Humors ; what they thinke they can doe ; that God shall haue leaue to command or forbid : but if otherwise they 'le tell him to his face , that he is a foole ct a Tyrant , to command them that , which now they cannot performe . For God ( say they ) to require of a Man a freedome from all vitious Inclinations and euill desires , this were as mad an injunction , as for a master to command his seruant neuer to be hungry , or thirsty , hot or cold , and to threaten him , that hee should looke through a halter , in case it bee otherwise with him . This errour wee shall more conueniently speake of in the refutation of common and generall exceptions , which they make against all those proofes , that doe demonstrate the impossibility of keeping the Law , whereof this is one , that Concupiscence in the first and second act is not Sinne. But now whereas they affirme that it is in a Regenerate Mans power not to yeeld consent to the motions of Sin , and that therefore he may fulfill the Law which sayed ( thou shalt not lust : ) we graunt them that the Spirit may many times get the victory , ouermastring such vuruly motions of the heart : but this is not perpetuall . For who is there ( except extreamely ignorant of Grace and Nature ) but will confesse that many times these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , affections of Sinne ] as the Apostle cals them , do work in them so strongly , vpon such circumstances and aduantages ; that they doe not only [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , combate and fight ] against the powers of grace : but also [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vanquish them ] and euen leade a Man regenerate captiue vnto the Law or command of sinne . The Apostle confesseth so much of himselfe Rom. 7. 23. Who yet was able to doe as much as he that thinkes himselfe best . And therefore what euer power we may seeme to haue not to yeeld consent : yet 't is certaine that we shall often faile in in our practise . This of the second Argument touching the obseruation of the obseruation of the hardest precepts of the Law : The third followes . 3 If a Man may doe more then the Law requires : he may certainely doe as much . 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 auou●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 a 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 . Ind●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 vndo●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 thē 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 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 a 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 ●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 : 〈◊〉 b Abraham , c Noah , d Dauid , e Iosiah , f Asa , g Zacharie and Elizabeth , the h Apostles , and other i 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 mās 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 a Abraham , somtimes misdoubting of Gods promise & protection , and helping himselfe by a b shift scarce warrantable . c Noah ouer-seene in drinke . d Dauid breaking the sixth and seauenth Commandements , one after another . e Iosiah running wilfully vpon a dangerous enterprise against Gods Commandement . f Asa relying on the King of Syria for helpe against the King of Israel , and not vpon the Lord , g & in a rage imprisoning the Prophets for reprouing him ; h and in his disease seeking not to the Lord : but to the Phisitians . i Zachary not giuing credence to the Angels message . The k 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 l 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 m Apostle out of n Moses . Which curse must needs light on those , that are of the workes of the Law , that is , seeke for Iustification and life by the obedience of the Law , which yet they cannot in all things perfectly obey . CHAP. III. No man in this life can performe any particular good worke , so exactly that in euery point it shall answere the rigour of the Law , proued by conscience , Scriptures , reason ; and Popish obiections , answered . I Proceed vnto the last Proposition , which concerneth Mans actuall Obedience to any one particular precept of the Law. Wherein will appeare the third Imperfection of mans Obedience in fulfilling of the Morall Law. We haue seene . That no man hath perfect inherent sanctity free from Natures corruption . Againe , That no man can performe perfect actuall obedience to all and euery duty of the Law without failing in any one point . And this much our Aduersaries will not much sticke to yeeld vnto vs , and confesse . That there is no man , but sinneth at some time or other ; and that t is scarce possible to avoide veniall sinnes , as they stile them . But then they deny vtterly . That a man sinnes in euery particular good worke ; though he cannot doe all perfectly , yet in some he may exactly fulfill the Righteousnesse of the Law , not missing in any one circumstance . And therfore at least by that obedience he may be iustified . This opinion of theirs hath neither truth in it selfe : nor yet brings any benefit at all to their maine purpose in prouing Iustification by workes . For to what end serueth it them to stand quarrelling for the perfectiō 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 thē , if he number thē , 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 . a Oh ( saith he ) that a man might pleade with God , as a man pleadeth with his neighbour . And againe , Lay b downe now , put me in a surety with thee , who is he that will strike hands with me ? And againe , Oh that c 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 sin●ulnesse . Iob saw his folly : God grant that these may theirs . In a calmer temper , when conscience was not ouerclouded with griefe and anger : he reades vs a quite contrary lesson . In the 9 Chapter of his booke . How should man be iust with God ? if he contend with him he cannot answer him one of a thousand , v. 2. 3. And againe , hauing reasoned & questioned of Gods wisdome & power , not to be questioned or resisted by any . How much lesse shall I answere him ( saith he ) & chuse out my words to reason with him ? whom though I were righteous , yet would I not answer : but I would make supplication to my iudge , v. 14. 15. Further , If I would iustifie my selfe mine own mouth will condemne me , If I say I am perfect , it shall proue me peruerse . Though I were perfect yet would I not know my soule , I would despise my life , v. 20. 21. And once more . If I wash my self with snow water , & make my hands neuer so clean , yet that thou plunge me in the ditch , & mine own cloathes shall abhorre me . For he is not a man as I am that I should answere him , and we should come together in iudgement , vers . 30. 31. 32 See , this holy Saint , who elsewhere stands peremptorily to the defence of his Innocency and vprightnesse against that wrongfull imputation of hypocrisie which his friends charged him withall , telling them that till he die , he wil not take away his innocency from himselfe , nor his heart shall not reproue him of his dayes : yet when he sets himselfe before the Tribunall of Gods Iustice , he dares not stand out in his own Iustification , but submits himselfe to the mercy of his Iudge , with humble supplication for his fauour . These confessions of Iob be not complements out of a fained and needlesse modesty : but the fruits of a conscience rightly informed and apprehensiue of its owne sinfulnesse , and the seuere rigour of Gods iudgment . The serious meditatiō of which two particulars , we commend vnto our Aduersaries , and all other of their humour ; that are apt to entertaine fauourable and gentle opinions touching their sinnes : and withall to nourish high conceits of their owne goodnesse . Whence they grow by degrees to thinke , that Gods iudgement is like their owne foolish imaginations ; and where they out of blindnesse or selfe-loue cannot see a fault : that there God himselfe can finde none . We hardly see beames in our own eyes : are we then so skilfull to spie the smallest moate ? who can vnderstand his faults ( saith Dauid ) wilt thou answere him ; Yes I doe ? A secret fault may soone s●●p it , a deceitfull heart may in one circumstance go beyond thy wit & watchfulnesse . Here then humility would doe well , and prayer for thy ignorances , for thy secret sinnes ; vnknowne to thy selfe as much as others . Here true modesty would haue her place , that thou preferre Gods wisedome and iudgement aboue thine owne , remembring that he iudgeth not as man iudgeth : but sometimes otherwise then thou doest , accounting that abhomination , which in thine eyes is much set by ; and alwayes more exactly then thou caust ; seeing much euill in that where thou seest little , and some euill where thou think'st there is none . And therefore alwayes speake vnto thy selfe in those excellent words of Saint Iohn ▪ If my heart condemne ( as in many things it doth ) God is greater then my heart , and knoweth all things . 1 Iohn 3. 20. God forbid then that in any thing I should presume to pleade with him in my Iustification . He is wise in heart , and mighty in strength ; who hath hardened himselfe against him and hath prospered , Iob. 9. 2. Thus much touching our first Argument , for the inward witnesse of the conscience . Which in the most innocent life , often in the most holy worke , drawes backe from Gods Iudgement seat , and is afraid to put it selfe vpon the tryall of his seuere Iustice. Wee haue the Scriptures to witnesse vnto vs the same Truth . Psa. 143. ● . 2. [ Heare my prayer O Lord giue ear● vnto my supplication : in thy faithfulnesse answere mee and in thy righteousnesse . ] Here the prophet seemes to appeale to the Iustice of God requiring his helpe vpon such tearmes , as if God out of pure Iustice could not haue denyed him . But t is nothing so . T is the mercy of God the holy Prophet sues vnto . Answere me in thy faithfulnesse and Righteousnes , that is , in those gratious promises , wherin thou hast made mee to trust , where vpon I doe rely . Thou art iust and faithfull : in keeping promise , be so to me in my distresse , who according to thy promise seeke vnto thee for succour . Vnto this Righteousnesse of God Dauid presents himselfe , and his supplications ; but before that strict & severe Iustice of God he dares not stand , but in all submissiuenesse prayes in the next words . [ And enter not into Iudgement with thy seruant . ] He craues mercifull audience of his prayers : but deprecates the strict examination of his Life and doings . He knew well that if God should deale with him vpon so hard Termes ; his owne Innocency could neuer haue made his prayers exceptable ( For ( saith he ) in this shall no Man liuing be Iustified ) . The force of this place a Bell. seekes to decline by three poore miserable shifts . That Dauid would not haue God enter into Iudgement with him to iudge him ( seili●et ) according to such things as he had of himselfe : but according to such things as God had giuen him , that is , Iudge mee not according to that righteousnesse which I haue by Nature : but according to that righteousnesse which thou hast giuen by thy Grace . ) Which interpretation how ridiculous a phantasy it is , and quite besides the meaning of the Prophet , t is easy for any one to Iudge by reading of that Psalme . Bell. therefore hath another string to his Bow : but as rotten as the Former . 2 That the place is meant of veniall Sinnes without which a Man cannot liue , and though they be small faults : yet would it be no Iustice in God to punish them . So that the meaning is , [ Lord enter not into Iudgement , ] that is , Lord I will not contend with thee I confesse my selfe a sinner and craue pardon , Diuers small faults I haue committed not against the Law : but besides the Law , and thou mayest easily pardon them . My case is not singular . I doe therein , but as other Men doe , amongst whome , there is none so iust but some time failes and offends . And therefore doe not lay such faults to my charge . Men of corrupt conscience that thus sport with Sinne and play with the Scriptures . The Iesuite must bring vs better proofes , then he doth , else wee shall neuer beleeue that Dauid was a Man of Bellarmine his mind touching Veniall Sins . That doctrine is part of the dregs of corrupted Nature , maynatined by Popish Moabites , who are setled on thier Lees , infatuated by the Loue of Sin , and flattering themselues in that wickednesse as little & light which God accounteth worthy to be ha●ed . wee acknowledge no Veniall Sinnes : but such as deserue eternall death , which hereafter we shall make good . And therefore if Dauid would not that God should enter into iudgement with him , because of veniall sinnes that accompany his holiest practises , t is in effect , that which we say ; the difference is onely in an Epithete . We say Dauid prayed not to come into iudgement , because [ his best workes were sinfull : ] and Bellarmine addes , Because venially , or , pardonably sinnefull . Which aduantageth him not a jot . For let him mince it , how him l●st●tis manifest , that these were such sinnes , as for them Dauid durst not venter his best workes to come vnto the Barre of Gods seuere Iudgement . There is yet another deuise . That thirdly Dauid speakes by comparison . ( viz. ) That that though the Righteousnesse of his workes were true , being absolutely considered : yet being compared with Gods Righteousnesse , it seemed to be vnrighteousnesse . As a candle set in the Sunne , seemes to haue no light : and a little light compared to a greater , seemes darkenesse . Whereto we answere that Dauid here makes a confession of his owne sinfulnesse ; not a comparison of his owne righteousnesse , with the righteousnesse of God. He desires that God will not enter into iudgement with him ; not because he had not so much righteousnesse as God , in comparison of whom it seemed little or nothing : but because he was sinnefull , and had not so much Righteousnesse as he should . Man may haue a Righteousnesse of his owne ; infinite degrees , below the Righteousnesse of God , which yet may passe the Tryall of Gods Iudgement without all reproofe . As is manifest in the Righteousnesse of Adam and Christs Humanity : both which , though inferiour to Gods Righteousnesse , were yet able to endure that strict examination . Wherefore wee are not accounted vniust for that imperfection , because we haue lesse Righteousnesse then our Maker : but because wee haue not so much as we ought to haue , according to the capacity of our Nature wherein hee made vs. But of this more hereafter . Let this serue for the clearing of this first place of Scripture , and the exceptions against it . The second place of Scripture , is that , Isa. 64. 6. But wee are all as an vncleane thing , and all our righteousnesse is as filthy ragges , and we all doe fade as a leafe , and our iniquities like the winde haue taken vs away . This is the confession of the Church of God , submitting herselfe to him in the acknowledgement of her sinnes , and the iustnesse of his anger against her . The confession is euery way generall : both for Persons , not one excluded ; We all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are as an vncleane thing , and likewise for workes , none are excused from faultinesse . All our Righteousnesse ( nay in the plurall ) all our righteousnes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are as filthy ragges . Hence they acknowledge that God is iustly angry with them , and that in his righteous displeasure , they are afflicted , consumed and brought into great aduersity , the glory of the Church , and state decaying more and more , like a fading leafe that fall● from the tree , and is driuen away with the winde ; And wee all doe fade as a leafe , and our iniquities like the winde haue taken vs away . Against this plaine acknowledgement of mans sinfulnesse in all his most righteous workes , the Iesuites except diuers wayes . 1 That the Prophet speakes here in the person , not of the godly : but of wicked , who make here this confession of their sinnes . And how proued they this ? Thus. The Text saith . Behold thou art wrath , for wee haue sinned . Now God is not angry with the godly : but with the wicked . Againe , the Text saith , There is none that calleth vpon thy name . That is , None of the wicked persons , for the godly doe call on Gods Name . This exception is manifestly refuted by the whole order of the Text , whereby it is apparent to any that hath but halfe an eye , that this Recognition of Sinne , and prayer for mercy beginning at the 15 verse of the 63. chapter , to the end of the 64 chapter , is made by the whole Church , and all the faithfull therein , confessing their owne faults , as well as others , and suing for reliefe , not onely in behalfe of others , but of themselues too . His reasons are worth nothing . God is not angry with the godly , saith Bellarmine . No ? Then Peter is in an errour , who saith , 1 Pet. 4. 17. 18. The time is come that iudgement must begin at the house of God ; and if it begin at vs , what shall the end of them be that obey not the Gospell of God ; And if the righteous be scarsly saued ; where shall the vngodly and sinner appeare ? Here 's Iudgement on Gods house , that is , on the righteous , that obey the Gospell , as well as on the vngodly that obey it not . And so t is , when the godly sinne , they smart for it , in priuate afflictions , in publique calamities , both wayes they finde God is not well pleased with their ill doings . When a Church and a State is ruinated , may not the most righteous take vp this confession . Lord thou art angry for we haue sinned Euen we by our sinnes haue hastened and increased the publique miseries ? I trow , none will deny it . Againe , the Text speakes of those that doe not call vpon Gods Name . But the godly call vpon it , Ergo. t is not meant of them . True , they doe call vpon Gods Name : but is this done alwayes with that diligence , with that zeale which God requires ? How comes it to passe then , that the godliest men are many times secure , slothfull , cold and carelesse in the duties of Gods most holy worship ? Yea , in the corrupt and declining times of the Church this happily is their fault chiefly , who themselues begin to freeze in so generall a coldnesse of the season , loosing much of that seruency of Spirit which the Apostle requires of vs , as at all times : so then especially , when it should reuiue and put heat into others , when their loue of Religion begins to waxe cold . At such times zeale in Gods seruice , vehemency in prayer , constancy in all Relious exercises , resolute , but discreet forwardnesse in the holy profession of Religion is most commendable . But yet it so comes to passe , that euen then much security and slackenesse ouercomes the godly , and whilest they should be a meanes to preuent a mischiefe , they hasten it vpon themselues and others . And thus the Iewish Church here in this place confesseth , that there were none that called on the name of the Lord , a carelesse negligence , and slacknesse in the Seruice of God , was come vpon them , so that as it is in the next words , [ there was none that stirreth vp himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to take hold of God. ] None awaked and rouzed vp himselfe with diligent endeauour to apply himselfe to the worship of God , A fault wherewith God may iustly be angry : as hee then was . This first exception then is friuolous . Others there bee as idle . 2 That by ( all ) in this place is to be meant the greatest part ; not all the Iewes , nor all their works were sinfull ; but the greatest part . For so the word [ All ] is taken in some places of Scripture : and therefore the Iesuits thinke , it must needs be taken so here . 3 That if it be meant of ( all ) simply : yet t is not to bee vnderstood at all Times . All the People and their workes were nought and sinnefull , when they were to be caried away Captiue : but it followes not , that they were so at other times . 4 This must be restrained to the righteousnesse which consistes in Obedience to the Ceremoniall Law. [ All our Righteousnesse ] that is , all our Ceremoniall workes in Sacrifices , Obseruations of Sabboaths , New-moones , Fasts and such like , [ are as filthy clouts ] being done in that manner as wee doe them ( viz ) without Faith and Obedience . To these we say . That there would neuer be an end , were a Man bound punctually to refute euery Cauill , which an Aduersary may frame out of his fancy-full imagination , and froward heart . We owe the Romanists no such credit : as to assent to any point of Religion vpon their bare affirmation . We can as confidently deny such Exceptions as these , without yeelding them a refutation : as they doe boldly make them without bringing any proofe . And certainely most vaine and vngodly is that course which our Aduersaries or any that tread in there steps doe hold in their Disputations , about serious points of Christian Doctrine : when being vrged with conuincing Scriptures , they thinke they haue done the part of Schollers , and satisfied the Consciences of others desirous of Truth , if they can amuse and stonny you a little with two or three Interpretations and prety exceptions , and so leaue you to chuse which you list . They will not tell you which they will stand to : but euen when there answers crosse one another , yet all shall downe , that if one helpe not , another may , and altogether may vexe you , when they cannot satisfie you . This quarrelsome humour of men , who seeke not the truth in loue : but write to maintaine , to dispute , is not the least vexation of the spirit , and wearinesse to the flesh of man ; as all those will witnesse , whose much reading hath led them along into the perplexed mazes of Schoole-learning , whether Diuine or humane . The third place of Scripture is , Psal 130. 3. If thou , Lord shouldest marke iniquities , O Lord who shall stand ? This place is parallell to the former , wherein the holy Prophet desires God to be attentiue to the voice of his supplications , craues this audience meerely of Gods fauour ; not vpon any righteousnes or worth of his own . As for that he confesseth . That if God should be strict to obserue wherein hee and all men doe amisse : neither himselfe , nor any other could be able to stand in his presence . Whence he flies from his Iustice vnto his mercy . But there is forgiuenesse with thee that thou mayest be feared . verse 4. Presumption then it is , and arrogant pride for any Romanist to say . Lord if thou doe obserue Iniquities : yet I shall be able to stand . In such and such good workes , be extreame to marke what is done amisse ; I feare not the tryall , nor will sue to thy mercy . From Scriptures we come to Reason . Which is thus . Wheresoeuer there is concupiscence and inordinate motions of the heart ; wheresoeuer there 's a defect of Charity towards God and Man ; Wheresoeuer veniall sinnes ( as our Aduersaries cals them ) are mingled with good works : there the best workes of men are not free from some corruptions and sinfulnesse . But in a man Regenerate there is concupiscence and euill motions of the heart present with him , when hee would doe good ; there is a want of that measure of loue to God and Charity to Man , which he might and ought to haue , there also are besides many veniall faults that accompany his best workes . Ergo , the works of a Man Regenerate are not euery way good : but in part sinfull . The Minor is cleere and confessed by our Aduersaries : especially for the two former circumstances of concupis●●●ce , and imperfection of Charity : and for veniall sinnes , they also acknowledge it a very hard matter to 〈…〉 in any good worke . Wherefore they are a driuen in a desperate manner to deny the Maior and to auouch . That neither concupiscence nor imperfection of Charity to God or our Neighbour ; nor yet veniall sinnes mingled with good workes , doe at all impaire the goodnesse and perfect righteousnesse o● our obedience to the Law ; but that they are as good with those infirmities , as without them . Bad causes must be helpt out , by bold and desperate attempts ; and so it ●ares with our Aduersaries in this point . They will vtterly deny that there is any thing euill in a man Regenerate : rather then be forced to confesse there is any thing euill in the workes , that he performes . The impudent vnreasonablenesse of this their Assertion , we shall shortly speake of . In the meane we goe on vnto the consideration of such Arguments , which are brought by our Aduersaries , to proue . That the good workes of men Regenerate , are truely and perfectly good , without all faultinesse in them . They proue it then . 1 From the examples of Iob and Dauid . Of Iob is said . Iob 1. 22. In all this Iob sinned not ; nor charged God foolishly , and chap. 2. verse 10. In all this did not Iob sinne with his lippes . Againe for Dauid : he is conscious to himselfe , of his owne innocency , and that no fault can be found in his doings , wherefore he prayes , Psal 7. 8. Iudge me , O Lord according to my righteousnesse , and according to mine integrity that is in me . And after all this , Psal. 18. 23. 24. He professeth openly his innocency , and reward for it . I was , saith he , also vpright before him , and I kept my selfe from mine iniquity . Therefore hath the Lord recompensed mee according to my righteousnesse , according to the cleannesse of my hands in his sight . And Psal. 17. vers 3. Hee declares how GOD had throughly tryed him : and yet found him faultlesse . Thou hast proued mine heart , thou hast visited me in the night , thou hast tryed me , and yet shalt find nothing : I am purposed my mouth shall not transgresse . How then can any man say that Iob and Dauid sinned mortally in their sayings and doings : when God himselfe witnesseth for them that they d●e not sinne ? Hereto we answere . That we doe not lay sinne vnto the charge of those holy men : nor doe we say they did ill ▪ where the Scriptures witnesse they did well . Iob in that first Act of his tryall quitted himselfe well , and ouercame the Temptation . He sinned not as afterwards he did , breaking forth into impatiency : and that is all the Scripture meant by that speech ; In all this Iob sinned not . But whether Iobs patience were in this first conflict euery way so vnreproueable , that not the least fault could be spied in it , in Gods seuere Iudgement , is more then we dare affirme , or our Aduersaries will euer be able to proue . For Dauid ; his innocent demeanor of himselfe , in the time of Sauls raigne was such : that no Imputation of vnfaithfulnesse or ambition could iustly bee layed to his charge . Wherefore when Sauls followers accuse him of treason against their Master : Dauid appeales vnto God desiring him to deale with him according to his Innocency in that behalfe . His owne conscience , and God with his conscience , after tryall made , acquit him from plotting and practising against Saul , as his Aduersaries said hee did . Thence it followes that Dauid did not offend in that kind whereof his Aduersaries accused him . His heart was vpright ; his life was innocent ; neither his Aduersares could make proofe , neither did his conscience accuse him , or God condemne him of these faults , that he was charged withall . Thus farre Dauid durst stand to Gods Iudgement ; that hee was innocent in those particular euils , whereof man had accused him : but it followes not therefore hee durst enter into iudgement with God ; and plead , that God himselfe could find no fault at all with him . Hee might haue many secret faults and imperfections euen in this most innocent passage of his life ; which neither himselfe knew , nor his enemies could come to the knowledge of : and therefore though he dare pleade his righteousnesse before God , so farre as man can accuse him of vnrighteousnesse , yet he dare not goe further to cleare himselfe against all that God may obiect against him . Heare what himselfe saith in this case , Psal. 139. 23. 24. Search me , O God and know my heart , try me and know my thoughts . Speakes the Prophet this out of confidence , that God vpon search and tryall , shall finde no euill in his heart and thoughts ? No , but out of holy desire , that whatsoeuer euill is found in him may bee amended . Hee knowes well that many things may be found faulty in him : and therefore he stands not to iustifie himselfe : but only sues for grace to redresse them ; adding in the next words . And see if there be any wicked way in mee ; and lead mee in the way euerlasting . 2 They proue that the workes of Men regenerate are not Sinnefull by the Scriptures which call them good workes and say that they are pleasing vnto God. 1. That they are good . [ Let your light so shine before Men that they may see your good worke : ] Matth : 5. 16. ( Charge the rich that they doe good and bee rich in good workes . ) 1 Tim. 6. 18. [ wee are his workemanshippe created in Christ vnto good workes ] Eph. 2. 10. [ why trouble yee the woman ; for shee hath wrought a good worke vpon mee . ] Mat ▪ 26. 10. 2. That they are also pleasing vnto God is apparant by these places . Ye are made ( an holy ●riesthood to offer vp spirituall sacrifices , acceptable to God by Iesus Christ ) 1 Peter 2. 5. In the Epistle to the Philippians , the Apostle calleth their almes seat vnto him ( An odor of a sweet smell , a sacrifice acceptable well pleasing vnto God ) Philip 4. 18. Againe . ( To doe good and to communicate forget not , for with such sacrifices God is well pleased ) Heb. 13. 16. Hence th●y argue . If the workes of Men regenerate bee good and acceptable vnto God : then certainely the Protestants erre in their Doctrine , teaching that the best workes of Men are sinnefull , for as much as Sinne is neither good in it selfe nor any way pleasing vnto God. Who is infinitely , offended at all iniquity . Hereunto we answere . That this Argument is nothing , but a forward and wilfull mistake of our doctrine . Wee teach , that the best workes of the best men are in part sinnefull . They thereupon cry out that wee take away all goodnesse from the workes of the godly , and that wee account them to be [ in se. a i. e. Ex natura sua ] damnable and mortall sinnes . This is a foolish calumny of Men that cannot distinguish , betweene the disease and the diseased Body : but straightway conclude that the whole body it selfe is nothing else , but a meere rotten vlcer , because it hath swellings and sores in some parts of it . Wherefore to vnfold their eyes in his point , they are to vnderstand that wee make a necessary & true distinction between That which is sinne and that which is sinnefull : teaching that the good workes of the Regenerate be not sinnes , though they be sinfull . Wee explaine it thus . That is to be called Sinne in its owne Nature , which is the transgression of the Law in doing any act forbidden ; or in leauing vndone any act commanded by the Law. The omitting , or committing of any such act is properly [ b in se & ex Naturâ suâ ] a sinne . Because it is directly and totally in the very substance of it against the Law. As to pray to a false God , or neglect prayer to the true God , are both of them sinnes in their very proper Natures : because both are forbidden by the morall law . That wee call sinnefull , which is for the maine substance of the worke conformable to the Law ; but it failes and offends against the Law in some circumstances required in the doing of it , when the thing is done which the Law commands , but no● perfectly in euery point as the Law commands it : such a worke , we say , is not a sinne , though it be sinnefull ; there is sinne in it , but it is not all sinne . This distinction our Aduersaries cannot but admit of , as in the workes of the Heathen and Christians vnregerate : so in the good workes of the Regenerate themse●ues . Wee and they confesse that the morall Vertues of the Heathen were good and commendable in the substance thereof : nor doe we thinke there is any men so deuoide of reason , as to affirme that the Iustice , Temperance , Chastity , Liberality of a Heathen , are meere vices & sinnes . We all grant , they were vertues : but yet our Aduersaries themselues cannot affirme , that they were euery way vertuous , free from all spots and staines of b Vice ; seeing they had neither faith & sanctity from whence they sprung ; nor the glory of God , at which they aimed . Now as the vertues of the naturall man , are in part vitious : so the good workes of the Regenerate are in part sinnefull . To fast , to pray , to giue almes , with the like workes of Piety or Mercy , we affirme and teach that they are good workes , good in their nature and vse : being such actions as the Law commands . We know none of our side so farre gone with passion , as to maintaine that a godly man sinnes , because hee fasts , prayes , and giues almes ; as if those very acts were nothing but damnable sinne . We detest such franticke opinions ; and if any of our Writers haue let slip such words , as may giue occasion to our Aduersaries , so to thinke of vs : we doe not , nor are we bound to iustifie euery hot and cholericke speech , breathed out in eagernesse of disputation . Good workes they be , truly and verily good : but they are not perfectly good . When a godly man prayes he doth well : but he neuer doth so well ; but he may doe better . Nor dare any man in the world auouch , that either the roote whence good actions come , is purged by perfect Holinesse : or the manner of doing them , is so exactly kept in a precise obseruation of euery circumstance , or the end in doing them Gods glory , and Mans good , so syncerely and truely aimed at : that the seuerity of Gods Iustice , cannot finde any the least failing in any of those things . This is all we teach touching the sinfulnesse of good workes , and thus we stand too : as a most certaine truth . And we say . That this sinnefulnesse accompanying our good workes , is sufficient to barre vs from Iustification by them . For we deserue not reward for what is well done , except all were well done . But neuerthelesse it shall not hinder Gods gracious acceptation of our good workes , who is well pleased with the obedience of his children so farre as it is good and holy : and when it failes , for Christs sake he mercifully pardoneth their Trespasses . Thus much of the second Argument . The third is from reason grounded on Scriptures . 3 Where there are ( sufficientia principia rectae operationis ) sufficient causes and meanes of well-doing : there a good worke may be done without all fault . — But in a man Regenerate , there are causes and meanes sufficient for well-doing — Ergo , He may doe well , and not offend . They proue the Minor thus . To the performance of any good worke , there is required nothing , but these things , Knowledge of what is to be done , will and power to do it — But now a Regenerate man hath all these . For first , his vnderstanding is enlightned , so that hee can easily know what is good to be done . Secondly , his will and affections are sanctified and aided by grace , to desire and endeauour the performance of it . And thirdly , and lastly , hee hath power to put in practise what he knowes and desires , there being no impediment inward , or outward that should hinder him — Ergo , he may doe well and sinne not . Here we desire them to shew vs. How a man Regenerate is enduded with such perfect abilities , as may helpe him : and quite rid him of all such impediments , as might hinder hi● in well doing . This ( they say ) is done by the grace of Sanctification , giuen vnto a Regenerate man , whereby hee is freed from all contagion of sinne : and such incombrances , as hinder him in well-doing . For by this grace giuen to him , hee is made a good tree : now [ A good tree cannot bring foorth ●ad fruit , Matth 7. 18. — And ergo , a good man cannot doe bad workes . 〈…〉 made a fruitfull Branch of Christ the true Vine , as it is Iohn 15. 5. I am the Vine , yea are the branches , he that abideth in me , and I in him , the 〈◊〉 beareth much fruit . And Ergo , That fruit onely which is good . Which Similitude of a Branch much illustrates the matter ( in their Imagination . ) For as in a Vine-Branch . If first it haue sufficient moisture from the Body of the Vine . Secondly , if it haue sufficient heat of the Sunne to digest that moysture . And thirdly , if it be not hurt nor hindred by Frosts , Wette , Windes , Wormes , or other such discommodities of the Ayre and Soile ; then certainely it will be are very much , and very good fruit : so is it in a man regenerate . From Christ he receiues sufficient moisture of Diuine Grace , which is in him , [ as a well of water springing vp vnto euerlasting life . Iohn 4. 14. ] He hath heat sufficient of spirituall affection , to cause him to bud forth into good workes . For Christ saith [ I am come to send fire on the earth , and what will I if it be already kindled . Luke 12. 49. And [ Did not our hearts burne within vs ] said the two Disciples that went to Emaus , Luk. 24. 32. Ergo , they haue heat enough . Finally , they haue no impediment . Neither inward . For why ? It is written , Rom. 8. 1. There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus . Ergo , no inward impediment to well-doing . Nor outward . For it written , [ nothing shall separate vs from the Loue of God , that is in Christ Iesus our Lord , Rom. 8. 38. Ergo , no outward impediment of good workes . Hereunto we make answer . That this Argument is a sophisticall cauillation ; which proues that which we do not deny . They say that a Man Regenerate , hath sufficientia principia rectae & honestae operationis . We say so too ; confessing that hee is made a good tree , a fruitfull Branch ; that hee is enlightened ; sanctified , and strengthened by the spirit of God vnto the performance of good workes . We grant that now he is enabled to doe well , who before his Regeneration could doe nothing saue●ll : but the question still remaines , whether now he doe so well , as that he doth nothing ill when he doth best . We grant that the Vine , which in former time yeelded nothing , but wild grapes , now being transplanted and grafted into the best Vine , beares good grapes : but we deny that they are so weet and kindly in eu●● respect , as not to haue a little relish still of their former wildnesse and sowrenesse . Wherefore our Aduersaries doe but trifle with vs to tell vs that Men Regenerate haue meanes sufficient to doe those workes that be good : this we deny not ; but we question whether they haue helpe sufficient to performe any worke so absolutely and perfectly good ; that God himselfe cannot charge it with any Sinne at all . This we constantly deny . And to their discourse , ( That a regenerate Man hath sufficient Knowledge , Power and will to doe good perfectly ) in this they affirme more then will euer bee proued . Our imperfections in euery one of these three particulars witnessed to our Conscience by Scripture and experience doth disable vs euer frō doing any worke entirely and totally good . Knowledge we haue : but much darkned by ignorance . We haue a will to doe good : but that also corrupted with much forward Rebelliō . A power we haue to do good : but alwayes crossed and much restrained by manyfold Lusts within , and Temptations without vs. How is it possible for vs , being compassed about with so many infirmities : but wee should offend in one thing or other ; Becanus here brings vs an instant of a good worke : and bids vs shew what sinne there is in it . If ( sayth he ) A Man regenerate read or heare those words of Christ. Mat : 6. [ giue almes ] hee being enlightned knowes that this is a worthy and honest worke . Wherupon he is touc●ed in heart and stirred vp to do it . He consents to this motion , and resols vpon the execution , which ( supposing that he be rich ) nothing now can hinder because he is both able and willing to giue . Now then this almes being thus giuen out of knowledge , and a pious motion of the Heart tending to Gods honour and our Neighbours good , the Iesuit desires to knew of vs , where their is any Sinne in it . Wee say there is some euill in euery good worke and therefore hee would haue vs tell him what euill there is in this Almesdeed . Vnto this we say , that this enquiry of the Iesuite is the most ridiculous and absurd thing , that can be . He asketh vs where is the Sinne ? what if we answere him we doe not know ; Is hee now euer the wiser ? what hath he gained hereby ? Are other Mens worke without all faults because we know not what they be ? Nay , are they without fault , because themselues know not whether there be any in them : or no ? what silinesse were it to argue in this sort ? Therefore when wee come to this point strictly to examine the workes of Men. First we tell the Iesuite that he must not put Cases touching generalities [ suppose that such a good worke be done so and so what then ] we dispute now touching particulars in euery Mans reall practice . The enquiry is not for the generall . ( What euill is there in such and such a good worke ) done thus and thus , according as the Circumstances are framed in an Imagined Case . As to aske what Sinne is their in an Almes-deede done out of Faith and Charity to Gods glory . This is a fond question thus framed vpon generall termes we say their is no Sinne in it . But the enquiry is in particular , what Euill their is in such a worke done by this or that , Man , according to all Circumstances , that were at that time incident to the worke , as . What sinne was there in Zacheus or Cornelius almes-deeds ? This question we admit , and answere to it , That some Sinne there was for which those holy Men , as wel as others , would not haue beene willing that God should enter into iudgement with them , strictly to iudge them . Yea , but will the Iesuits reply , name what Sinne this was ; or else you wrong them . Now this is meere impudency . For who is judge of their actions ? Are we ? or is it God and their owne Consciences ? we can be no judges , who at furthest can judge but accordrng to outward appearance . We know not their Hearts : nor are we priuy vnto euery particular Circumstance , that did accompany those actions of theirs Circumstances in euery particular action differ infinitely , one Man may offend in this point , another in that : nor haue we a generall Rule whereby to judge alike of all . And therefore it is a childish quaere to aske on Man whether another Man offendes , who may doe euill a 1000 times , not only secret from others , but vnwitting to himselfe . If then the Iesuite will haue an answere to his question , he must resort to particular mens Consciences , and to God : for only the spirit of Man , and the spirit of God know the things of Man. Let him aske a Cornelius when he giues almes , whether he doe thinke this worke so well done , that no fault can bee found with it . Doubtlesse he will answere , that he cannot excuse himselfe from all faultinesse : though he knew nothing by himselfe , yet he dares not stand to Gods judgment . His confession and prayer would in this case be the same with Nehemiahs . Nehem. 13. 22. [ Remember me O my God concerning this also , and spare mee according to the greatnesse of thy mercy . ] at once begging fauorable acceptance of his obedience , and gratious pardon of his infirmities . If this suffice not in the next place , the Iesuite is to repaire to God almighty and question him , where the Sinnes in such and such a good workes , who no doubt can shape him an answere that will sore confound his pride and folly , and make it quickly appeare vnto him , that sinnefull Man , when he pleades with God , is not able to answere him one obiection of a 100 , that God shall make against him . This of the third Argument . That Man hath sufficient meanes to doe well and not Sinne. The last followes , drawne from such absurdities , as they say doe follow vpon our Doctrine . Thus. 4 If ( say they ) our Doctrine be true that the best workes of Men be Sinfull : then these absurdities be likewise true doctrine . That to be iustified by faith is to be iustified by Sin. That no man ought to beleeue , because the worke [ Beleeuing ] is Sinne. That all good works are forbidden , because all Sinne is forbidden . That God should command vs to commit Sinne : because he commands vs to doe good workes . That God bidding vs be zelous of go●d workes , should in effect bid vs be zealous of mortall Sinne. That to pray for the pardon of Sinne were a damnable Sinne. These and such other absurd Positions would be true : if the protestants doctrine concerning the sinfulnesse of good workes may stand for good . Hereunto we answere . That these absurdities issue not out of our Doctrine , but out of our Aduersaries malitious Imaginations . Who like the ragine Sea casting vp mire and Dirt from its owne Bottome would faine throw all this filth in the face of the Reformed Churches , to make them odious and hatefull to the world . The best is . Truth cannot bee disgraced though it may be belyed . These foule Absurdities ; touch vs not : but follow vpon that Doctrine which is none of ours . Namely , That the good works of the Regenerate are in their very Nature altogether sins , and nothing else but sordes ▪ inquinamenta , & merae iniquitates . Such an absurd assertion would indeed yeeld such an absurd consequence . But we defended it not : & they abuse vs grosly , whē in their writings they report of vs the contrary that we doe mainetaine . This onely we teach . That mens good workes are in part sinfull . Much good they haue in them : but with all some euill mingled therewith . Amongst the gold , some drosse also will be sound , that will not be able to abide the fire of Gods seuere Tryall . Imperfections will appeare in our best workes , so long as humane infirmity and mortality hangs vpon vs. This we teach , and from this Doctrine all that haue reason , may see that no such vnreasonable conclusions can be collected . And let thus much suffice for the clearing of this third Proposition , touching the imperfection of our obedience to the Morrall Law of God , euen in the good workes which we performe . From whence euery godly heart should le●rne both Christian Humilitie and also Industry . First , Humility not to boast in the flesh and glory in its owne Righteousnesse , thinking that God must highly account off , and reward largely , that which is very little worth . Secondly , Industry in a faithfull indeauour after perfection . That what cannot be done well as it ought : wee may yet euery day be done better then before it was . CHAP. IIII. Three generall exceptions against the truthes deliuered in this third Section ▪ THus we haue stood long in the confirmation of our second Argument , touching the impossibility of Mans fulfilling of the Law in this Life , and so consequently of iustification by the Law. Against all that haue bin sayed for the profit of this point ; our Aduersaries haue three Common and generall Exceptions . Which are these . 1 That Concupiscence or Naturall Corruption in the first and second act of it , is no sinne . 2 That imperfection in our Charity and Obedience is no sinne . 3 That smaller faults , or ( as they tell them ) Venia●● sinnes , doe not hinder the Iustice and goodnesse of any good worke . To these three Positions they haue continually recourse . For whereas they cannot deny ; but that their is in the Regenerate ; both a pronesse of Nature vnto Euill , and also many inordinate Sinnefu●l motions arising thence : they first deny , that , either these Naturall Corruptions , or disordered Motions of the Heart be any sinnes . Againe , they confesse that no man hath such perfect loue of God and Man ; but that he may increase in charity : nor be his good workes so perfectly good ; but that they ought still to striue to doe them better : but then here also they deny , that this imperfection of our charity and good works , is any sinne . Lastly , they grant that no man can auoide veniall sinnes , scarse in the best workes he doth : but then they deny that veniall sinnes be contrary to the Law , so that albeit a man commit them , yet he may perfectly fulfill the Law of God. I cannot stand largely in the refutation of these foule errors . The confutation whereof belongs properly to the Article of remission of sinnes ; where the nature and kindes of sinnes are to be handled . For this present I shall but touch on them briefly , and proceed to the matter . 1 For the first ; we defend this conclusion . The vitious inclination and pronnesse of Nature vnto euill , as also the inordinate moti●ns of concupiscence , which goe before consent , they are sinnes euen in a man regenerate . That the inclination and pronnesse of Nature to sinne is a sinne , we proue thus . It is expresly so called by the Apostle , Rom. 7. not once nor twice : but almost in euery verse of the Chapter . I am carnall sold vnder sinne . The sinne that dwelleth in me . ver . 17. 20. The Law of sinne . verse 23. 25. In it selfe it is sinne , and deserues the wages of sinne , eternall death . For which cause the Apostle there cals it . The body of this death . verse 24. Because this inward Corruption ( which is like a Body that hath many members consisting of diuerse euill affections spreading themselues throughout his whole Nature ) made him lyable to eternall death , from which onely Gods mercy in Christ could deliuer him . 2 To rebell against the Law is Sinne. Ergo , To haue a rebellious inclination is sinne likewise . For if the act bee euill , the habite must needes be naught : if the Law forbid one ; it must needs forbid the other . If it be euill to breake any Commandement in act : is it not euill to haue , a pronenesse and readinesse of minde to breake it ? The habit denominated a man sinfull and not the act . Nor doth God lesse abhorre the pronnesse of man to offend him : then wee doe abhorre the rauenous disposition of a Wolfe , though it be a Cubb , not yet vsed to the prey ; or one tyed vp in a chaine , and kept from rauening . That the euill motions of the heart without consent be sins . 1 They are forbidden in the Morrall Law. In the tenth Commandement . Thou shalt not couet . For motions with consent are forbidden in the other Commandments . As appeares manifestly in Christs exposition of the Commandements . Mat. 5. 22. were not only the outward act of Adultery : but the inward desire is also forbidden ; if wee beleeue Christ the best interpreter of the Law : When Ergo the tenth Commandement forbids coueting [ of our Neighbours Wife , it either meanes the same kind of lusting , with a needelesse Tautology : or a different . viz. that which is not consented vnto . Nor can our Aduersaries shift this off : though Becanus most impudently denies it , with out any reason of his so doing . 2 We proue it thus . Whatsoeuer is inordinate and repugnant to right Reason : that is Sinne. But these Motions without confent be inordinate . — Ergo They be Sinne , The Minor is confessed . That these Motions be inordinati & recta Rationi repugnantes . The Maior is apparant . For what is Ordo & recta Ratio in Moralibus : but that course of doing any thing , which is conformable to Gods Law and his will. God is the God of order . His Law is the rule of order in all humane actions . Recta Ratio what is it ; but the conformity of mans vnderstanding and will vnto Gods will , which only is the rule of righteousnesse ; We neuer purpose and will matters aright : but when wee will them agreeably to Gods will. Wherefore it is a grosse absurdity to deny the Sinnefulnesse of these disorderly motions : seeing no man can breake those orders which God hath made , and yet be faultlesse . Nor is it possible a Man should doe that which is contrary to Gods will : And yet be without Sinne in doing of it . These motions then without consent be confusions in Nature opposites to the righteousnesse of the will of God ; and vnto that euen and streight order expressed in his Law. We conclude then that Concupiscence and inordinate motions of the Soule not consented vnto , are Sinnes contrary to our Aduersaries assertion . They bring some Reasons to proue they are not . 1 Originall sinne is taken away in Baptisme . But concupiscence is not taken away in Baptisme ; as appeares by experience in the regenerate in whom it remaines . — Ergo , concupiscence and pronnesse to Sinne , is no sinne . This Argument is friuolous . In Originall sinne , there are two things , First , the guilt . Secondly , the inherent corruptions . We say in Baptisme the guilt is altogether washed away from the Baptized Elect , by the blood of Christ. And for the corruption thereof , it is part done away by the sanctifying Spirit of Christ , powred out vpon the Regenerate , which by degrees purgeth out the inherent sinfulnesse of Nature , by replanting the graces of Sanctification in all parts . Concupiscence then , notwithstanding Baptisme remaines in the Regenerate , and is a sinne in them , the guiltinesse whereof God mercifully pardons in Christ. 2 What is not in our power to auoide : that God doth not forbid vs by his Law. But t is not in our power to auoide the Motions of the heart that preuent Reason and consent . Ergo , they be no sinnes forbidden vs. To this we answere . The Maior is true in things meerely Naturall , that fall out by the Necessity of Nature well disposed . So we say , Gods Law were vncouth , should he command a man neuer to be an hungry or thirst , which things he cannot auoide , but they come vpon him , will he , nill he ; by the meere necessity of Nature . But concerning inordinate motions , there 's no such matter . God hath layed no such necessity on Nature in her creation : but we by our sinne haue brought it upon our selues . Now such a necessity excuses vs not . In this case it helpes a man no more to say . [ I cannot auoid euill thoughts and desires : ] then it doth a desperate sinner , that by countenance hath hardened himselfe in euill courses ; or then it helpes the Diuels and the damned , if they should say ; Wee cannot chuse but doe euill . 3 They argue thus . That which would haue beene naturall and without fault in man , if he had beene created , in puris Naturalibus ; that is , no sinne nor fault in vs. But motions preuenting consent , would be naturall , and without fault in men so made . — Ergo , In vs they be no faults of themselues . Heere our Aduersaries haue made a Man of white Paper , or the like to Materia prima : that hath not any quality in him morally good or bad . That is . A Man that hath neither the Image of God in knowledge , righteousnes , and holines , engrauen on his vnderstanding , will , affections , and whole person ; nor yet , though it haue it not , hath in him any contrary euill quality , that comes vpon him by reason of such a defect . Now of such a Wiseaker they dispute . If God had created a Man thus ▪ in puris naturalibus , neither good , nor bad , then . What then ? As the old word is . If the Heauens fall , we shall haue Larkes good cheepe . Suppositions framed by our Imaginations touching what might be done , are vaine and needlesse when we see what is done . This we see that Man was created in God's Image invested with all reall Qualities of Righteousnes and Holinesse . This we see also , that Man being falne is borne in Originall corruption , depriued of God's Image , & thereupon depraued in his whole Nature by sinfull infirmity . Wherefore a man in his pure Naturals , one that hath neither Grace , nor Corruption , was neuer found in this world : yea , 't is a contradiction to imagine a man thus naked without his Qualities ; that he hath Reason , but neither enlightened , nor darkened , a will but meerely indifferent , neither enclined to good , or euill ; affections , but neither vertuously , nor vitiously disposed . In a word , that he is a Man capable of Vertue , or Vice ; Holinesse , or Sinfulnesse , and yet hath neither . That were to make a Man litle better then an vnreasonable Beast . But to follow them a little . Suppose a Man were made in his pure Naturals , would such disorderly motions be found i● him ? Yea , say they , and that boldly . Si Homo crearetur a Deo in puris naturalibus , proculdubiò constaret duabus partibus repugnantibus , Spiritu & Carne : & haberet duos app●titus contrarios . Rationalem , & Sensitivum : ergo naturaliter haber●t quosdam motus repugnantes Rationi . Without doubt the Iesuite is deceiued in this his Imagination , and his Argument is not worth a Button . A Man in his pure Naturals should haue two parts , a Soule and a Body , Spirit and Flesh ; he should haue two appetites , Reasonable and Sensuall , ergo , these parts in their motions and desires would be contrary one to the other . This consequent is false . They would be diuerse , not opposite and repugnant . The Body and the Sensitiues would lead a Man to those things that are agreeable to the Body . The Soule and reasonable appetite , or will would incline him to those higher and more noble objects agreeable to the Soule . But neither of these inclinations would crosse and trouble one another , the inferiour faculties , like the lower Spheares would moue differently from the superiour : but yet most orderly according to their owne nature , without impeaching the Motions of the other . Each faculty in it's place would worke orderly in sweet harmony and agreement each with other , had not Sinne brought in confusion and discord into the world , as betweene God and Man : so betweene Man and himselfe . This we further make good by this argument . Whatsoeuer is naturall , and so without blame in Man : that Christ took one him — But these inordinate Motions of the sensitiue appetite , repugnant vnto Will and Reason ; Christ tooke not on him — Ergo they are not naturall , and without blame . The Maior we proue by that , Phil. 3. 7. He was made like vnto Man : and Heb. 2. 17. In all things it behoued him to be made like vnto his Brethren . And againe , Chap. 4. 15. Wee haue not a high Priest which cannot be touched with a feeling of our infirmities : but was in all things tempted in like sort : yet without Sinne. Whence 't is manifest that Christ taking on him our Nature , tooke on him all the properties of our Nature , and with all such infirmities of our Nature as not sinfull in themselues , or the effects or punishments of Sinne in vs. If therefore it be naturall vnto Man , that the Motions of the sensitiue appetite should preuent and be repugnant vnto Reason , and that this is no Sinne except consent make it so : then certainly Christ had in him such motions and inordinate desires . But to affirme that , there were in Christ such disorderly Motions of his inferiour Faculties , repugnant vnto his Reason and Will , is a blasphemie against the immaculate Lambe of God , Christ was indeed tempted ( as the text saith ) and in like sort as we are : but will any Man heere vnderstand this of inward Temptations arirising from any thing within Christ , as if he were like vnto vs drawne aside with b Concupiscence and inticed , the motions of his sensitiue faculties , inclining him to that which was contrary to his vnderstanding and will ? We confesse that he was fiercely tempted by Satan and wicked Men from without : but that he was tempted by any thing in himselfe , by disorderly Motions of his heart tending vnto euill , and ergo checked by his will and Reason , this we account an abominable Errour touching the spotlesse humanity of our Sauiour . Wherein we deny , that there euer was any the least disorderly desire , thought , word , or worke whatsoeuer . And therefore we conclude , that such motions are not naturall vnto Men , becomming sinfull only by accident , because they are consented vnto : but they are accidentall vnto him , being the fruit of originall Corruption , and are in themselues verily and properly Sinnes . For Conclusion of this point , let vs heare that Argument which Bell. makes . 4. Where there is no Law , c there is no sinne . Rom. 4. 10. But there is no Law prescribed vnto sense and sensuall appetites . Ergo The Motions thereof are not sinfull . The Maior we grant . The Minor he proues ▪ Because the Law praesupposeth Reason in all that whereto it is giuen . But the sensitiue part of Man is without Reason , and ergo not capable of a Law , according as it is in bruite beasts , to whom ergo no Law is giuen . This he further proues by that place , Rom. 7. 20. Now if I doe that I would not , it is no more I that doe it , but Sinne that dwelleth in me . Where 't is plaine ( saith Bell. ) that the Apostle did not sinne , because he lusted against his will. 'T was not he did the worke : but 't was the Sinne in him . Wherefore he saith afterward . That in his mind , i. e. in his superior faculties he serued the Law of God : and kept it : although in his flesh , i. e. sensitiue appetite and inferiour faculties he serued the Law of sin : yet , for all that he sinned not in so doing , because sinne cannot be but in the minde , and the Law is not giuen to those facul●ies that be vnreasonable . To this we answere . That God giues no Law to vnreasonable Creatures , but such as haue Reason . The sensitiue faculties of bruite-beasts haue no other Rule then Natures instinct , which guides and moderates their seuerall motions in due order and measure . But in man those inferiour faculties how euer vnreasonable , are yet capable of Reasons Gouernment , which according to Gods Law prescribes vnto the motions of the sensitiue appetite their measure and bounds , beyond which they may not passe . If a man were vncorrupt , the appetite would obey this rule of Reason and keepe it selfe within those prescribed Bounds . But being now corrupt by Sinne , it breakes out beyond this compasse and ouerbeares Reason and will , which in their sinfull weaknes are not able to bridle these vnrulie motions . wherefore when Bell. saieth . That the Law is giuen to the reasonable will , not to the sensiue appetite ; it is vtterly false : Because in Man it is probable of gouernment , and so subject to the Law. Our Reason hath euen in this our corrupted estate a ciuill command ouer our appetite and affections ; so that it can moderate them by faire persuasions now and then . That which it can doe sometimes , it ought to doe alwaies , and if any affections can obey Reason at sometimes , were they not infected with Sinne , they would doe it at all times . And if they doe well when they obey , certainly they doe euill when they disobey . And ergo such motions of them , as are repugnant to right reason , are nothing but rebellion against God's Law. As to the place in the 7. Rom. we answere . That that Interpretation of it which Bell. brings is most peruerse and against all Sense . The Apostle complaines that he did the Euill , which he would not ; no doubt in so doeing he did sinne . But what is it now which committed this guilt or sinne ? It is not I that doe it saieth the Apostle : but that sinne that dwelleth in me . That is , according to Bell : not I in my mind , or superior faculties of Reason and Will : but my inferior Appetite and affections which doe this euill against my consent . So the meaning shal be Concupiscence in that duell in the Apostle committed Sinne : but the Apostle himselfe committed it not . Which is very absurd . As if a cholericke-Man hauing done a mischiefe in his anger should sa●e , It were not he did it ; but his raging passion : or an adulterer , that 't was not he committed the Sinne ; but his sinfull Affection that carried him further then reason would . So that if God will punish such a sinne ; he must not punish him : but onely his sensitiue appetite which was in fault . This is ridiculous , for besides that it crosseth the Romanists Doctrine manifestly ; in teaching that such disorderly motions of the sensitiue appetite be no sinnes , which heere the Apostle contradicts , saying plainly ( that the Sinne which dwelt in him did doe the euill he would not . ( viz , Sinne : ) it draweth after it this grosse Error . That some faecultie in man may sin , and yet the man not sinne himselfe . Wherefore the Apostle in that speach , 'T is not I doe it : but sinne in me . doth not oppose one facultie against the other , the reasonable will , against the sensitiue appetite , seeking for a shift to excuse his sinne , by putting it off from himselfe , to that which was not capable of Sinne : but he opposeth grace in euery facultie to Corruption in the same facultie ; as two contrarie Principles and causes of his actions , one mouing to good ; the other enclining to bad . Thence the Apostle saieth , that ( when he doth euill ) 't is not I that doe it . i. e , I regenerate according to the Grace , that dwelleth in me , for that inclines me to doe good : but 't is the Sinne dwelling in me which ( when I would doe well ) inclines me to doe euill . He heere shewes the Roote , whence this Euill comes : but yet he doth not put off the fault from himselfe . As 't is himselfe doth well : so 't is himself● doth ill too , according as he concludes . vers 25. Then I my selfe . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doe both well and ill ; well , according to Grace , in my mind that is regenerate , part both of inferior and superior facultie . I serue the Law of God ; but ill according to corruption remaining in me : but in my flesh , vnregenerate part the Law of Sinne. Much more might be added : but 't is not my purpose , heere to enter vpon the common place at large , I proceed to the second quaestion of our Aduersaries , who teach that albeit our Loue of God be imperfect : yet this imperfection is not sinne in vs. They grant . That no man hath any grace of the spirit : but he may encrease in it daily . that the Loue of God and our Neighbours may still grow on to farther degrees of affection ; That no grace , nor good worke hath that full perfection , which it might haue in this Life , or which we shall attaine vnto in Heauen . But they deny this defect to be any fault or sinne . 2. Defectus Charitatis quod ( viz ) non faciamus opera nostra tanto feruore dilectionis , quanto faciemus in patriâ , defectus quidemest : sed culpa & peccatum non est . saieth Bell. and againe Charitas nostra quamuis comparata ad Charitatem beatorum , sit imperfecta : tamen absolute perfecta dici potest . This is an Error , against which we defend this Conclusion in generall , touching both Charity and all man Righteousnes . The defects or want of Perfection in Mans Righteousnes is Sinne. For the proofe of this point we are to obserue , that the Imperfection , or Perfection of any thing is to be considered of two waies . 1 Comparatiuely . When any thing set by another is more or lesse perfect , then that other . 2 Absolutely . When considered in it selfe , it hath or wantes that Perfection which it should haue by its proper Nature . Betweene these there is great difference . For Comparatiue imperfection is not euill : absolute imperfection is Euill . We may see it in an example , The Senses that are in Man being compared with their like in other creatures , 't is manifest they are much excelled by them , as by an Eagle for sight , a spider for touch . &c. Heere we say that the eie of a man is not perfect as the eie of an Eagle : but yet we doe not account this imperfection any Naturall euill of the eie of a man. God might haue giuen a stronger and a clearer sight to men : but we , blame not his workes ; nor count our sight imperfect because it hath not that singular Temper which is in other Creatures ; but because it wants at any time that temper which is agreeable to our nature . Such a defect only , is properly an Euill in Nature , when something is wanting to the perfection of any part , which by the Course of nature should be there . Thus 't is also in Grace . Compare we the Righteousnes of man , or Angels , with the Righteousnes of God ; we saie that God's is infinitely more perfect then the Creatures . But now is this imperfection in Humane or Angelicall righteousnes any Euill and Sinne in them ? We saie No. Neither are the Angels sinfull because lesse righteous then God : nor Adam sinfull because lesse righteous then either . God made them both lesse good then himselfe : yet very good and without all Sinne. There be degrees of Righteousnes , and though the Creature be infinitely below the heighest pitch of goodnes ( which is God : ) yet he may bee still aboue that lowest descent vnto Sinne and vnrighteousnes . In Phylosophie we dispute whether the slackening of any degree in one Quality , be the mingling of another that is contrary . As heat in eight degrees if it decrease vnto seuen , whether there is any degree of cold mingled with it . 'T is heard to say that there is . But concerning Grace and Righteousnes 't is certaine , there is that remissio graduum without any admixtion of Sinne and iniquity . As the Holines of Saints is lesse then that of Angels ; that of Angels lesse then the Holines of Christs glorified Humanity , this lesse then his Diety . And yet in the least of these Righteousnesses there is no Vnrighteousnes at all to be found , no not in the seuere judgement of God. Except we say there is vnrighteousnes in Heauen where no vncleane thing can enter . Well then . What Imperpection of mans Righteousnes is it , which is Sinne ? We say . That Imperfection , when man in any Grace or good Worke wantes that degree of goodnes , which he ought to haue . As in nature . If the Eye want that cleernes of sight which should be in it : 't is a naturall Euill . In Morality if a man want that Temperance or degree of Temperance he ought to haue , it s a vitious and morall euill : so in Grace the want of that righteousnes or degree of righteonsnes which God requires to be in man , is a Sinne and spirituall Euill . All such priuations of what should be present are Euill in what kind soeuer . If they be in nature they be malamiseranda , deserue pity and cure : if in Vertue and Grace ; they be mala culpanda worth of blame and punishment . Such defects as these in Grace , when man fals short , not onely of that which is in others ; but that which should be in himselfe , doe alwaies arise from the mixture of Corruption and Sinne. Hee that loues n●t God or his neighbour so much as he ought to doe : 't is because his heart be wicked , at the least in part ; and that he loues others things more then he should doe . These things are certaine and vndeniable according to those words of St. Augustin that are authenticall . a Profecto illud quod minus est quam debet , ex vitio est . And againe . b Pec●atum est , vel cum non est charitas , quae esse debet : vel minor est quam debet . 'T is a Sinne , not to loue . God at all : or to loue him lesse then we should . Wherefore heere we aske the Iesuite whether Charity and other Graces in a man regenerate be so perfect in this Life , as they ought to be ? If he say , they be not so perfect , as they ought to be . how can he affirme that this defect is no fault nor Sinne : Can a man possibly doe worse , or be worse then he should ; and yet be i● no fault therefore ? If he say they be as perfect as they should be , his owne Conscience and the Conscience of all the men in the World will gain-say him for a liar . No man can say , that he loues God and his Neighbour asmuch as he ought to doe : and that he is not bound in euery grace and good worke to ariue at greater perfection , then hee hath for the present . He that thinkes himselfe come nearest vnto the marke , will yet be driuen to confesse , that he fals many bowes short of those patternes which we ought to imitate , Adam in his Innocency ; Christs Humanity , and the Saints in Heauen . Wee here bid them ( Depinge ubi sistam ) make a point where we shall stoppe : that when we are come so farre , we need seeke no further perfection . If they cannot do this , then they must confesse , as the truth is , that euery man is bound by Gods command to be more holy , to be more perfect in all Graeces and good workes ; and so farre as he wants any degree or dramme of goodnesse , that should be in him and his works , so farre he is sinfull and guilty of a fault . 3 I goe on to the last Assertion of our Aduersaries , which is to●ching veniall sinnes , ( viz. ) That these doe not hinder the righteousnesse of mens good workes . A man may be a perfect iust man , though he commit many veniall sinnes . The reason whereof they make to be [ because veniall sinnes are not contrary to charity , the loue of God and our neighbour , and so may stand well enough with the fulfilling of the Law. Against this errour , tending to the obduration of mans hart in impenitency & loue of sin : we maintain this conclusiō . Those sinnes which the Church of Rome cals veniall , doe truly make a man regenerate , and his workes vnrighteousnesse in the sight of God. This we proue by this one Argument . Whosoeuer transgresseth the Law , he is vnrighteous in so doing . But he that commits veniall sinnes , transgresseth the Law. Ergo , He that commits veniall sinnes is an vnrighteous man. The Maior is vndeniable . For the Minor our Aduersarie is at a stand . They are loath to grant it : yet cannot tell how to deny it with any honesty . Bellarmine after one or two shuffling distinctiōs of simpliciter , & secundum quid ; perfectè and imperfectè , at last plainly denies that veniall sinnes be contrary to the Law. For answering vnto those places in Iames. [ In many things we offend all , ] and that in Iohn . [ If we say we haue no sinne , we deceiue our selues . ] Hee saith they cannot hansomly shift themselues of those places , who hold that veniall sinnes be [ propriè contra Legem . ] Such as bee of that opinion [ Let them looke to it ( saith he ) what they will answere to that of Saint Iames. ] He that keepes the Law in one point , &c. ] He therefore will be more wise and wary . [ Sol●da igitur respensio est ( saith he ) Peccata venialia , sine quibus non viuitur , non esse peccata simpliciter , sed imperfectè & secundum quid : neque esse contra Legem , sed praerer Legem . ] And thus saith he , Omnia cohaerent ( like a Pebble in a Withe ) [ Nam qui ostendit in vno praeuaricans scilicet vnum praeceptum , reus est omnium & simpliciter iniustus constituitur & tamen in multis offendimus omnes , quia tametsi nihil facimus contra Legem ; tamen multa facimus praeter Legem . Et qui ●atus est ex Deo , non peccatat transgrediendo Legem , & tamen si dicamus q●ia peccatum non habemus . ( viz. ) nihil praeter Legem faciendo : no● ipsos seducimus , & veritas non est in Nobis . ] This is an vnbound Besome , as will appeare by vndoing that distinction which seemes to hold it together . Veniall sinnes are not against the Law : but besides the Law. Well , we must now know what is against the Law , & what besides . That is against the Law , when any thing is done which the Law forbids ; or left vndone which it commands . That is besides the Law , when the thing done is neither cōmanded , nor forbidden in the Law. He then that commits a veniall sinne , doth some such act as the Law neither forbids nor commands . Here then we aske . Be veniall sinnes , sinnes ? Yea , they be . Is God offended with them ? Yea , and he may iustly punish them , on vs with the losse of Heauen . For so Bellarmine himselfe confesseth . [ Peccata venialia nisi misericorditer remittantur impediunt ab ingressu illius Regni in quod nihil coinquinatum intrare potest . ] Now sure this is admirable , that such acts as these should defile a man , deserue hell , offend God , in a word be sinnes , and yet for all this neither commanded nor forbidden in any Law of God. Was there euer such a toy heard of as this ? as Sinnes beside the Law. T is a most ridiculous contradiction , Peccatum praeter Legem . He that doth any thing beside the Law , not mentioned , nor include ● therein by way of prohibition or command , t is most apparent he sinnes not , nor offends not at all . For whom doth he offend , or who can challenge him of Sinne ? Doth God the Law-giuer ? No , for t was not his intention to command or forbid such an act , and ergo , be it done or not done , it crosseth not his will : nor hath he any reason to finde fault or be displeased at it . Satan or Man cannot accuse him . For let them then shew the Law that prooues him an offender . If they cannot alleadge a Law against which he hath transgressed : they wrongfully accuse him of a fault . Were it not absurd accusation against a prisoner at the Barre ; to say that he hath indeed done nothing against the Lawes of the Land : but many things besides the Law not forbidden nor commanded in the Law , those hee hath done and deserues to be punished for it as an offender ? But now if those veniall sinnes bee mentioned in Gods Law : then are such actions either commanded or forbidden . If commanded , then the not doing of such a thing , is plainely contrary to the Law. As for example . c To steale a penny , or some other small matter , to please an idle word , to tell an officious lie ; these be veniall sinnes say our Aduersaries . But how hnow they , they be sinnes ? who told them so ? The Scriptures they will say . Where ? In the 8 and 9 Commandement . Aske them now . Did God intend in those Commandements to forbid those actions of stealing and lying ? Yea , or No ? If he intended it not ; then t is no sinne at all to doe them , seeing it cro●seth not Gods will , nor offends him . If he did intend to forbid vs those things : then to doe them is a sinne , manifestly contrary to the holy will of God , the Lawgiuer . Wherfore let vs here remēber that excellent rule of Bernard . [ Non iussa quïdem licitè vtrumlibet , vel admittuntur vel omittuntur : iussa vero sine culpa non negleguntur , sine crimine non ●ontemnuntur . For things not commanded : we may either lawfully doe them or leaue them : but for things commanded , to neglect them is a sinne , to contemne them is a haynous crime . Wherefore this distinction of sins against , and sinnes beside the Law falleth to dust : and our Minor Proposition stands firme : That he who committeth veniall Sinne , transgresseth the Law of God , and therefore is vnrighteous for his so doing . a Becanus here forsakes the Cardinall in this distinction : and helpes him by an other deuis● . He grants that Veniall Sinnes be against the Law , and proues it , [ because euery Veniall Sinne is moraliter malum , and Ergo contra rectam rationemet Legem aeternam . ) But here 's now the distinction : It is one thing to be contra Legem ; another contra finem Legis . All Veniall sinnes be against the Law : but no veniall sinne is properly against the end of the Law. that is , against Charity the Loue of God or our Neighbour . Is not this a superfine Inuention ? As if a Subiect that hath in many things broken the Law , should say . True my faults be against the Law of the Land : but yet they are not against the end of those Lawes . viz. obedience to my Prince , and Loue to the good of him and my Country . Though I break the Lawes : yet I would not haue you thinke ; but I loue and honour my Prince and Country well enough . Iust so the Iesuits . A man may commit many sinnes against Gods Law : and yet obserue the end of the Law , in louing God with all his heart ; and his Neighbour as himselfe . Then which nothing can be more senselesse , that a man should offend God in breaking of his Law : and yet not withstanding loue God with his whole heart . That a man should wrong his Neighbour doing that to him which he would not haue done to himselfe : and yet , for all that , loue his Neighbour as himselfe . ( If ye loue mee keepe my Commandem●nts ) saith Christ. Iohn . 14. 15. Nay ( say the Romanists ) we loue him and yet breake his Commandements . ( Loue doth none eu●l to his Neighbour ) saith the Apostle Romans . 13. . 10 Nay ( say the Iesuits ) Loue may doe euill to his Ne●ghbour : and yet keepe the name of loue . A man may be angry with another without cause , reuile him , and call him Racha , hee may defraude him in small matters ( for these they make veniall sinnes ) and yet in the meane time , all this without breath of Charity . Himselfe would not willingly be so vsed : but hee will vse another in this sort ; and yet looke to bee thanked for his loue too . Such grosse absurdities doe our Aduersaries runne in to , by coyning such senselesse distinctions of ( Sinnes not against : but besides the Law ) of sinnes not against the end of the Law : though against the Law it selfe . Our Consciences cannot be satisfied with such silly shiftes : and therefore we leaue them vnto those that can content themselues ; and choake vp their Consciences with a little sophistry . Men who make a pastime of sinne ; and take liberty to qualifie and dispence with Gods Law as they thinke agreeable to their Conscience ; hoping by tricks of wit and dodging Distinctions to a void the accusations of Conscience , and to elude the seuerity of Gods Iudgement . SECT . 4. CHAP I ▪ Iustification by workes makes void the couenant of grace of the difference between the law & the Gospel . of the vse of the Law. of the erroneous conceit of our Aduersaries in this point . THus much of these three Exceptions of our ●econd Arg●ment , prouing the impossibili●y of our Iustification by the workes of the Law , because we cannot perfectly fulfill the ●aw . We goe now forward vnto two Arguments more ; taken , the one from the difference of the two Couenants God hath made with man. First of works , the other of grace : and the other from the Nature of true Christian Lib●rty obtained for vs by Christs death . 3 Argument . That which makes voide the Couenant of Grace is a false and haereticall doctrine . But Iustification of workes of the Law , makes void the Couenant of Grace . Ergo , T is false and haeriticall so to teach . For confirmation of the minor in this Argument wee must briefly shew . 1 ( What the Couenant of Grace , what the Couenant of workes is ) 2 What opposition their is betweene these two . By the Couenant of Grace we vnderstand in one word , the Gospell , i. e. the gratious appointment of God to bring man to Saluation by Iesus Christ. In the administration of this gratious purpose of God we must obserue foure periods of time , where in God hath diuersly ordered this meanes of Mans saluation . 1 The first is from Adam vntill Abraham . Werein God made the promise to Adam anone after his miserable fall : and renued it as occasion serued vnto the Patriarches and Holy men of that first Age of the world . viz. That ( the seede of the woman should breake the Serpents head ) This blessed promise containing the whole substance of mans redemption by Christ , was religiously accepted of , and embrased by the seruants of God in those times . who witnessed their Faith in it , by their offering of sacryfice as God had taught them : and thier Thankfulnesse for it , by their Obedience and holy Conuersation . The second is from Abraham to Moses . After that men had now almost forgot Gods promise and their owne duty : and Idolatry was crept into those Families , wherein by succession the Church of God had continued , God cals forth Abraham from amongst his Idolatrous kinred , & with him renues that former promise in forme of a League and Couenant confirmed by word & solemne Ceremonies . God on the one side promising to be the God of Abraham , and of his seed , & that in his seed all the Nations of the earth should be blessed : Abraham for his part beleeuing the promise , and accepting the condition of ●bedience to walke before God in vprightnesse . This Couenant with Abraham is rat●fied by two externall Ceremonies . One of a fi●e-brand p●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 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 , a 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 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 Con●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 Mortificati●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 a 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 Synecd●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 b 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 teārmes 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 cōcluded 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 a 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 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 a of death and Condemnation ] b [ Killing d Letter ] that it ( workes wrath ) that it is a [ Yoake d of Bondage a [ Testament c bringing forth Childeren vnto Bondage ] . But vnto the Gospell , e that it is [ The ministry f of Life ] and [ of Reconciliation ] g the h ( 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 ei●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 ●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 m●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 accōpanies 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 b 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 adoptio● was but conditionall with regard of Time to come : but , for the presēt , 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 In●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 lōg 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 ●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 fu●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 a sure obligation vnto punishment , binding ouer the transgressor vnto the paines of God's aeternall wrath by a strōger chaine then of Steele or Adamant : Christ by his meritorious satisfaction hath broken these bonds , and ransomed vs from this fearefull Bondage vnto Hell and destruction . He being made a Curse for vs , hath redeemed vs from the Curse of the Law. Gal. 3. 13. That is , By taking on himselfe the punishment of our Sinnes , in his owne person suffering , and satisfying the wrath and Iustice of God , he hath once for euer set vs free from the dreadfull vengeance of God , which we deserue should fall vpon vs for our Iniquities . 2 In our deliuerance from the Power of Sinne , which though it abide in vs in the Reliques of our corrupted Nature : yet by the power of the Holy Ghost dwelling in the Hearts of the Regenerate , it is subdued and kept vnder , that it doth not reigne nor exercise it's commanding authority without Controle . So that whereas the Vnregenerate be the Seruants of Sinne , wholly at the command of Satan and wicked affections , the Regenerate are freed from this slauery being ruled and guided by the Spirit of the Lord , which wheresoeuer it is , there is liberty , as the Apostle speakes , 2 Cor. 3. 17. Liberty from that blindnes wherein we are holden by Nature , not knowing what the will of God is . Liberty from that rebellion and infirmity of our Nature , whereby we are , nor willing , nor able to doe the will of God. From which we are freed in part by the Spirit of Christ , inlightning our Mindes , and changing our Hearts . This Liberty from Sinnes dominion and damnation , S. Paul joynes together , Rom. 8. 2. ( The Law of the Spirit of Life , which is in Christ Iesus , hath freed me from the Law of Sinne and of Death . ) And againe , Rom. 6. 14. Sinne shall not haue Dominion ouer you , for ye are not vnder the Law , but vnder Grace . 2 Our freedome from the Law is eithr from the Ceremoniall or Moral law . The Ceremoniall Law contained in it diuerse Carnall Ordinances ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) to endure vntill the time of reformation . From all which Christ hath freed the Church of the New Testament , as namely . 1. From the whole burthen of Legall ceremonies whatsoeuer vsed in the worship of God. Those resemblances are of no vse now , when the substance it selfe is come in place : nor may such beggarly and impotent rudiments be sought after , when greater perfection is to be had . Gal. 4. 9. 2. From that restraint in things indifferent , whereunto the Iewes were tied , but we are not bound . Such are the obseruations of dayes , of Meates and Drinkes , of Garments , with the like . Wherein the Iewes were rest●ayned : but our consciences are left free , being taught that euery Creature of God is good being sanctified by Prayer and thankesgiuing . 1. Tim. 4. 4. 5. And that to the b pure all things are pure . Onely this being obserued , that we abuse not this our Liberty , but that as we are informed by Faith that all things are lawfull for vs : so we should be taught by charity to see what are expedient in regard of others . That a due regard be had of others infirmity , that nothing be done whereby the truly weake may be scandalized , as the Apostle commands , Rom 14. 21. By which ●eanes Knowledge on the one side still preserues vs , that our consciences be not i●snared with superstition , and charity on the other side shall keepe our Liberty from degenerating into Licentiousnesse , and vnchristian contempt of our weake Brethren . 2 Our freedome from the Morall law stands in this , that whereas the Law requires of euery Man , vpon strictest termes of Necessity , full and compleate Obedience to all things whatsoeuer contained in it , if he will auoide the punishment of Hell fire : Christ hath freed all that belieue in him from this heavy and rigorous exaction of the Law , taking away from our Consciences this obligation vnto a necessary fulfilling thereof , vpon paine that we shall forfeit Heauen if we doe it not . As we shall see more anon . 3 In the last place our Freedome is from Men : namely from all power and authority they may claime ouer our consciences : they may hold our persons in subjection , but they cannot command ouer our consciences . We acknowledge no Iurisdiction of Man or Angel ouer our Consciences ; but only that of God that created vs , and of Christ that hath redeemed vs. Whosoeuer ergo shall impose vpon Man any humane Traditions , Opinions , or Ordinations whatsoeuer to tye his conscience vnto obedience by vertue of his own authority , such a one trenches vpon Gods high Praerogatiue , & vsurpes tyrannically ouer the soules of Men , according , as at this day , that Man of Sinne doth . But here we must obserue that Humane Constitutions be either Ecclesiasticall or Politicall . Ecclesiasticall concerne either the matter and substance of God's & worship when any thing is invented by Man , & commanded , wherein and whereby to worship God. 2 The Manner and externall order of God's worship in the determination of indifferent circumstances tending to decencie and comelinesse . For the former we renounce and reiect all humane authority whatsoeuer , that shall without warrant from the Scriptures , prescribe vnto the Church any doctrine to be receiued as a diuine Trueth or Custome , Ceremony or Practise whatsoeuer , to be obserued as a proper part of God's most holy worship . According as our reformed Churches haue happily recouered their Liberty by breaking asunder those cordes , & casting away that Yoake of false doctrine of Superstitions , ●●r●moniall will-worships , wherewith not Christ , but Anti-Christ had insnared and oppressed the Church . And they haue God's owne warrant for so doing , Isay. 29. 13. ratified and explained by Christ , Mat. 15 , 9. ( In vaine they worship me , teaching for doctrine Mens precepts : ) which was a thing contrary to God's expresse commandement , Ezech. 20. 18. ●● . ( Walke yee not in the ordinances of your Fathers , neither obserue their manners , nor defile your selues with their Idoles : I am the Lord your God , walke in my Statutes , and keepe my Iudgements and doe them . ) For the later , namely humane Constitutions concerning indifferent Circumstances in God's worship , tending to orderly decency , agreeable to the simplicity and purity of the Gospell : herein wee must acknowledge the authority of the Church though not ouer our Consciences to binde them : yet ouer our practises to order & limit them . Accordingly as also we doe in the other branch of humane Obediences . viz. Politicall or ciuill , comprising all Law , touching lawfull things made for the gouernance of Kingdomes ; or inferior states by the supreame Magistrate , that hath authority so to doe . Wherevnto we ( must be subject , not because of wrath onely , but also for conscience sake . ) For Conscience sake , not because the highest Monarch on Earth hath power ouer the Conscience of his meanest subject ; to binde it by vertue of his owne authority : but because God hath established the Magistrates authority and commanded subjects Obedience in lawfull things , and therefore we cannot disobey them without breach of Conscience , in disobeying and viol●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 l●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 So●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 bōdage vnto the Law , wherein all men are holden , which are in state of infidelity & vnregeneration , from whom the Law in extremest rigour exacts perfect Obediēce if they will be sau●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 a 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 b 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 circūcised , Christ shall profit you nothing . For I testifie againe to euery man , which is circumcised , that he is bound to keepe the whole Law ) The Apostles dispute is heere evident . The Galatians may not be circumcised , not obserue the Ceremoniall Law. why ? Because if they did Christ should not profit them at all . But what reason is there for this , that Circumcision & the Ceremonies should frustrate the benefit of Christs death ? The Apostle alleageth a good reason , because the obseruation of the Ceremoniall Law , tied them also to the fulfilling of the whole Morall Law. The Argument is thus framed . They who are bound to keep the whole Law haue no profit at all by Christ. But they who are circumcised , are bound to keepe the whole Law. ergo , They that be circumcised haue not profit at all in Christ. The minor in this Argument is the expresse words of the Text , and the proofe of it is euident in Reason , because the retaining of Legall ceremonies did in effect abolish Christ's comming in the Flesh , who by his comming in the Flesh , had abolished them . And ergo , they who in reviving them , denied Christ's death , had no meanes at all to be saued : but only by the fulfilling of the Morall Law. Wherevnto they were necessarily bound , if they meant not to perish . Which reason yet is of no force before Christ his comming , and ergo then circumcision and other legall ceremonies , did not lay vpon the Iewes such a strict obligation to fulfill the whole Law. The Maior Proposition is the very reason of the Apostles Enthymeme ; thus . ( Men circumcised are bound to keep the whole Law : Ergo , Christ shall not profit them ) The Reason of the consequence is this Proposition , ( Whosoeuer are bound to keepe the whole Law , Christ profiteth them nothing at all . ) This Argument , and the Reason thereof , will hardly passe with approbation in the Iesuites Schooles , ( Men are bound to the whole Law , ergo , Christ shall not profit them . ) Nay , will they reply : That 's a non sequitur . For by that doctrine , Christ's death hath cancelled that streight obligation of fulfilling the Law : But euery one that beleeues the promise of saluation in Christ , is yet notwithstanding obliged to fulfill the whole Morall law . For this is ( say they ) the very Condition wherevpon he must haue benefit by the promise , euen ( a Perfecta Mandatorum ●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 b 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 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 , ●●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 b 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 ●●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 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 a Eusebius and Hier●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 Sanctificatiō 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 a Bellarmine himselfe being judge St. Iames in the example of Rahab speakes of the first Iustification , because ( as he saieth ) she was then , at the first made a beleeuer of an infidell a righteous woman of an harlot . And againe Paul , he speakes of the 2. Iustification in the example of Abraham , which is alleaged by both the Apostles . Heere 's then a confusion insteed of a distiction . Paul speakes of the first , Iames speakes of the 2. and yet both do speake of both Iustifications . Againe when they say Iames speakes of the second Iustification , whereby of just a man becomes more just , ti 's a groundlesse imagination for asmuch as it was to no purpose for the Apostle Iames to treat of the second Iustification , whereby men grow better : when those Hypocrites , with whom he had to doe , had erred from their first iustification , whereby they were not , as yet , made good , as the learned b Iackson obserues . Nay there is not in all St. Iames his dispute , any s●llable , that may giue any just suspicion that by Iustification , he meanes the increase of inhaerent Iustice. c Bellarmine catcheth at the clause . v. 22. ( By workes Faith was made perfect ) which is , in the Iesuites construction , Abraham's inhaerent justice , begun by faith , receiued increase and perfection by his workes ) But this is onlie the Iesuites phrensie . Abraham his faith and his Righteousnes , whereof his Faith is but a part , was not made but declared to be perfect , by so perfect a worke ) which it brought forth , as euen Lorinus another of that sect expounds it orthodoxly . 3 Thirdly , that distinction of workes done before Faith , without grace , and after Faith by grace , is to as litle purpose , as the former ; in this matter of our Iustification . Heretofore we haue touched vpon that distinction and shewed the vanitie thereof , in limiting St. Paul to workes done without grace , when simplie he concludes all workes from our Iustification . And St. Iames though he require workes of grace to be ioyned with that Faith which must justifie vs : yet he giues them not that place and office in our Iustification , from which Paul doth exclude them , and wherein our adversaries would establish them , as it shall appeare anon . Leauing then this sophisticall reconcilement coined by our aduersaries I come to those reconciliations which are made by our diuines ; wherein we shall haue better satisfaction vpon better grounds . Two waies there are whereby this seeming difference is by our Men reconciled . 1. The 1. by distinguishing the word ( ● Iustification ) which may be taken either 1 , For the absolution of a Sinner in Gods iudgement . 2 , For the declaration of a mans Righteousnes before men . This distinction is certaine and hath its ground in Scripture which vseth the word Iustifie in both acceptions , for the quitting of vs in Gods sight , and for the manifestation of our innocency before man against accusation or suspicion of faultines . They applie this distinction for the reconciling of the two Apostles . Thus. St. Paul speakes of Iustification , ( in foro Dei ) S. Iames speakes of Iustification ( in foro hominis ) A man is justified by faith without workes saieth S. Paul : that is in God's sight , a man obtaines remission of Sinnes and is reputed just only for his Faith in Christ , not for his workes sake . A man is justified by workes ; and not by Faith onely saieth S. Iames that is , in mans sight we are declared to be just by our good workes , not by our Faith onely : which with other inward and invisible Graces , are made visible vnto man onely in the good workes , which they see vs performe . That this application is not vnfit for to reconcile this difference , may be shewed by the parts . 1. For S. Paul , ti 's agreed on all sides that he speakes of mans iustification in God's sight . Rom. 3. v. 20. 2. For S. Iames we are to shew that with just probability he may be vnderstood of the declaration of our Iustification and righteousnes before men . For proofe whereof the Text affords vs these reasons . 1. Verse . 18. Shew me thy Faith without thy Workes and I will shew thee my Faith by my workes . Where the true Christian speaking to the Hypocriticall boaster of his Faith , requires of him a declaration of his faith and Iustification thereby , by a reall proofe , not a verball profession , promising for his part to manifest and approue the trueth of his owne Faith by his good workes . Whence it appeares , that before man , none can justifie the soundnes of his Faith : but by his workes thene proceeding . 2. V. 21. Abraham is saied to be justified when he offered vp his sonne Isaak vpon the Altar . Now ti 's manifest that Abraham was justified in Gods sight long before ; euen . 25. yeares Gen. 15. 6. Therefore by that admirable worke of his in offering his Sonne he was declared before all the world to be a just man and a true Beleeuer . And for this purpose did God tempt Abraham in that triall of his Faith : that thereby all beleeuers , might behold a rare patterne of a liuely and justifying Faith , and that Abraham was not without good cause called the Father of the Faithfull . 3. V. 22. It is saied that Abrahams faith wrought with his worke and by workes was his faith made perfect . Which in the iudgement of popish a Expositors themselues , is to be vnderstood of the manifestation of Abrahams faith by his workes . His Faith directed his workes : his workes manifested the power and perfection of his Faith. It is not then without good probability of Reason , that Caluin and other Expositors on our side , haue giuen this solution vnto this doubt . b Bellarmine labours against it and would faine proue that justification cannot be taken heere pro declaratione Iustitiae . But his Argument cannot much trouble any intelligent reader , and therefore I spare to trouble you with his sophistry . This now is the first way of reconciling the places . Howbeit the trueth is , that although this may be defended against any thing that our aduersaries objected to the contrary : yet many and those very learned divines chose rather to tread in another path and more neerely to presse the Apostles steps ; whom also in this point ● willingly follow . 2 The second way then of reconciling these places , is by distinguishing of the word ( Faith ) which is taken in a doubled sense . 1. First for that Faith , which is true and liuing ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Faith which worketh through loue ) and is fruitfull in all manner of Obedience . 2. Secondly for that Faith which is false and dead , being onely a bare acknowledgment of the trueth , of all Articles of Religion accompanied with an outward Formality of Profession : but yet destitute of sincere Obedience . This distinction of this word ( Faith ) is certaine by the Scriptures , as hath heretofore bin shewed in handling of that Grace . Our Men now apply it thus . S. Paul when he affirmes that we are justified by Faith onely , speakes of that Faith which is true and liuing working by Charity . S. Iames when he denies a Man is justified by Faith only , he disputes against that Faith which is false and dead , without power to bring forth any good workes . So that the Apostles speake no contradictions , where Paul teacheth we are iustified by a true Faith , and S. Iames affirmes we are not justified by a false Faith. Againe S. Paul saith we are not iustified by workes . S. Iames saith we are justified by Workes . Neither is here any contradiction at all . For S. Iames vnderstands by Workes , a ( working Faith ) in opposition to the idle and dead Faith before-spoken of ( by a Metonymie of the Effect . ) Whence it is plaine that these two Propositions ( Wee are not iustified by Workes ) which is Pauls , and ( We are iustified by a working Faith ) which is Iames , doe sweetly consort together . Paul seuers Works from our Iustification , but not from our Faith. Iames ioyned Workes to our Faith , but not to our Iustification . To make this a litle plainer by a similitude or twaine : There is great difference betweene these two sayings , ( A Man liues by a Reasonable soule ) and ( A Man liues by Reason . ) The former is true , and shewes vs what qualities and power are ess●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 animan● 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 . a 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 reprehens●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 1 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 . Th●t it is an v●pro●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 proofe ▪ yet because hypocrisie is euer armed vvith sophistrie , for a plainer Conviction , the Apostle proues it by this manner of Argumentation . That Faith which saues a Man is a true Faith. But a Faith without workes is not a true Faith. Ergo A Faith without workes will not saue a Man. The Maier is euident to all that haue Reason . The Minor S. Iames proues by diuerse Arguments . 1. dravvne● pari , from comparison vvith another like vertue . Namely Charity tovvards the poore . The Argument is thus . If Charity towards the poore professed in Words , but without workes be counterfeit , then Faith in God professed in like manner without Obedience is also counterfeite not true . But Charity towards the poore in words professed without deeds is a counterfeit Charity . Ergo , Faith in God without Obedience is a counterfeit and false Faith. The Reason of the maior Proposition is euident , from the similitude that is betweene all Vertues and Graces . There is no vertue , but men may counterfeit and falsely arrogate it to themselues ; as they may boast of a false Faith , so also ( as Salomon and experience speakes ) of a false Liberality , false Valour , false Prudence , &c. Now there is but one way to discouer this counterfeiting in any kind , and that is to goe from words to workes , from praesumptions and boastings to actions . This way all count most certaine , nor will any man beleiue words against workes , or be persuaded by faire speaches , that the habites of vertues and graces be truly seated in his mind , whose tongue tells vs they be so : but his doeings confute his sayings . Wherefore the Apostle in his comparison proceedes on an vndeniable ground . Now for the minor ( that the Charity which is rich in good words , and poore in almesdeeds , is not true but counterfeit pitty ) the Apostle shewes by an ordinary instance ( If a brother or sister be naked , and destitute of daily food ) that is . If a beleiuing Christian want food and raiment or other necessaries ( and one of you say vnto them , depart in peace , and be ye warmed and filled ) If he giue him kind words , Alas poore soule I pitty thee and wish thee well , I Would I had to giue thee , goe in God's name where thou mayest be releiued , and so let him passe with a few pittifull Complements , notwithstanding yee giue them not those things which are needfull for the body : what doth it profit . Is the poore man's backe euer the warmer ? or his belly the ●●ller , with a few windy complements ? Can such a man persuade any that he hath in him indeed the bowells of mercie and compassion towards the needy , when they find such cold entertainment at his Gates : 'T is manifest that this is but a meere mockery , and that such pittifull words come not from a heart that 's truely mercifull . The Apostle now applies this touching Charity , vnto Faith. v. 17. Euen so Faith if it haue not workes is dead being alone . As that Charity , so also that Faith which men professe without Obedience is false and fained , and therefore vnprofitable to saue a man. It is dead : How must this be vnderstood ? Faith is a quality of the soule , and qualities are then saide to be dead , when they are extinguished . As if we should say such a man's Charity is dead ; it is because he hath lost it ; that which was in him is abolished . But this is not the meaning . For then when St. Iames saieth that Faith is dead being alone : his meaning should be that Faith seuered from workes , is no Faith at all : but quite extinguished . Now this is not so . For there 's a Faith seuered from workes in Hypocrites , Haeretiques , Reprobates and Deuills . Which Faith is a generall assent to all diuine truthes : and this Faith in them hath a true being , but no sauing vse . Wherefore . it is called ● dead faith in regard of the effect : because 't is nothing availeable to bring them in whom it is , to Life and Saluation as a true and liu●ng Faith is . Heere our Aduersaries haue much strange Contemplation , telling vs that Faith without workes though it be a dead Faith , yet 't is a true Faith. Euen as an Instrument is a true Instrument , though it be not vsed . So that in their Philosophy ti 's one and the same true Faith which is dead without , and liuing with workes . Euen as 't is one and the same Body which liues with the Soule and is dead without it : or as water is the same whether it stand still in a Cisterne or runne in a Riuer . Whence they proceed to discourse that Charity is the forme of Faith : and conclude that it is not the inward and Essentiall forme of it , as the Soule is the forme of a man ( for that workes are not essentiall to Faith ) nor the accidentall forme as whitenes is of Paper ; because Faith according to their Schooles , is in the vnderstanding , and Charity in the will ▪ But it is the externall Forme of it , because it giues to Faith a merit and worthines for the deserving of Heauen . These fond speculations of the Forme and merit of Faith I passe by now , hauing touched vpon them heeretofore . To that which they say . That a liuing Faith , and a dead Faith is one and the same true Faith : 't is vtterly false , they differ asmuch as Light and Darknes . 1. In their subject . a dead Faith is in the Reprobate Men and Deuills . A liuing Faith only in the Elect. 2. In their Object . A dead Faith assents to diuine Reuelations as barely true or good onely in the generall : a liuing Faith assents to them , as truer and better in themselues ; then any thing that can be set against them . 3 , in their Nature . A dead Faith is no sanctifying Grace : but a common gift of Creation as in the deuill ; of ordinary illumination as in Reprobate Men. A liuing Faith is a sanctifying Grace , a part of inhaerent holines wrought in the heart by the speciall power of the Holy Ghost . All which haue bin heeretofore cleared in handling the Nature of Faith. Wherefore vnto those arguments or Sophismes rather , which a Bellarmine brings to proue that Iames speakes of a true diuine , infused , Catholique , Christian Faith , though it be dead faith ; I answere breifely . That we grant a dead Faith to be a true Faith : but it is in its kind . Because it hath a true being in men and deuils , in whom it is , and ti 's directed toward true objects : But it is not that true Faith which is Catholique Christian & sauing . This is of another kind , and in comparison of this , that other is but a meere shadow and counterfeit resemblance of true Faith. Wherefore when those Hypocrites accounted themselues to haue that faith which is truely Christian and sauing , S. Iames shewes them , that this their faith which was alone naked of Obedience , was nothing so : but a Faith of another kind , a dead faith , hauing onely a false shew of a true and liuing faith . This of the first Argument . 2 The 2 Argument is contained . v. 18. being drawne from an impossibility , in prouing the trueth of it . The Argument stands thus . That Faith , which is truely Christian may be shewen and proued so to be . But a Faith without workes cannot be demonstrated to be a true faith . Ergo. A Faith without workes is no true Faith. The major is omitted as most euident of itselfe . Because there is no morall vertue , or grace of the Holy Ghost truely planted in the heart : but it may be knowne by some externall Actions , which it is apt to bring forth . Euen as life is knowne by breathing , or beating of the Pulse . The trueth of an inuisible Grace hath it's demonstration in visible workes . But now for the Minor , S. Iames proues that Faith without Obedience cannot appeare by any proofe to be true faith . Which he doth in a Dialogue betweene a true beleeuer and a Hypocrite . Yea a man may say , thou hast Faith , and I haue Workes shew me thy faith without workes , and I will shew thee my faith by my workes . That is . Thou saiest thou hast a true Faith , though thou hast no workes : I say I haue true faith because I haue workes . Come wee now to the triall , and let it appeare who saieth true , thou or I. If thou saiest true ; proue thy Faith by something or other to be true . Shew me thy Faith b without thy wotkes . Workes thou hast none , whereby to shew thy faith , make it then appeare by something else . But that 's impossible . Where workes are wanring , ther 's no demonstration else whereby to justifie the trueth of faith . And therefore thou art driuen to confesse that thou vainely boastest of that which thou hast not . But on the otherside ( saieth the true Beleeuer ) I can make good , that which I say , prouing that my faith is true by my workes . I will shew thee my faith by my workes . My sincere Obedience is a reall demonstration : that my beleife is no verball ostentation and vaine bragg . This proofe of S. Iames is very con●incing , and gripes the Consciences of Hypocrites , smiting them with shame and confusion when they come to this triall ; and so haue their false and fraudulent hearts laied open . But heere it will be asked what workes doe demonstrate the trueth of faith , and also how they doe proue it . Whereto wee answere Workes are of two sortes . 1. Ordinary , such workes of Sanctity & Obedience , as are required to a holy Conuersation . 2. Extraordinary . viz , Miracles . We say S. Iames vnderstands the former , and those onely : our aduersaries conclude both . But erroneously , for asmuch as S. Iames speakes not of the doctrine of faith , but of the Grace of faith . The Grace requires good workes of Piety and Charity as perpetually necessary for the conmirmation of it's Trueth . So doeth not the doctrine of Faith alwaies require Miraculous workes for the confirmation of it's divinity : But oney at the first publication thereof . Wherefore Lorinus is very ridiculous , who vpon this place tels vs , that they may justly demaund of vs Haeretiques ( For so they bedust vs ) Miracles for the confirmation of our new and false Doctrine . Indeed were it new and false their request were not vnreasonable , that we should make our doctrine credible by doing of Miracles . But sure the Iesuite iudgeth of our doctrine by his ovvne , vvhich did he not suspect for a nevv Error , vvee see no reason they should still require Miracles for confirmation of an olde Truth For our selues we seeke not the aide of a lying Wonder to vphold a true doctrine : nor doe we count it any disgrace at all to our Religion , that we cannot by our Faith so much as cure a lame Horse , as the Iesuite out of a Erasmus scoffes at vs. Now surely if such a beast as Bellarmine's deuout Mare , want helpe to set her on all foure , we cannot be yet so well perswaded of that vertue of Romish Faith , as to thinke that a Frier will doe more good at such a jadish miracle , then a Farrier . But whereas the Iesuite goes forward to require of vs the other sort of good workes , of Piety and Charity for the demonstration of our Faith hee hath reason so to doe , though not so much as he imagines , when hee chargeth vs with neglect of good Workes and vnbridled licentiousnesse . Would to God we could cleere our practise from such neglect , as well as we can our doctrine from teaching it . But yet , by their fauour , if we come to comparisons , we know no Reason why we should runne behind the dore , as more ashamed of our practises , then they may justly be of theirs , in which case we boldly bid him amongst them ; that is without sinne to cast the first stone at vs. To proceed . Seeing Workes of Obedience are the proof●s of a true Faith , it must be considered in what sort they proue it . For may not good Workes be counterfeited as well as Faith ? I answere . That in this triall the judgment of verity & infallibility belongeth vnto God , who only knowes the heart and conscience , being able to discerne euery secret working of the Soule , and so to judge exactly whether or no all outward appearances come from inward syncerity . But for the judgement of Charity that belongs to vs. If we behold in any man the Workes of Obedience to God's will ; of such a Man we are to judge that he hath true Faith. Though yet herein we must as farre as humane frailtie will giue leaue , iudge also not according to appearance , but iudge righteous iudgment . Mens practises must be examined : if hypocrisie bewray it self , ( as 't is hard for a Counterfeit not to forget himself at some one time or other , if he be duly obserued ) there Charity must not be blinde : it must see and censure it . 'T is not a charitable , but a peruerse Iudgment to call euill good : nor is it any offence to call that a barren or bad Tree , that beares either no fruit at all , or none but bad ; And thus of this second Argument of the Apostle , that these Hypocrites Faith was vaine , because , when it comes to the proofe , it cannot be iustified to be found and good . 3 The 3 Argument is v. 19. from the example of the diuels themselues , in whom there is a Faith without Workes , as well in hypocrites : and ergo it is in neither of them a true Faith. The Argument is brought in to confute a Cauill with the hypocrite might make against the former reason . True might he say , I cannot shew my Faith by my Workes : yet for all that I haue a true Faith. And why ? Because I beleeue the Articles of Religion , that there is one God , with the rest . Hereto the Apostle replies . That such a beliefe is not a true Christian Faith , because it is to be found euen in the diuels . The Argument runnes thus . That faith which is in the diuels is no true Christian faith . But a bare assent to the Articles of Religion without Obedience is in the Diuels . Ergo A bare assent without Obedience is no true Christian faith . The Maior of this Argument will easily be granted . That the diuels haue not that true Faith which is required of a Christian Man to his saluation . The Minor is also euident . That the diuels doe belieue the Articles of Christian Religion . S. Iames instances in one for the rest , namely the Article of the Godhead , whereto the Diuels assent aswell as Hypocriticall Men. Thou beleeuest that there is one God , saith the true beleeuer to the hypocrite , pleading that he beleeued the Articles of Faith , Thou doest well . 'T is a laudable and good thing to acknowledge the Truth of Religion . But vvithall thou must knovv that the diuels deserue as much commendation for this beleefe , as thou doest . The diuels also beleeue . Euen they confesse the Truth of that and the other Articles of Religion . An euident proofe vvhereof is this , that they tremble at the povver , vvrath , and iustice of God , and the remembrance of the last iudgment , vvhich did they not beleeue , they vvould not feare : but novv they expect it vvith Horrour , because they knovv it vvill come vpon them . Whence 't is plain that the Faith of Hypocrites and diuels is all one , neither better then other , both vnfruitfull to bring forth Obedience , both vnprofitable to bring vnto saluation , and therefore neither of them that true Faith , vvhich is Christian and sauing . This Argument of the Apostles , pincheth our Aduersaries sore , vvho stiffly maintaine that S. Iames speakes of a True , though of a dead Faith. For they can not for shame say that there is a true Faith in the diuels and damned Spirits . But yet S. Iames hath concluded that they haue that dead Faith which hypocrites boast of . What then ? Then a dead Faith is no true faith , as our a Adversaries affirme it is . Wherefore to helpe themselues , they deny that it is one and the same dead Faith , which is in hypocrites and euill Spirits . Indeed ex parte obiecti , they grant that the Faith of diuels is as true and catholique as that of wicked Men , because they both beleeue the the same things . And also in regard of the effects , they grant their Faith to be alike , because both be vnfruitfull . But not ex parte subiecti , so they say there 's much difference . The Faith of diuels is of one sort , and the Faith of hypocrites of another . But heere they make a litle to bold with the blessed Apostle , ouerturning the force of his argument , to vphold their owne fancie . The Apostle proues against Hypocrites that their idle Faith without Obedience is not true sauing Faith. Why ? Because the diuel 's idle Faith destitute of Obedience is no true sauing Faith. But now . Is the Faith of diuels & hypocrites of the same kinde and Nature . Yea , or no ? No , they be not , they be of a diuerse nature , say the Adversaries . Let it be then considered , what force there is in the Apostle's Argument . Faith without workes in Deuils saues them not . Ergo Faith without workes in wicked Men , saues them not . Might not one prompted by a Iesuite , reply vpon the Apostle . Nay by your leaue , your Argument is inconsequent , because you doe not dispute , ad idem . Faith in the diuels is of one kinde , Faith in Hypocrites is of another : & therefore though Faith without works cannot saue diuels ; yet Faith without works may saue Men. Thus were the Apostle's Argument laide in the dust , if these Mens Opinions may stand for good . But would you know what distinction these Men make betweene the faith of diuels and wicked Men , which St Iames takes for the same . 'T is thus . First the Faith of Euill Men is free , the Faith of diuels is compelled and extorted from them by a kinde of force . So b Bellarm. Fides hominum malorum libera est , captivante nimir ùm piâ voluntate intellectum in obsequium Christi : Fides vero Daemonum est coacta , & extracta ab ipsàrerum Evidentiâ . Quod insinuavit idem Iacobus dicens . Daemones credunt , & contremiscunt . Nos enim non credimus contremiscentes , id est , inviti & coacti , sed spontè & libentèr . Wicked Men beleeue freely and willingly . Why ? Because their pious and godly Will captiuates their vnderstanding to the Obedience of Christ , so causing it to assent vnto the Truth . The diuels beleeue vpon compulsion , being forced to it by the Euidence of the things themselues . Which Saint Iames intimates , They beleeue and tremble : that is , they beleeue against their Wills. Is not this a shamelesse Iesuite that will say any thing to patch vp a broken cause ? For be not these absurd Contradictions to say , that wicked Men haue godly Wills , that by a pious Motion of the Will , their vnderstanding is captiuated to the Obedience of Christ , and yet they be hypocrites and wicked Men still . No Man can relish such assertions , who knowes how averse and fromward the will of Men is to embrace any thing that is of God , till such time as it be regenerate by sanctifying Grace . It is therefore without all reason , to affirme that wicked Men beleeue willinglie , and 't is against all experience , which shewes that vngodly Men are vtterly as vnwilling to beleue any truth that makes against them in any kinde whatsoeuer ; as a beare is to be brought to the stake . Indeed in matters that like them , or such as be of an indifferent Nature , neither fauouring nor crossing their Corruptions , they 'll be apt to beleeue , though not out of a pious affection , as the Iesuite dreames : but out of selfe-loue and other selfe-considerations . But take them in any other point of Religion , that doth any way grate vpon their wicked affections , all the perswasion and instruction in the World , cannot worke them to a beleefe of it , till the Conscience ( spite of their hearts ) be convicted by some notable Euidence of the Trueth . Now what else can be said of the diuels ; who will as willinglie beleeue what makes for them , ( if any thing did ) or what makes not against them ; as any wicked man can doe ? And they are as vnwilling to beleeue any thing , that makes against them , as any wicked Man is . Nor would they beleeue it , did not the cleerenes of diuine Reuelations convince them of the certaine Truth thereof . So that there is no difference at all in this respect , as the one , so the other beleeue vnwillingly ; as diuels , so wicked Men beleeue with trembling . The diuels indeed with greater horror , as their beleefe and knowledge is alwaies more distinct then Mans : but yet Men with horror too , when their Consciences by fits are awakened to behold the woes , that are comming vpon them . Vnto this difference of c Bell. others adde two more . Namely : 1 That the Faith of diuels is naturall ; that of wicked Men supernaturall and infused . 2 That the Faith of Diuels is dishonest , the Faith of wicked Men is an honest Faith. Whereto we say thus much . That touching the first difference , we grant indeed that the Faith of the diuels is not supernaturall except it be in regard of the obiect . The faculties which they receiued in their creation are not so farre corrupted in them : but that they are able to assent vnto , and apprehend diuine Reuelations without further helpe , then of their owne naturall Abilities . Man in his fall sustained greater losse in the spirituall powers of his soule , & therefore stan●s in need of helpe . Which helpe is afforded euen vnto the vngodly ; but this is by ordinary illumination , not by speciall infusion of any sanctifying Grace . Enlightned they are aboue the ordinary pitch of naturall blindnes : but not aboue that whereto a meere naturall vnderstanding may be aduanced . Yea were Mans Vnderstanding raised vp to that perfection which is in diuels : this were more then Nature , yet lesse then Grace . This common gift of Illumination bestowed on wicked Men , but not on diuels , is no proofe that their Faith is of a diuerse kinde . As to the last difference we are not so far studied in Moralities , as to conceiue wherein the dishonestie of the diuel 's Faith , and the honestie of Hypocrites Faith doth lie . To ordinarie vnderstanding it seemes euery way as honest & commendable a matter , for a wicked fiend , as for a wicked Man , to beleeue what God reueales vnto him . If not , we must expect to be further informed by these Iesuites Men that are better read in that part of Ethickes , whether diabolicall or hypocriticall . 4. 4 This of the Apostle's third Argument . we come to the fourth . The 4. Argument is contained in the 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25 verses . Before which the Apostle repeates his maine Conclusion . That Faith without Obedience is a false and dead Faith. But wilt thou know O a vaine Man ( or hypocrite ) that Faith without workes is dead ? v. 20. For the convincing of him further , he proceeds to a new Argument to proue it vnto him . The Argument is this . That Faith which will not iustifie a Man is a false and dead Faith. But the Faith which is without workes will not iustifie . a Man. Ergo 'T is a dead and a false Faith. The Maior the Apostle omits as most evident of it selfe . The Minor he proues by an induction of two Examples . Thus. If Abraham and Rahab were instified by a working faith , thou that Faith which is alone without workes will not iustifie . But A●raham and Rahab were so iustified , viz. by a working Faith. Ergo Faith without workes will not iustifie a man. The Reason of the Consequence is manifest . Because as Abraham and Rahab : so all other must be justified . The meanes of justification and Life , were euer one and the same for all men . Which also the Apostle intimates in that clause v. 21. Was not our Father Abraham &c. implying that as the Father , so also the children , the whole stocke and generation of the Faithfull , were and are still justified by one vniforme meanes . The two instances the Apostle vrges , that of Abraham . v. 21. 22. 23. that of Rahab . v. 25. The conclusion with aequally issues from them both , he interserts in the middest , after the allegation of Abrahams Example . v. 24. I shall goe ouer them as they lie in the Text. In the example of Abraham , the Apostle v. 21. sets downe this proposition . That Abraham was justified by a working Faith. For this interrogatiues Was not our Father Abraham justified by workes ? must be resolued into an affirmatiue Abraham our Father was justified by workes . That is a working Faith. Which proposition the Apostle confirmeth by it's parts . 1. Shewing that Abrahams Faith was an operatiue faith declared and approued by his workes . Secondly , prouing that by such a working Faith Abraham was justified in God's sight . That the faith of Abraham was operatiue , full of life and power to bring forth Obedience vnto God , the Apostle alleageth one instance insteed of all the ●est to proue it . And that is that singular worke of Obedience vnto God's command . When he offered vp his sonne Isaak vpon the Altar . Many other workes there were performed by Abraham abundantly justifying the trueth of his Faith : But the Apostle chooseth this aboue all other , as that worke which was of purpose enjoyned him by God for a triall of his faith . Wherein Abraham mightily ouer●oming all those strong temptations to disobedience and infidelity , made it appeare , that his faith was not an idle , dead and empty Speculation , but an actiue and working Grace . Wherefore the Apostle adds ver . 22. Seest thou how faith wrought with his workes , and by workes was faith made perfect ? That is as in other workes of that holy Patriarch , so specially in that sacrificing his sonne , all that can see , may plainely behold , the strength and life of his faith . Faith wrought with his workes . That is . His faith directed and supported him in the doing of that worke , as the Apostle Paul expounds it . Heb. 11. 17 By faith Abraham offered vp Isaack : that worke had not binne done , if faith had not wrought it . In euery circumstance thereof faith did all in all from the beginning of the worke to the end . This interpretation is most simple and generally receaued . Faith wrought with : That is . In or by his workes , vnto the performance whereof the force of faith was in spaeciall manner assesting . Pareus reads the words by a a tmesis . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . ( that is ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ( scilicet ) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ( that is ) Faith being with his workes wrought . What ? his Iustification . But this construction seemes somewhat hard and not necessary for this place . The other sense is much plainer , shewing vs by or with what vertue Abraham's workes were wrought . viz. By the vertue of his faith , which in most powerfull manner incited and inabled him to obey . The Apostle goes forward , And by workes was faith made perfect . That is declared to be perfect . b For workes did not perfect Abrahams Faith essentially , in asmuch as long before this time , it was perfect , as is plaine in that Abraham was justified by it 25 yeares before the oblation of his sonne Isaack , and also by the strength of his Faith had done many excellent workes and obtained great blessings at the hand of God. So that the offering vp of Isaack was not the cause but a fruite of the perfection of Abrahams Faith , the great difficulty of that worke shewed the singular petfection of that Grace which was able so to encounter and conquer it . The goodnes of the fruit doth not worke , but declare the goodnes that is in the tree ; the qualities of the fruits alwaies depending vpon the nature of the Tree : but not on the contrary . Thus then the first part of the Proposition is plainly proved by the Apostle . That Abrahams Faith was a liuely and working Faith declaring and approuing it's owne trueth by the workes of his Obedience . The next part . Namely . That Abraham was justified in God's sight , by such a working Faith , he proue● . 1. By a Testimony of Scripture . 2. By an effect or consequent thereof , Both are expressed in the 23. v. The first in these words . And the Scripture was fulfilled which sayeth . Abraham beleeued God , and it was imputed vnto him for Righteousnes . The application of this testimony is very heedfully to be obserued , because it serues excellently for the clearing of the Apostles meaning , when he saieth we are justified by workes . And the Scripture was fulfilled saieth S. Iames. When ? At the time , that Isaack was offered . But was it not fulfilled before that time ? Yes . Many yeares , when the promise of the blessed seed was made vnto him , as appeares Gen. 15. 6. Whence this testimony is taken . How was it then fulfilled at the oblation of Isaack ? Thus. The Trueth of that which was verified before , was then againe confirmed by a new and euident experiment . Well . Thus much is plaine enough . But heere now the difficulty is , how this Scripture is applyed vnto the Apostles former dispute . In the 21. v. He saieth that Abraham was justified by Workes when he offered Isaack . How proues he , that he was so justified ? why by this testimony . Because the Scripture was fulfil●ed at that time , which saieth , Abraham beleeued God &c. Marke then the Apostle's Argument . When Abraham offered Isaack the Scripture was fulfilled which saieth Abraham was iustified by faith . For that 's the mea●ing of that Scripture . Ergo , Abraham when he offered Isaac● was justified by workes . This at first sight s●emeth farre set , and not onely besides , but quite contrary to the Apostles purpose to proue he was then justified by workes , because the Scripture saieth , he was then iustified by Faith. But vpon due consideration , in●erence appeares to be euident , and the agreement easie . The Apostle and the Scripture alleaged , haue one and the same meaning : the Scripture saieth . He was iustified by Faith , meaning , as all confesse , a working Faith fruitefull in Obedience . S. Iames affirmes the very same , saying , that he was justified by workes , that is . Metonymically by a working Faith ▪ And therefore the Apostle rightly alleageth the Scripture for confirmation of his assertion : the Scripture witnessing . That by Faith he was iustified ; the Apostle expounding what manner of Faith it meanes . Namely a Faith with workes or a working Faith. So that the application of this Testimony vnto that time of offering vp of Isaack is most excellent : because then it appeared manifestly what manner of Faith it was , wherefore God had accounted him just in former times . Without this Metonymie it appeares not that there is any force in the application of this Scripture and the Argument from thence . The Scripture witnesseth that Abraham was then justified by Faith. Ergo 'tis true , that he was then justified by Workes . What consequence is there in this Argument except we expound S. Iames by that metonymie , Workes , that is a working Faith ? And so the Argument holdes firme . Take it otherwise , as our aduersaries would haue it , or , to speake trueth , according to the former interpretation of our diuines ; it breeds an absurd construction either way . Abraham in offering Isaack was justified by workes , that is , secundâ Iustificatione of good he was made better . How is that proued ? By Scripture . Because the Scripture saieth . That at that time he was justified by faith . That is , primâ Iustificatione of bad he became good . Is not this most apparent Non-sence . Againe according to the Interpretations of our diuines , Abraham at the offering vp of Isaack was iustified by workes ( that is , say they ) declared iust before men . How is that proued ? by Scripture . Because the Scripture saieth . That at that time , he was justified by Faith. that is , accounted just in God's sight . In which kind of arguing I must confesse I apprehend not how there is any tolerable consequence . Wherefore we expound S. Iames metonymically , putting the effect for the cause ; workes , for a working Faith , as the necessary connexion of the text enforced vs. Nor is there any harshnes at all , nor violent straining in this figure , when two things of necessary and neere dependance one vpon the other , ( as workes , and a working Faith ) are put one for another . Neither haue our aduersaries more cause to complaine of vs for this figuratiue interpretation of workes , then we haue of them for their figuratiue interpretation of faith . For when we are saied to be justified by faith , they vnderstand it dispositiuè & meritoriè not formaliterè Faith in itselfe is not our sanctification , nor yet the cause of it . But it merits the bestowing of it , and disposeth vs to receaue it . Let reason iudge now , which is the harsher exposition . Theirs ? faith iustifies ( that is ) Faith is a disposition in vs deseruing that God should sanctifie vs by infusion of the habit of Charity . Or ours ? Workes justifie , that is , the Faith whereby we are acquited in God's sight , is a working Faith. Thus much of this Testimonie of Scripture prouing that Abraham was justified by a true and working faith , In the next place the Apostle shewes it by a visible effect or Consequent that followed vpon his Iustification expressed in the next words : And he was called the freind of God. A high prerogatiue , for God the Creator to reckon of a poore mortall Man as his familiar freind ; but so entire and true was the faith of Abraham , so vpright was his heart , that God not onely gratiously accounted it to him for Righteousnes : but also in token of that gratious acceptance entered into a league with Abraham taking him for his especiall freind and confederate ; A League of●ensiue and defensiue . God would be a Freind to Abraham [ Thou shalt be a blessing ] and a freind of Abrahams Freinds . I will blesse them that blesse thee ; and an Enemy of Abrahams enemies : I will curse them that u●se thee . Which League of freindship with Abraham before the offering vp of Isaack was therevpon by solemne protestation and oath renued , as we haue it Gen. 22. v. 16. &c. Thus we haue this first example of Abraham . From thence the Apostle proceeds to a generall conclusion in the next verse ( 24 ) Yee see then how that by workes a man is iustified , and not by Faith only . That is . Therefore it is euident . That a man is iustified by a working faith : not by a faith without workes . Which Metonymicall interpretation is againe confirmed by the inference of this conclusion vpon the former verse . The Scripture saieth , That Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed vnto him for Righteousnes . Ergo ( saieth ● Iames ) Yee see how a man is iustified by workes and not by Faith onely . A man might heere say . Nay rather . Wee see the contrary . That a man is iustified by faith onely and not by workes . For in that place of Scripture there is no mention at all made of Workes . Wherefore of necessity we must vnderstand them both in the same sense . And so the conclusion followes directly . That euery man is iustified by an actiue not an idle Faith , because the Scripture witnesseth , that Abraham was instified by the like Faith. Our Aduersaries collection then from this place . ( That Faith and Workes be compartners in Iustification , we are 〈◊〉 partly by faith , partly by workes ) is vaine & inconsequent . For when the Apostle saies , A Man is iustified by workes and not by faith only : his meaning is not , that workes and faith are two Coordinate causes by their ioynt-force-working our Iustification ; but the Apostle vtterly excludes Faith onely from Iustification , and attributes it wholy vnto workes . For by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Faith onely , he vnderstands faith alone , that faith which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 17. alone , solitary , by itselfe , without workes . And such a dead faith whereof these hypocrites boasted . S. Iames excludes wholly from justifying of a man. I say then that he is not iustified by faith onely : but that he is iustified by workes . That is a working faith that is fruitfull in Obedience . The Apostle goes forward from the Example of Abraham vnto that of Rahab verse . 25. Likewise was not Rahab the Harlot iustified by workes ? That is in the same manner as Abraham : so also Rahab was iustified by a working saith . Which appeared to be so by that which shee did when she receaued the messengers , entertained the two spies which were sent to search the land , lodged them in her house without discouering them . And when by accident they were made knowne , hid them secretly vpon the roofe , and afterwards sent them out another way , conveied them away priuily , not by the vsuall , but by another way ( that is ) through the window letting them downe ouer the wall by a Cord as the story hath it . Ios. 2. In this dangerous enterprise , wherein this weake woman ventured her life in succouring the Enemies of her King and Country : it appeares plainly that she had a strong and liuely Faith in the God of Israel : and that the confession which she made with her mouth to the spies ( The Lord your God , he is the God in Heauen aboue and in the Earth beneath . Iosh. 2. 11. ) proceeded from a truely beleeuing heart , insomuch as her words were made good by works , that followed them . Wherefore the Apostle iustly parallels these 2 examples of Abraham offering his sonne ; and Rahab in the kind vsage of the Spies , because both those facts were singular trialls of a liuely faith which was able in that sorte to ouercome what was hardest to be conquered . viz. Naturall affection . In Abraham both fatherly affection to the life of a deere and only sonne : and in Rahab the Naturall loue to ones Country and a mans owne Life did all stoope and giue way , when once true Faith commands Obedience . Here againe our adversaries trouble themselues , and the Text with needlesse speculations telling vs , that now the Apostle hath altered his cliffe , and gone from the second Iustification in Abrahams example , to the first Iustification in this of Rahab . That Rahab was conuerted at this time of receauing the spies being made a beleeuer of an infidell , a good woeman of a bad . That she by this good worke did expiate her former sinnes and merited the grace and fauour of God , notwithstanding that she committed a venial sinne in handling of the businesse , telling a downe-right lie , which though she should not haue done ; yet it hindred not the meritoriousnes of the worke , with such other fond imaginations peruerting the simplicity of the Trueth . But first they are not agreed among themselues whether the Apostle doe in that sort shift from one Iustification to another . Bellarmine affirmes it and many moe . But others deny it , as may be seene in Lorinus his exposition of the. 21. v. of this Chapter . And were they agreed vpon it , sure I am they should disagree from the Apostle , who makes this second instance of the same nature with the former . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . In like manner saieth he , was Rahab iustified : viz. as Abraham was . Againe when they say Rahab became a true beleeuer at that time of receauing the spies , not before , 't is more then they can proue . By the circumstances of the story it appeares plainely , that she beleeued before they came , by the relation of the great workes which God had done for his people , and the promises that were made vnto them , that they should possesse Rahabs countrey . This bred feare in others : but faith in her , by the secret working of the holy Ghost : See Ioshua 2. 9. &c. And certainly ; ( had she not had Faith , before the spies came , who can thinke she would haue giuen entertainment to such dangerous persons ? But she knew them to be the Seruants of the God of Israel in whom shee beleeued ; and therefore by this a Faith she receaued them peaceably ; though Enemies of her Countrey . Lastly to that of the Merit●riousnes of the worke of Rahab , to deserue Grace and Life aeternall ; we reiect it , not only as a vaine but an impious conceit , which neuer entred into the humble hearts of the S● . of old : but hath bin set on foote in the last corrupt ages of the world by men drunken with selfe-Loue , and admiration of their owne Righteousnes . Thus we haue these 2 Examples whereby the Apostle hath proued sufficiently , that the Faith which is separated from Obedience , will not justifie a Man , & therefore that it is a dead Faith , and not a true liuing Faith according as was proposed . v. 20. Now for a close of this whole dispute he againe repeates that conclusion , adding thereto anew similitude to illustrate it by , in the last verse of the Chapter . For as the Body without the Spirit is dead , so faith without workes is dead , that is , As the Body without the Spirit , i. e. the Souls , or the Breath and other Motion ( is dead ) vnable to performe any liuing action whatsoeuer : So Faith without workes is dead ; that is , vtterly vnable to performe these liuing actions , which belong vnto it . What are those ? Two. 1. To repose it stedfastly vpon the promise of life in Christ , which is the proper immediate liuing Action of Faith. 2. To justifie a Man in the sight of God , which by a speciall priuiledge is the consequent of the former . These liuing actions cannot be performed by that Faith which is dead , being destitute of good workes . That Faith which hath not power to bring forth Obedience , is thereby declared to be a dead Faith , deuoide of all power to embrace the promise with confidence and relyance as also to justifie . A Man would thinke this were plaine enough , and needed not to be troubled with any further C●villations . But 't is strange what a coile our Adversaries make with this similitude , writhing and straining it to such Conclusions as the Apostle neuer intende● ▪ Hence they gather . 1. That as the Soule giues life to the Body , as the ●●rme of the Body : so Workes giue life to Faith as the forme of it 2 That as the Body is the same true Body without the Soule & with it : so Faith is one and the same true Faith without workes and with them , which are nothing but sophisticall speculati●●● besides the purpose of the Text. The Apostle intends nothing but to shew the Necessity of the Copulation of a liuing Faith and Obedience together : by the similitude of the like Necessitie of the vnion of a liuing Body , and the Soule . But his purpose is not to shew , that the manner of their Connection is the same , that just in euery point as the Soule is to the Body , or the Body to the Soule : so Workes are vnto Faith , and Faith vnto Works . It sufficeth to his intent , that as in the absence of the Soule , the Body : so in the absence of Obedience , Faith is dead . But thence it followes not , that workes by their presence doe the same thing to Faith ; as the Soule to the Body by it's presence ; or that Faith in the absence of Workes remaines the same ; as the Body doth in the absence of the Soule . If we must needs be tied to the strict termes of the Similitude : let vs a little examine the comparison , and we shall see our Aduersaries all flye off first from it . Let the comparison be first thus . Betweene the Body and the Soule , Faith and Workes as the termes be in the Text. As the Body without the Soule is dead because the Soule giues life , i. e sense , breathing , and all other Motion to the Body . So Faith without Workes is dead , because Workes giue life vnto Faith. But now this Comparison will not runne on all foure . For Workes are not vnto Faith as the Soule is to the Body ; but as sense and motion is to the Body . Seeing Workes are externall acts , not internall habits : and so are proportionable not to the Soule , but to the liuing actions thence issuing . Wherefore 't is as absurd to say , that Workes giue life vnto Faith , as 't is ridiculous to affirme , that Sense & Motion giue life to the Body , which are not Causes ; but Effects & signes of Life . Therefore when Faith without Workes is dead , 't is not spoken in that sense , because Workes giue life to Faith , as the Soule doth to the Body . L●● 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 . Thē '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 ●oule , so 't is necessary to the being of a liuing true Christian Faith , that it bring forth Workes of Obedience . SECT . 7. CHAP. I. None can be iustified by their owne satisfaction for the transgression of the Law. A briefe summe of Popish doctrine , concerning humane satisfactions for sinne . THus we haue the resolution of the dispute of S. Iames , together with such Cauils , as our Adversaries make vpon the seuerall passages thereof . By the whole order whereof it appeares sufficiently that Saint Iames disputing against Faith , meanes thereby that false and bastard Faith which hypocrites pleased themselues withall insteed of a true Faith : and that disputing for workes , he meanes nothing but a working Faith. And it appeares also that the drift of the Apostle is not in this place to dispute directly of Man's Iustification : but only to bring that in , as an argument to proue his principall Conclusion . That Faith without workes is dead , because it will not iustifie . In summe it 's euident , that neither these Apostles doe disagree between themselues , nor ye● 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 . The●r ex● 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 : vi● : 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 v●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 , Almesdeed●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 , remaines yet to be suffered . For although it be true that God in some causes doth pardon both fault and punishment wholy , as in cause of Martyrdome , which sweepes all cleane , and makes a● l reckonings euen ; and although God might , if it had so pleased him , alwaies for Christ's sake haue pardoned the whole debt : yet Holy Mother Church hath d●t●rmined , that he doth not so vse to doe . But after that in mercy he hath forgiuen the faul●● yet there 's an after reckoning , and we must come to Coram for the punishment , by which his Iustice is to receaue satisfaction . But ( ye must know ) the punishment of Sinne is two fold . ● . Eternall ▪ in the destruction of Soule and body in Hell-fire to endure for euer . Heere now Christ's satisfaction comes in againe . By whose merits alone they grant , we are deliuered from the eternity of the punishment of Sinne. Which must be noted , that Christ's satisfaction hath not eased vs of the substance of the punishment it selfe : but only in the continuance of it . 2. Temporall ; to endure onely for a time , whereof there are also two degrees . 1. One in this life , as namely all calamities and afflictions vpon the Body , Soule , Name , Goods , &c. together with death the last and greatest of euills . All which are inflicted vpon m●n ; as punishments of ●inne . Of these some come vpon vs inui●●bly as death vpon all men , or as death in the wildernes on the Children of Israel , with the like punishments , certainly and irreuocably denounced . Now here 's no remedy but patience , and that 's an excellent remedy too . For ( as the ghostly Fathers of Tre●t informe vs ) If they be borne willingly with patience , they be satisfactions for Sinnes : but if vnwillingly they be God's just revenge vpon vs. Other some come , Euitably . And heere such a course may be taken , that we need not suffer the punishment it selfe : but we may buy it out and make satisfaction for it vnto God by other meanes . Which meanes are principally foure . 1. By the vehemency of Contrition , or inward sorrow . Which may be so intensiue as to satisfie for all punishments , both in this life and also in Purgatory . 2. By other outward laborious workes . Whereby we may buy out the obligation to temporall punishments . Such Workes are these . 1. Praier with Confession , Thankesgiuing . &c. For , if we beleeue the Cathol●que Doctors 't is a very good satisfaction to a Creditour , if the debter pray vnto him for the forgiuenes of his dept . According to that text . Psal. 50. 15. Call vpon me in the day of trouble and I will d●liuer thee . Ergo , Praier is a satisfaction for the punishment of sinne . 2. Fasting , vnder which is comprehended the sprinkling of Ashes , wearing of haire cloth , whippings , goeing bare-foote and such other paenall workes . These also satisfie for sinnes as 't is written 2. Sam. 12. Dauid fasted , lay vpon the ground and wept all night . Therefore he satisfied for his Sinnes of Murther and Adultery . And againe . Paul saieth 1. Cor. 9. 27. I beat downe my body . That is , I whippe and cudgell my selfe to satisfie for my sinnes . And againe . Luk. 18. 13. The Publican smote vpon his breast . Ergo. Corporall chastisement is a good satisfactions for sinnes . 3. Almesdeedes : comprehending all kind whatsoeuer workes of mercy . These also buy out the punishments of sinne according to the text Dan. 4. 24. Breake off thy sin by Righteousnes : and thine iniquity by mercy towards the poore . that is . By almesdeeds satisfie for the temporall punishmens of thy Sinnes . And againe . Luk. 11. 41. Giue almes of that which you haue and behold all things shall be cleane vnto you . That is to say ( in the language of Babell . ) The temporall punishment of sin shall be taken away . Now all such workes as these are either . 1. Voluntarily vndertaken of our owne accord , as voluntary Pilgrimage , Scourgings , Fastes , Sackloth , Weepings , and Praiers of such a number and measure , with the like rough punishments , which we take vpon our selues to pacifie God. All which being done with an intent to satisfie for the punishment of our Sinnes ; must needs be accepted of God almighty for good payment : because in so doeing , we doe more then he hath required of our hands . Now 't is very pleasing to God to doe what he bids vs not : or what he bids vs , to doe to another end of our devising . He therefore that voluntarily vndertakes such needlesse paines , giues God high satisfaction . According to the Text. 1. Cor. 11. 31. If wee would iudge our selues , we should not be iudged . 2 Inioyned by the Priest. Who by vertue of the Keies committed vnto him might iudicially absolue the paenitent from the whole debt , were it not thought fit vpon speciall considerations to keepe backe a part . Wherefore when he hath absolued him from the fault and aeternall punishment , he binds him vnto satisfaction for the temporall punishment , and therefore he enjoynes him what he shall doe to buy it out . Let him goe visit the shrine of such and such a Saint , say so many Aues & Paternosters before such an Image , whip himselfe so many times , fast so many daies , giue so much almes with such like paenalties . And when he in humble obedience hath done these things commanded by the Preist : then 't is certaine his sinnes be satisfied for . For 't is to be noted that in enioyning this Canonicall satisfaction , as 't is called , the Priest and God almighty be just of the same mind . Looke how much the Preist enioynes for satisfaction , God must be content to take the same , or else the paenitents conscience will not be quiet , because , it may be , God expected more to be done for satisfaction : then the party hath done by the Priests iniunction . But it is to be supposed , that as the Pope , so euery Priest in his Chaire of confession hath an infallible spirit , whereby he is able exactly to calculate the just propo●tion betweene the sinne and the punishment , and the price of the punishment , that so he may enjoyne just somuch penance , as will buy it out ; neither more lest the paenitent be wronged : nor lesse , lest God be not satisfied . All which is trimly founded vpon that text which saieth . Whatsoeuer yee binde on Earth shall be bound in Heauen , and whatsoeuer yee loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heauen . Mat : 16 , 19. & 18. 18. That is . Priests may forgiue the fault and retaine the punishment , and what satisfaction they enioyne on Earth to expiate the punishment , that will God accept in Heauen : Or else they be deceaued . This is the second meanes to satisfie for temporall punishments . The 3. Meanes is by Pardons and Indulgences . Wherin the superabundant merits of Christ and the Saints are out of the treasury of the Church granted by speciall grace of the B● . of Rome vnto such as are liable to suffer the temporall punishment of their Sinnes . So that they hauing got by his grant a sufficient portion of satisfactory workes , out of the common stocke , they are fre●d thereby from satisfying Gods Iustice , by their owne workes . Which is a rare priviledge no doubt . 4. The fourth meanes is by another liuing mans satisfaction for them . For not onely the superabundant works of Christ and Saints departed : but the good workes of iust men aliue will satisfie for another , being done with that intent . So great is God's clemency towards good Catholiques , that , though one man cannot confesse , nor be contrite for another ; yet satisfie he may the Iustice of God for his sinnes . Both these meanes are grounded vpon pregnant places of Scripture . Gal. 6. 2. Bea●e yee one anothers burthen , that is , satisfie one for another . Againe 2 Cor. 12. 15. I will most gladly bestow and be bestowed for your sakes : that is , to satisfie for your sinnes . Againe 2 Tim. 2. 10. I suffer all things for the Elects sake : that is , that my sufferings may be their satisfactions . So Col. 1. 24. I reioyce in my sufferings for you and fulfill the rest of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh , for his bodies sake , which is the Church . That is . My sufferings with Christ's sufferings make vp a Treasurie for the Church , that such as want of their owne , may make vse of his satisfaction and mine . Againe Rom. 12. 15. We being many are one anothers Members Ergo , We may impart sati●factory workes one to another , as one member doth heate to another . To conclude . 'T is in our Creede , I beleeue a communion of Saints . Ergo , There is a communion of satisfactions . And so the point is very fitly proued . Whereby it appeares that the Ch●l●ren of the Romish Church are reasonable well prouided of Meanes to recompense God's , Iustice , and redeeme the Temporall punishment of their sinnes in this life . The other degree of the temporall punishment is in the life to come , namely , in ●urgatory , whereinto all they drop who die in Veniall Sinnes , the fault whereof was not forgiuen in this Life ; or in Mortall Sinnes , the fault whereof was forgiuen in this Life ; but full satisfaction was not made for the punishment before death . Such must fry awhile in Purgatory longer or shorter time according as their Sinnes are more or lesse haynous ; or as Mens hearts on Earth be more or lesse pitifull towards them . But howeuer there they must be till the Temporall Punishment of their Sinnes be fully suffered : or bought out by something else that may satisfie God's Iustice . This Punishment of Sinne inflicted in Purgatory , is twofold . 1. Poena Damni . of Losse ( viz. ) of the beautifull vision of God , and ioyes of Heauen . 2. Poena sensus . of sense or smart . viz. The bitter paines of God's wrath sensibly tormenting the Powers of the Soule , inflicted vpon them either immediatly by God himselfe , or by the ministery of the diuels as his Instruments . For 't is a doubt not yet resolued among the Patrons of Purgatory , whether the Diuels haue not to doe there also as well as in hell . But whether their Tormentours be Diuels or not , this is agreed vpon , that the Torment and Punishment which the Soules do suffer in Purgatory , is for the Substance of it the very same with the Torments of Hell , differing only from it in continuance . Those of Purgatory be temporall , these of Hell aeternall . Well now , such as haue not bestirred themselues then , well in this Life to make all euen by full satisfactions , such must be arrested in the mid way to Heauen , and cast into this Prison . Out of which two Meanes there be to be deliuered . 1. By suffering all this temporall punishment for so many yeares and dayes as 't is to continue . How many that is , you must inquire of St Michael , the Church knowes not that . But yet sure shee is , that many Soules shall continue in Purgatory till the day of Iudgement , so there shall be the same period of the World , and of their Torments . These haue a hard time of it ; 't is easier haply with others . But be it as 't will be , such as these pay the vtmost farthing , where they endure in the flames of Purgatory , so long till the time of their whole punishment be runne out . Then God is satisfied , and they deliuered . 2. By buying out this punishment by some other satisfactory price . For although God could so haue ordered it , that euery Soule being once in Purgatory , should suffer all the Temporall punishments due : yet he is content to bee intreated to commute poenance , and take some other valueable consideration by way of satisfaction for this punishment . But this satisfactory payment cannot be made by the Soules themselues : it must be made by some on Earth for them . which is done . 1. Either by laborious workes of any one iust and godly Catholique , whether he be a friend of the deceased , or other touched with a charitable pitty toward a poore soule . Who by store of deuout prayers , Almes , Masses , Pilgrimages , founding of Coue●ts and Hospitals , &c. may procure a gaole-deliuery for that soule for which he intends those good workes . 2. Or by the Pope who is purse-bearer to the Church , and hath the Treasurie thereof vnder Lock and Key . He now , though he cannot directly absolue the Soules in Purgatory from their punishment , as he can Men liuing on the Earth , yet he may helpe them another way by bestowing on them so much of the superfluous sufferings of Christ and of the Saints , that thereby God's Iustice may be satisfied , for the whole punishment , which otherwise they should haue endured . Yea such is the power of his Indulgences to infuse a vertue into such and such Alt●● ▪ Shrines , 〈◊〉 &c. that whosoeuer shall frequent such places , or vse such prayers , all Complements duely obserued : he may at his pleasure free one , two , three , or more soules our of Purgatory . Nay did not Couetousnes coole the heare of his Apostolical Charity , he might so bountifully powre out the Treasures of the Church vpon these prisoners in Purgatory , that they should all haue enough to weigh down the feales , & deserue a passe-port for Heauen . Such efficacie there is in that spirituall Picke locke which the Pope hath in keeping . All which is very properly proued by the former places of Scripture , and others also , were it needfull now to alleage them . But thus we see the Catholiques are euery way furnished for satisfactions , that what Christ hath not done for them , they can doe for themselues , either to suffer and ouercome the Temporall punishments of their Sinnes , or else , which is the easier course , to buy out that punishment at a valuable price of other satisfactionary workes , wherewith Gods Iustice shal be abundantly contented . Now whereas those whom they terme Heretiques , cry out aloud that such satisfactions to God's Iustice be indeed no Satisfactions at all , because they are no wayes equall vnto the offence committed : and so no full recompence of wrong offered vnto God : for the assoiling of this doubt , they giue vs this distinction very necessary to be obserued . Satisfaction is double . 1. Iustitiae : ex rigore Iustitiae , ad absolutam & perfectam Aequalitatem Quantitatis . That is . There is a Satisfaction of Iustice consisting in a perfect aequality between the offence and wrong , and the recompence made , when so much is done , or suffered , as the offended party can in iustice exact . Now they grant that Man cannot satisfie God in this sort in rigour of Iustice. Only Christ hath satisfied so ; for vnto such a satisfaction it is required that it be done . 1. Ex proprijs . By that which is our owne . 2. Ex indebitis . By that which is not debt of it selfe . 3. Ad aequalitatem . By that which is of aequall worth and value . Now none of these wayes can our satisfaction passe in strict Iustice Because whatsoeuer we haue , 't is God's free gift : whatsoeuer we can doe , 't is our due Obedience , & when we haue done all , yet we cannot by any finite act doe such honour to God , as shal be equall to that iniury we haue offered to his infinite Maiestie . Euen the right of Nature teacheth . as Bellarmine grants , That Man cannot parca reddere Deo , giue him quid pro'quo . 2. Acceptationis facti ex Gratiâ donante ad imperfectam Aequalitatem Proportionis & ex Condigno . i , e. There is a satisfaction of fauourable acceptance , wherein there is a kinde of imperfect Proportion betweene the offence and the recompence , when so much is done or suffered , as God is content in gentlenes to take for good satisfaction . Thus then a man may satisfie God's Iustice , because God giues him grace to doe so much as he will accept for satisfactiō . Which Grace is threefold . 1. The Grace of Iustification , whereby the Holy Ghost dwels in vs and we are made Members of Christ , and Christ is become our Head. By meanes of which vnion with Christ , and inhabitation of the Spirit , it comes to passe that our workes haue a singular vertue . For Christ communicates vnto vs his satisfaction ▪ and by merits of them , makes our Workes meritorious and satisfactorie vnto God. So that whereas all things whatsoeuer we could haue done , where of no worth at all in the sight of God : now Christ hath deserued such a Grace for vs that the spotted ragges of our righteousnes and good workes being tincta Christi sanguine ( i. e. ) died in the bloud of Christ receaue such a colour , that they will passe for reasonable good cloth . In a word , our money is now good siluer which before was but brasse . Againe , because the holy Ghost dwels in the just , Ergo ( as Bellar : profoundly argues ) their Workes proceeding from the Holy Ghost haue [ quandam infinitatem ] a kind of infinitenes in them , and thereby , quandam aequalitatem , a kind of aequality with the injury which by sinning we offered vnto God. Euen as a man may say , that a fly or a spyder is a kind of infinite Creature because 't is of Gods making : and God you know is infinite . This is the first Grace of Iustification . The 2 ye may call . 2 The Grace of Euangelicall Counsailes . For although God might of right challenge all our workes as due vnto him : yet so it is that he commands not all , but onely persuades and exhortes vnto some ▪ By which bounty of God , it comes to passe that we haue certaine workes Propria & indebita , of our owne which we owe him not ; and by these we onely make satisfaction . Yea such is the bounty of God that he suffers vs to merit by those things which be of his free gift , and is willingly content that what we receaue at his hand , we giue it him backe againe for a satisfactorie payment to his Iustice. Which is very strange I tell you . 3 Lastly one Grace more God giues vs. Namely . When hee pardons the fault he remoues the aeternity of the Punishment , and makes it Temporall that so it may be more easily satisfied for . All which particulars and Priuiledges are sure and certaine , because the Catholique Doctors haue firmely proued them out of their owne heads without the helpe of the Scripture . So then they are agreed . That our workes are not satisfactorie in Rigour of Iustice : but only in favourable acceptance , by grace giuen to doe them , and Gods clemency in accepting them being done . CHAP. II. All sinne is remitted vnto vs wholy in the fault and punishment . For the onely satisfaction of Iesus Christ. THus I haue somewhat largely set forth vnto you the popish Doctrine of humane satisfaction for sinne : wherein it is plaine to all that can see any thing , that their aime hath bin to lay a plot to delude mens Soules and pi●ke their Purses . It would require a large discourse to prosecute their Arguments , whereby they seeke to couer their Fraud . But they are not of that Moment as to spend time about them , being too hasten to other matters . The summe of them all comes vnto this . 1. That those afflictions and Temporall chastisements which God hath laied vpon his Children ( for the Triall of their Faith and patience , for their humiliation for sinnes past by hearty Repentance , for their admonition for the time to come , for the example of others . &c. ) they must needs be , in these Mens Imaginations , true satisfactions to Gods Iustice to expiate their sinnes past . 2. That such good workes as the godly haue performed for declaration of their piety ; testification of their thankfulnes vnto God ; for to expresse the sorrow of Heart ; for to bring themselues to a greater measure of true humiliation by much Praier , fasting , &c. for to obtaine victorie ouer some Corruption , and temptation ; for to get some grace which they wanted ; for to preuent or fit themselnes for some Iudgement feared ; &c. All this now must be conceaued presently to be meritorious and satisfactorie to Gods Iustice for Sinne. 3. That such Pennance , as in the Primitiue Church was enjoyned vnto those that after their Conversion and Baptisme , relapsed againe to Heathenisme ; or otherwise for such as for scandalous offences were excommunicated : I say that such Pennance enjoyned to these for testification of their hearty sorrow for their offence , and for satisfaction to the Congregation , before they might be againe admitted into it : must now be turned into a direct and proper satisfaction for the sinne it selfe . 4. That such indulgence or fauour as was then sometimes vsed toward such relapsed and excommunicate persons ( in remitting vnto them some part of their enioyned Pennance vpon euident tokens of their vnfained repentance ) this is now by these men turned quite to another vse . Namely , to the freeing of men from further satisfaction to Gods Iustice by applying vnto them certaine phantasticall supererogations treasured vp in the Popes Cabbinet . These are the maine Issues and Errors of their disputes , wherein I will proceed no farther : but onely lay downe one generall Conclusion opposite vnto their Doctrine , and so end this point with a few Reasons , for the confirmation of the Trueth and confutation of this Error . The Position is this . All Sinne whatsoeuer ; Originall or Actuall is remitted vnto vs wholy in the Fault and Punishment , aswell Temporall as Aeternall for the only satisfaction of Iesus Christ : and not any satisfaction made by vs vnto the Iustice of God. For confirmation of this sacred Trueth deliuered vnto vs in the word and generally embraced by the Reformed Churches ( yea by our Aduersaries themselues when the Agonies of Consciences ; the app●ehension of Death and of Gods Iudgement doe cleere vp their eyes , a litle to behold the vanity of their poore satisfactions . ) obserue we these Reasons . First the innumerable Testimonies of Scripture ascribing the Remission of Sinne , onely to the mercy of God in Christ crucified . That Christ hath borne a our Sinnes ; His bloud hath purged b vs of all Sinne ; His death c redeemed vs from all iniquity ; His d Stripes healed vs ; That he hath e paied the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or price of our Ransome ; That God for his f sake hath for giuen vs our trespasses ; Blotted out g our sinnes ; Cast them h behind his backe ; Forgotten i them ; with store of the like sayings , ascribing the doeing away of all Sinnes to the Grace of God through the Satisfaction of Christ without limi●ing it to any Sinne , or mentioning any satisfactorie workes of ours . Now what say our Aduersaries to this ? By a shift they turne of all Scriptures tending to this purpose . Thus Christ hath satisfied for the fault of our Sinnes ; and so reconciled vs vnto God , and for the aeternity of the Punishment : but he satisfied not for temporall punishment : We must endure Torment's though but for a while . This is a meere Cavill without any apparant ground from such Texts of Scripture ; or necessary deduction from other . We deny it therefore as they affirme it . And that it may appeare to be but a forged devise . Let vs inuert the distinction and we shall hold it with as good probability the other way . Christ satisfied for the fault , not for the punishments ( say they . ) We will goe contrary and say , Christ satisfied for the punishment : but not for the fault . We by our owne satisfaction must procure Gods fauour . Now let them object what they can against this : if we list to ca●ill as they doe : it may be shifted off with as faire probabilitie ; as they doe our Arguments on the other part . Let them name all the places that say , Christ hath k reconciled vs to God his Father . This is easily put off . Christ hath reconciled vs. that is , Christ deserued such Grace for vs : that we by our workes may reconcile ourselues . Iust as they say . Christ hath satisfied . that is . procured Grace for vs : that we by our workes might satisfie . Let them object , Our workes can be of no worth to appease Gods anger . We will say . True. Of themselues they are not : but Christ hath merited that they should be of sufficient worth . Iust as themselues say vnto vs objecting , that our workes be not of value to satisfie Gods Iustice. True , say they . Of themselues they be not : but Christ hath deserued for them to make them satisfactorious . Thus if euery idle distinction not fortified by necessary deduction from Scripture might passe for a good answere , the certainty of diuine Doctrine were soone shaken to pieces : and no Position so absurd , but would be defended with much facility . 2. That Assertion of theirs . Namely . That the fault is forgiuen and the punishment required , is most false and absurd ; euen in common sense . To pardon a fault and be friends and yet require full satisfaction ; to forgiue the debt , yet to exact the payment , be not these trimme kindnesses ? a Bellarmine tels vs , there be some offences of so grieuous Nature : that satisfaction cannot be made , but in a long time . Now in this case the partie wronged may pardon the other , and be reconciled to him : yet the offender remaine still bound to make entire satisfaction for the wrong . But now the Iesuite doth not name any such case : neither indeed can doe . For suppose a subject hath offended his Prince and the fault deserued 7. yeares close imprisonment for satisfaction . If the Prince should say vnto him I pardon your offence , you haue my loue ; but yet you shall lie by it to the last daie : were it not a mockerie , would any man thank him for such a kindnes ? It is to be thought the Iesuites , the incendiaries of Christendome would not thanke Christian Princes for such a courtesie , if they should pardon them their fault , and hang them vp . The like absurditie there is in this , when they say ; That after the fault pardoned ; yet in this Life and in Purgatory , the temporall punishment must be suffered . For wherefore must it be suffered ? For satisfaction say they , To what ? To God's Iustice. For what now ? Is it for the fault and offence committed ? No , That 's pardoned . For what then ? For just nothing . Againe , this Assertion is contrary to good reason . For God's Friendship , and his Iustice may not be diuided in this sort , as if he were reconciled and well pleased with that Creature , which hath violated his Iustice , and not made satisfaction for it . God's friendship with Man followes satisfaction to his Iustice : euen as his Enmity with Man is a consequent of the breach of his Iustice. His righteous will is transgressed , therefore he is offended . His righteous will must be satisfied before he be pleased . So that it is a vaine speculation to thinke . Christ hath appeased God's anger , but not satisfied his Iustice , for as much as his fauour is purchased onely by satisfaction to his Iustice offended . 3. This doctrine of humane satisfactions , obscures the dignity , and ouerthrowes the Force of Christ's satisfactions . If we haue a share , he hath not all the glory . Nay , he hath scarse any at all . For aske wee . For what hath Christ satisfied ? They say , to procure God's Loue to vs. But that cannot be , vnlesse he hath satisfied his Iustice. Hath he done this , or no ? Yes , he hath satisfied for the Aeternity of the punishment . Yea. But how know they that ? What if we vpon their grounds say , That he hath not satisfied for the Aeternity of it : but only merited , that our sufferings and satisfactions should be aequivalent to the aeternity of the Punishment ? Especially considering that our Workes according to Bellarmine , haue a certaine kinde of infinite value in them . Againe , Aeternity is but an Accident of punishment of Sinne : the Essentials of it are the Losse of Ioy , and the sense of Paine : if therefore Christ haue satisfied only for that , he hath done but the least part . Neuerthelesse our Adversaries will needes perswade vs , that humane satisfactions doe not so much eclipse as illustrate the glory of Christ's satisfactions : in as much as thereby he hath not only satisfied himself : but made vs able also to satisfie . A great matter doubtlesse . But where saith the Scripture any such matter , that Christ hath merited that we might merit and satisfie . And moreouer by this Tricke , whilest Christ makes vs able to merit and satisfie : his owne satisfaction is plainly excluded . For come to the point , and aske . Who is it satisfies God's Iustice for Sin ? Christ , or wee ? Heere b Bellarmine stumbles like a blind horse , and of three answeres takes the very worst . Some say 't is Christ , and he only satisfies Properly : but we Improperly . Our works being only a Condition without which Christ's satisfaction is not applied vnto vs. But such smell of the fagot . For 't is a perilous Haeresie to say , Christ onely satisfies for Sinnes . Well others say , That both Christ and we our selues doe satisfie , & also there 's two satisfactions for the same offence . But this mettall clinketh not well neither . Wherefore others are of opinion , and Bellarmine likes it . That Wee only satisfie , not Christ. Tertius tamen modus probabilior videtur [ Quòd una tantum sit actualis satisfactio , & easit nostra . ] Yea this is as it should be , thrust out Christ , and let vs only satisfie while he stands by and holds the Candle . Yet the Iesuite will not doe Iesus so much wrong : for marke , to mend the matter hee adds . [ Neque tamen excludit●r Christus , vel satisfactio eius . Nam per eius satisfactionem habemu● gratiam , vnde satisfacimus . Et hoc modo nobis dicitur applicari Christi satisfactio ; non quòd immediatè ipsae eius satisfactio tollat poenam temporalem nobis debitam : sed quod mediate eam tollat , quatenùs gratiam a● ea habemus , sine qu● nihil valeret nostra satisfactio . ] Which wordes they may vnderstand that can ; For I cannot . The Iesuite . walkes in the darke : seeking to hide this shamefull Injury to the Merits of Christ , but it will not be . 'T is too apparant that Christ is to them of no account . Only for a fashion they make vse of his Name , when they haue reckoned vp a bedrol of their own Merits , & S t s Merits , and such other trash , then to conclude all with a [ Per Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum . ] That 's the burden of the Song , and the oyle that seasons all the Salet : as a Marnix merily . 4. That distinction of Satisfaction in Strict Iustice , and satisfaction in fauourable acceptance is vaine in this businesse . We grant indeed that our good workes done out of Faith , are pleasing to God , and graciously accepted of him : but can it appeare , that God accepts them as satisfactions to his Iustice ? No Scripture intimates any such thing , That God's fauour doth thus dispense with his Iustice , and make that satisfaction acceptable , which is in it selfe no full satisfaction of his Iustice. Shall we thinke that God in this case is put vpon those termes of Necessity , and complement which fall out in humane satisfactions , betweene Man and Man ? It may so fall out that a Creditor ( to whom 1000 Crowns are owing ) may be content if the debtor will yeeld vp his whole Estate , though not worth 50. Because no more can be had . So in case of offence , sometime , a litle formality , or a word or two of confession of the wrong may be accepted for satisfaction . But God wants no meanes to receiue full satisfaction of vs , either vpon our owne persons , or vpon Christ for vs. And therefore 't is without ground to imagine such a facility and partiality of his Iustice , as to be satisfied with a few poore complementall Formalities . Satisfactions to God's Iustice wee acknowledge none ; but such as are in Iustice sufficient . Such are Christ's satisfactions . But as for vs , we haue nothing to doe with satisfactions , but with free Pardons . 5. This Doctrine of humane satisfactions taught in the Church of Rome is altogether full of vncertainty , and ergo , brings no rest and peace vnto mens Consciences , at all . God pardons the fault : but requires the punishment say they . But when is this ? Is it alwaies ? No , sometimes he pardons both . But can they tell certainly when he doth ? when not ? At Martyrdome he pardons all . How know they that ? or how know they he doth it not at other times too ? Contrition ( say they ) if it be vehe●nen● , satisfies for all . But can they tell vs the i●st asure of that Contrition which is satisfactorie ? It may be the partie is contrite enough : yet the Pre●st enioynes Penance when 't is needlesse . It may be he is not co●●●ite enough : yet no penance enioyned . Where 's the certainty , what 's to be done in such a case ? Christ ( say they ) hath satisfied for the Aeternity of Hell punishments . Well . But can they tell how many yeares or daies are left vnsatisfied for ; that so all things may be fitted according to the Race of time ? Laborious workes , of Praiers , Fastings , Almes-de●ds , satisfie for temporall Punishments in this life ( say they ) Sup●ose it be so . Are they sure they can also satisfie the paines of Pu●gatorie ? The Priest enjoynes satisfactorie penance . But is he sure he enioynes iust so much as will doe the Feate ? Is he certaine that God will take that for paiment , which he decrees to be paied ? What if there be not Aue-Maries enough & c ? Againe suppose there were Evangelicall Counsailes , as Vowes of Chastity , Pouerty &c. and that to doe these things were pleasing vnto God. Are they sure they shall passe for satisfactions presently ? thou saiest I giue this Almes , I vow Poverty , I doe this and that to satisfie Gods Iustice for such or such a sinne . What ? Is it a Match presently , that God must doe as thou desirest : and take what thou offerest for paiment ? Soft there , a while . Where 's the warrant for that ? Those that are in Purgatory , when haue they satisfied enough ? who brings word , when they are deliuered ? How knowes the Pope when he hath bestowed vpon them sufficient supererogatiue Money to pay the Fees of the Prison ? Or doth S. Michael that hold's , the Scales send him word , when their satisfactions weigh downe their Sinnes ? Not to reckon more vp ; there is in all this Doctrine no firme ground whereon a distressed Soule may cast anchor : But when it hath once let slip that maine Cable , wherevpon it might rid it out in all stormes ( the satisfaction of Christ ) afterwards it is carried a d●ift vpon all hazards of Windes and Seas . 6. The-●rpractise betraies their Opinion . Did they indeed thinke that there were any seueritie in Gods Iustice , any necessitie or sufficiencie in such their satisfactions , 't is not possible , they would prostitute such thing 's in so base a manner , as they doe . But when an Aue Maria , a Pater noster before such or such an Altar ; a wax-Candle to such a Saint ; a kisse of such a cold stone ; a pilgriamage to Compostella for cockle-shels ; a lash or twaine vpon the Bare ; two or three meales meat forborne ; a pardon purchased at a few Deniers ; yea when the roughnes and meanesse of Adams figgleaue breeches shall be accounted a worthy matter to satisfie for his sinne , as a Bellarmine most ridiculously doates ; I say , when such base trifles shal be reckoned to be valuable satisfactions to Gods Iustice : they must pardon vs if we guesse at their meaning . They may dispute and talke while they will in big wordes and faire glosses of Bridles against Sinnes , and I know not what : but in fine all proues but Gins to catch money : But such as serue themselues thus , 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 b 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 τῷ 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 s●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. Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A09274-e390 Sect. l. ● . 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. ● . Rom 6. 7. [ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ] significat liberatur : sed sersus loci d●scrimen indicat . 〈…〉 a Eph● . 4. 24. Col. 3. 9. a Eph● . 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. 1● . Rom. 8. 30. 〈◊〉 . Ibid. Parag. 9. Sect. 2. ● . ● . ● Gen. Head● . ● 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. 5● . b Mat. 9. 22. c Ma● . 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 6● . c A●tibell . pag. 106. d Collat. cu● Sib. Lubber . e Thesibu , de ●ustific . f R●monstr●nt . In Cell . Delphensi . Art. 2. Antith . 2. [ Statuimus Deum Fidem no●iram nobis imputare per obedientiam : ea●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. 2● . Nectamen est a Deo intus inhabitante , per gra●●am Sanctificari : sidextrins●cus ad●●vante , & exitonte . a Et Cap : 13. pag. 311. H. a Feare . Feare . b Psal ●11 . 10. Pro. ● . 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 . ● cap. 3. Quest. 3. Bell. lib. 1. c. 14. 2 Arg. a 〈◊〉 antid . ●onc . Trid. Sess. 6 cap. II. b Cap. 15. eiu●dem Lib. primi . 3 Argu● Bell. lib. 1 cap. 16. [ Allein durch ●en gsaubren . ] Bell. quotes Lu●beri Resp. ad duos Art. ad ami●●m quendam . a Tit. 3. 5. 6. 7. b Rom. 3. 〈◊〉 . c Rom. 9. 31. 32 How knowes Bellarm●ne that ? Bell. lib. 1. c. 19 ▪ ●ello . cap. 16. a Bell lib. 1. ● . 19. b 〈◊〉 . Tom. 2 , tract . 4. cap. 2 ▪ quest . 6. §. 15. c Bell. cap. 19 ▪ d As Adam . a So Bellarmin● cap. 19. answering that place ▪ Gal. 2. [ If righ●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. ● . 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. 2● . Apoc 1. 6. 1 Iohn 1. ●7 . c Col. 1. 13. d Tit. 2. 14. e Rom. 6. 18. 2● f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . h Heb. 4. 14 a Rom. 6. 12. 14. b Psal. 103. 3. 2 Proposition . Lib. 4. cap. ●0 . Bell. lib. 4. de Iust. cap. 1. 10. 11. 12 13. Bec●tom 2. tract 4. cap. 4. quest . 1. c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , 〈…〉 〈…〉 b Rom. 〈◊〉 . c Psal. 119. per 〈◊〉 d Verse . ● 〈◊〉 a Lib. 4. cap. 1● . 3 Arg. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉 a Iam. 1. 25. Psal. 197. ● Argu. 6 Arg. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ▪ 7 Argu. b Gen. 17. 1. c Gen. 6. 9. d 1 King 14. 8. e 2 King 23. 25. f 2 Chro. 15. 17. g Luke 1. 6. h Iohn . 17 6. i Phil. 3. 15. a Gen. 15. ● . 3. b Gen. 20. 11. c Gen. 9. 21. d 2 Sam. 11. e 2 Chron. 25. v. 20. 21 22. f 2 Chron. 16. 7 g Ver. 10. h Ver. 12. i Luke 1. 18. k Mar. 14. 50 ▪ 66. &c. l 〈◊〉 20. 30. 31. m Gal. 3. 10. n Deut. 27. 26. Proposition . a Iob 16. ●1 . b Iob 17. 3. c Iob. 23. 3. 4. ● . a Lib. 1. cap. 20. N●li iudica●e ex his quae in me 〈◊〉 . a Bill ▪ lib. 〈◊〉 . 17. 〈…〉 4. c. 13. 17. Be 〈◊〉 . 2. tract . 2. cap 2. 〈◊〉 4 & cap 4. quest . 1. a 〈…〉 3. c. 14. §. ● . b Bell lib. 4. c. 77. erres in saying . [ Opera b●na●x gen●●e ●ue ex obiecto , sed 〈◊〉 circumsta●●● 〈…〉 And it is false which he addes that God doth simply condemne ( facto ) almes-deeds , &c done with a●●d intention for vaine glory , &c. God doth not simply cōdemne the the wo●●● b●● them for their ill doing of it . b Su●t Vitata 〈…〉 . Bell. lib. 4. cap. 1● . & passim aubi . ● Exceptio●● . Conclusion . 〈…〉 . 3. 12. 13. 〈◊〉 . 4. 8. ●ense your ●nds : purge ●ur hearts . Tom. 2. pag. 885. Marke them that walke disorderly , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , i e. sinfull , otherwise according to the Law. 1 Arg. Adu . 2 Arg. Adu . 3 Arg. Adu ▪ 〈…〉 b Iam. 1. 〈◊〉 4 Arg. Bell. c Lib. 4. cap. 1● . Excep●ion . Be● lib. 4 c. 10. ● 17. ● cap. 〈◊〉 . Conclusion . contr . a 〈…〉 b Lib. de perfect . 〈…〉 . 15 3 Exception . Bell. lib. 4 c. 17. Conclusion contr . 〈◊〉 . 4. cap. 14. ●●t●er meaning of these words [ against ] ●nd [ Besides ] there can be 〈…〉 Lib. 4. cap. vse . c 〈…〉 Bernard de Praecept●● Dispen . a Tom. 2. tract . 2 cap 2 q. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Man. confess praelud . ● . Num. 16. 3 〈◊〉 . Couenant of Grace . 〈◊〉 . Couenant . 2 Workes . a 〈◊〉 . 1 Cor. ● . Iohn 1. 17. 〈◊〉 . 20. Iohn 13. 17. If ye know those things , &c. Iohn 15. 14. Ye are my friends ●ye do what●uer I com●●d you . a ●om 8. 15. 〈◊〉 4. 24. 25. b Rom. 12. 16. At that day when God shall iudge , the secrets of Men by Iesus Christ according to my Gospell . a Calv. I●st . lib. ● . cap. 18. § 9. a 2 Cor. 3. 7. b 2 Cor. 3. 6. d Gal. 5. 1. d Gal. 5. 1. c Rom. 4. 15. 1 Cor. 15. 56. e Gal. 4. 24. f 2 Cor. 3. 6. g 2 Cor 5. 19. h 2 Cor 3. 6. 7. 17. Gal. 4. 16. Thou art our Father b See Beca●●● Tom. 2. Tract . 4. cap. ● Quest. 1. 2. 3. 4. Argument , Heb. 9. 10. b 1 Ti● . 1. 15. 1 Cor. 10. 23. This Liberty from humane Constitutions binding the Conscience , is 〈…〉 Rom. 13. 5. 1 Cor. 〈…〉 a Lib. 4. de Iustif . cap. 5. b Ibid 〈◊〉 a Lib. 4. cap. 2. b Lib. 4. cap. 7. ( Si Promissio vitae aeternae est conditionata , ut cap. 1. probavimus , certè necessarium est implere Conditionem , si quis sal●us fieri vel●● . ●●s ; ● iustus non est liber ab ebligatione Legis divine : certè nisi eam impleat ●onsaluabitur , ) If the Law still rule ouer vs as seruants requiring the praescribed taske : or else shaking the Whip , and threatning stripes , & not as ouer sonne commanding Obedience . So a King in vnder the Direction : not the Compulsion of the law ; because not tyed to the Penalty . cum v. 11. b Rom. 7. 1. 2. &c. 2 Conclusion . a Hist. Eccl. 2. cap. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . a Lib. 4 dé Iust. cap. 18. Lorin 〈◊〉 Iac. b Iackson of lust . Faith. S. 2. cap. 6. c Leeo supra ●●tat . a Lor●● in lacob . b Lib. 4 cap. 18. Gal. 5. 6. a Bell. lib. 1. de ●ust . cap 15. 1 Arg. of S. Iames. a Lib. 1. de Iust. cap. 15. 2 2d Arg. of S. Iames. b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . The former reading is most agreeable to the Art gument of the Apostle ▪ So the Syriack-Beza , the Vulgar , the French , our last Translators . Pareus ●ollowes the other reading 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . and so Piscator . But they giue no good reason of this she is so doing . The change was easie from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . a De lib. arbi● 3 Arg of ● . Iames. a Bell. lib. 1. d● Iustif. cap. 15. b 〈◊〉 c Becanus . 4 〈◊〉 of S. Iames. a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as an empty Vessell without liquor a 〈…〉 b 〈…〉 〈…〉 2 Example , a Heb. 11. 31. 2 Conclu●●●● proued . Phil. 4. ● . Deut. 5. 6. a 1 Pet. 2. 24. b Heb. 13. c Tit. 2. 14. d Isa : 53 : 5. 1 Pet 2 24. e 1 Tim. 2. 6. f Coll. 2. 13. g Ibid v. 14. h Isa 38. 17. i Ier. 31. 34. k Coll. 1. 10. a Bell. de poen . lib. 4. cap. 1. b Bel. Lib 1. de Purga● : cap. 14. §. quarta Ratio . a Tabula de differentia 4 part . Tom. 2. cap. 15. 16. Bell. lib. 4. de Paenit . cap. 1. a De po●nit . lib 4. cap. 9. sect . 5. Irenaeus . b Acts Apost , cap , 4. v. 1● .