VINDICIAE FIDEI, OR A TREATISE OF JUSTIFICATION BY Faith, wherein that point is fully cleared, and vindicated from the cavils of its adversaries. Delivered in certain Lectures at Magdalen Hall in Oxford, By William Pemble, Master of Arts of the same house: And now published since his death for the public benefit. PHILIP. 3. 9— And he found in him not having mine own righteousness, which is of the Law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. OXFORD Printed by JOHN LICHFIELD and WILLIAM TURNER, for Edward Forrest. 1625. TO THE RIGHT WORSHIPFUL MASTER DOCTOR WILKINSON Principal of Magdalen Hall: The Masters, Bachelors, and other Students of that flourishing Society. SIRS CVstome hath made dedication of books almost as common, as Printing of them: and Wisdom directs there to dedicate, where we owe either respect, or thanks: this work therefore is yours by right, the Author thereof (who is now with God) undertaking it at your request, and performing it amongst you for your good, so that now to bestow it upon you is not a gift, but retribution: and I hope, it will both stir you up to be careful to continue fit men to stand up in his place, and remain to his successors as a pattern of imitation, if it be too high for emulation. To commend this Author to you, were to bring Owls to Athens, and for me to commend the work, would not add much worth to it: I know nothing can disparage it, unless it be a naked Margin: but you and all that will be pleased to take notice of his years, and great abilities in all humane learning, will confess he could not have time to read many Fathers, and so that defect may be easily pardoned. For he had fully finished six lustres of years, yet had he throughly traced the circle of the Arts, and attained to an eminency, not only in those ordinary Sciences, wherein all Scholars have some smattering, but even in those sublimer speculations of which all are not capable, few search after: For he was export in the Mathematics both mixed, and pure: his skill in Histories was also praiseworthy: sometime he spent (and not without success) in travailing to learn 〈…〉 and much travail in the study of our home-taught tongues, that he had worth to lai●e been Professor 〈…〉, or H●brew: all which endowments, as they 〈◊〉 afterwards have enabled him to read with much profit, so could they not choose but prevent younger years from reading at all the ancient Fathers, so it was not want, but abundance of learning, that took up his time, and prevented his Margin, and therefore I hope shall not disparage this work. The first weapon young Fencers learn to use is single sword, when they are masters of that, they enlarge their skill; our Author was but young, let it not prejudice him, that he first uses only 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 Leviathan: Therefore (as in my knowledge▪ these Lectures were heard with much applause, so do I persuade myself, they will be read with great approbation, and occasion the publishing of other Lectures, and private labours, wherein he took no less pains, nor deserved less praise, then in his public endeavours. So hoping that you will accept this small pains of mine, I take my leave, and rest From Tewkeisbury this 9th of july. 1625. Yours: willing to do you greater, though not more acceptable service, JOHN GEREE. To the Christian Reader. GEntle Reader, this Treatise was neither finished nor polished by the Author: He left it with me when he died, to be dealt with as cause should require; upon perusal, I found it fit for the time, so full of lif● so sound & clear in proof, that in my conceit it will do much good: and here thou hast it, as he left it. The argument is of all, indifference betwixt us and Papists the chiefest, no controversy more disputed, and less agreed upon then this. Christ and his blood is the main cause of our spiritual peace; Papists and others divide with him, and take something to themselves: the spiritual pride that is in the heart of man, would fain have a finger in the work of salvation, of other controversies betwixt us & the other party: some before the Pope's Kitchen, some for the Pope's crown, but this of our justification, toucheth the life of Grace to the quick, breeds more in our flesh then any, and th●se sicknesses are most dangerous, that come from within. It is a fundamental case, wherein to fail, takes away the essence of a Christian: Wherefore sigh there is now such need to have the world confirmed in this truth of God, I thought good to send this book abroad, wherein this is put out of question to any man of a single eye; that we are not justified by any thing we any thing we can do or suffer. Many write books, and confute them themselves when they have done; but this our Author what he wrote, he believed; for being to die, he confirmed this Truth, in a discoursefull of life and power, and professed to take his last upon it, that it was the very truth of God. We read that some learned Papists, when they are to give up the ghost, disclaim their own merits, and would fain find all in Christ alone: but this our Author did it before sundry, with that life, and feeling, 〈◊〉 clear apprehension of the love of God in his Son, that such is heard him, and loved him well and long, could not well tell, whether they should weep, or rejoice; weep, to see a friend die, rejoice to see him die so. Good Reader, learn this holy instruction out of this book: that we are not to be found in our own righteousness at all, and believe it; thou shalt have as he had, peace passing all understanding, in life, and in death, for being justified by saith (not by works) we have peace with God saith Saint Paul. If any ingenuous learned Papist would undertake to answer this book, me thinks I might prophesy that as Vergezius (Bishop of Capo d' Istria, and Nuncio to Clement the seventh, and Paul the third) reading Luther, to answer Luther, was converted, and had his soul saved. And as Pighius, though of a peevish Spirit enough, yet reading Calvin, to confute Calvin, was in the very doctrine of justification confuted himself, and wrote with us. So I say, would a modest Papist read this book to reply unto it, he could not but see the truth, and yield unto it. For though many have done excellently in this argument, yet to speak my opinion freely, at least for perspicuity, this surpasseth them all. Farewell. Thine in Christ, Rich. Capel. A TREATISE OF JUSTIFICATION. CHAP. I. The explication of these terms. First, justice, or Righteousness. Secondly, justification. Having by God's Assistance dispatched two of those general points at first proposed (touching the Antecedents and Nature of true Faith) we are now by the same help to go forward to the third general head; namely, Sect. l. ●. 1. concerning the Consequents of Faith, which were two, our justification in regard of God, & our Obedience in regard of ourselves. The former will show us how to judge of the dignity and excellent worth of Faith; being so far honoured in God's gracious acceptance, as to be made the blessed Instrument of our spiritual peace and comfort flowing from our justification. The later will direct us how to make trial of the truth of our faith in the discovery of that unseparable Union which there is between believing, and obeying. Let us begin with the former, our justification, the doctrine whereof I shall endeavour to deliver unto you, as briefly and plainly: as so large and difficult a subject will give leave. Wherein because the opening of the word will give us some light for the understanding of the matter: we are in the first place to see what is meant by these words, justification, and justice, or Righteousness. justice, therefore, or Righteousness (that I mean which is created, for of uncreated Righteousness, we have not to speak) 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 pattern & ●ule of all derivative & finite righteousness. Now this righteousness (though but one, in its substance, never thelesse) admits a double consideration, being called either, 1 Legal and of Works, which stands in that conformity unto God's law, which is inherent within ourselves, when in our own persons and works we possess and practise that righteousness which is required of the Law. This Legal justice is also double, 1 Of Obedience, when all such things are done, as the Law commandeth; or left undone which it forbids. He that doth so is a just man. 2 Of Punishment or Satisfaction, when the breach of the Law is satisfied by enduring the utmost of such penalties, as the rigour of the Law required. For not only he who doth what the Law commandeth: but even he also that suffereth all such punishments, as the Lawgiver in justice 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 plain from the name of penal Laws. For first, where the penalty is suffered, there the will of the Lawgiver is satisfied; for as much as his will was, either that the Law should be observed, or the punishment undergone. If therefore he, to whom the Law is given, do either: he satisfies the will of the Lawgiver. Had his will been absolute, so that nothing else could have contented him, but only obedience: than it had been a vain thing to have prescribed a determinate penalty. But when as a penalty is limited in case of disobedience, 'tis manifest that though the intent of the Lawgiver 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 Lawgiver is hereby also satisfied. For it is to be supposed in all penal laws, that the penalty limited is every way proportionable and equivalent, unto that good which might accrue by the observation of the Law. Else were the wisdom of the Lawmaker justly to be taxed, as giving an apparent encouragement to offenders; when they should see the penalty, not to be so much hurtful to them; as their disobedience were gainful. He therefore that suffers the penalty is afterward to be reckoned as if he had kept the Law: because by his suffering, he hath advanced, the Lawgivers' honour, or benefit, as much as he could by his obeying. 2 evangelical, and of Faith, which is such a conformity to God's Law as is not inherent in our own persons; but being in another is imputed unto us and reckoned ours. The righteousness of the Law, and of the Gospel, are not two several kinds of righteousness; but the same in regard of the matter and substance thereof: only they differ in the Subject and Manner of application. The righteousness of works is that holiness and obedience which is inherent in our own persons and performed by ourselves: the righteousness of Faith is the same holiness and obedience inherent in the person of Christ and performed by him; but embraced by our faith, and accepted by God, as done in our stead, and for our benefit. These are the diverse acceptions of this word justice or Righteousness; so far as it concerns the point in hand. In the next we are to inquire of this word justification; which being nothing but the making of a person just or righteous, may be taken in a double sense. For a person is made just either by Infusion, or Apology. We will take it in these terms for want of better. justification by Infusion, is then, when the habitual quality of Righteousness and Holiness is wrought in any person by any means whatsoever; whether it be created & infused into him by the work of another; or obtained by his own art and industry. Thus Adam was made just. Eccle. 7. 29. God having given unto him in his creation the inherent qualities of justice and holiness. Thus also the regenerate are made Just, in as much as by the holy Ghost, they are sanctified through the real infusion of grace into their souls; in the which they increase also more and more, by the use and exercise of all good means. 2 justification, by Apology is, when a person accused as an offender is judicially 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 be justified, or made just▪ according as, on the contrary by Accusation and Condemnation, a party is said to be made unjust. As 'tis plain by that of Isaiah, 5. 23. [They justify the wicked for a reward: and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him] that is, they condemn the righteous, which is a making of them, unrighteous in the sight & estimation of men. So in 1 joh. 5. 10. [He that believeth not God, hath made him a liar] because unbelievers do in their hearts call God's truth into question: and accuse him to be false of his word. So again, Psal. 109. 7. [When he is judged, let him be condemned.] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Let him go out a wicked person. For so his condemnation makes him (that is) declares him to be. But here further it must be observed, that this justification of a person, by pleading to, and absolution in judgement, is of two sorts; according as the Persons to be justified, are likewise of two several conditions. 1 Some are truly and inherently just, being no Transgressor's of the Law; either at all; or not in that whereof they are accused. In this case if any crime, or suspicion of crime, be laid to their charge; they are justified; either by a plai●e denial of the fact, alleging that the fault whereof they are accused, was never by them committed; or by denying the evil of the fact, alleging that in so doing they have done well, because they have done what the Law commanded; and that's their warrant. Thus Samuel justifies his government against all surmise of fraudulent and wrongful dealing, that the people might imagine by him. In 1 Sam. 12. 3. etc. Thus David clears himself before God, from that crime of conspiracy against Saul his Master, and seeking of the Kingdom (which Cush and other Courtiers accused him of) professing his innocency; and desiring God to judge him according to his righteousness and integrity in that behalf: as it is Psal. 7. 3. 4. 8. There need not other instances in so plain a matter. Those that are justified by this means are justified by that Righteousness which is of the Law and of Works. By which plea though man may be justified before man: yet in the sight of God no flesh living shall be justified. As hereafter we shall see. 2. Some are not truly righteous in themselves: but are in their own persons transgressors of the Law. These (when they are accused) have no other means whereby they may be justified, but by confessing the crime, and pleading satisfaction: that for their transgression against the Law, and offence thereby against the Lawgiver, they have fully satisfied by doing or suffering some such thing, as by way of just penalty hath been required of them. Now he that can plead such a full and perfect satisfaction, ought therefore to be accounted innocent, and free from all desert of further punishment (for 'tis supposed he hath endured the utmost of evil 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 equal justice: and deserve alike justification. In which point, it must be no●ed, that if the party offended do pardon without any satisfaction taken, there the offender is not justified at all. And again if the offence be such, as there can be no satisfaction made: than it is utterly impossible that the offender should ever be justified. Now this satisfaction which an offender may plead for his justification, is threefold. 1 That which is made by himself in his own person. He that can plead this kind of satisfaction, is justified Legally by his own righteousness and merits. 2 That which is made by another for him; When another by consent and approbation of the party offended, interposeth himself as surety for the party delinquent, in his stead and name to make that satisfaction, which is required of the party himself. Whether this be done by doing or suffering the same things which the delinquent should have done or suffered, or some other things but of equivalent worth and dignity. He that pleads this kind of satisfaction, is justified evangelically by grace, through the righteousness of another imputed to him, and accepted for as his. 3 That which is made partly by himself and partly by another. Which kind of satisfaction may have place between Man and Man: but between God and Man it hath none at all. Neither by this, nor by that first kind of satisfaction which is done in our own Persons, can any man be justified in the sight of God, but only by the second sort, that satisfaction which is made by another for us. As we shall see afterwards. CHAP II. In what sense the word justification ought to be taken in the present controversy, and of the difference between us and our Adversaries therein. Having thus distinguished of these words, it followeth that in the first place, we inquire in which of the forenamed senses we are to take this word justification. The difference between us and our adversaries of the Romish Church, is in this point very great and irreconcilable. They affirm that justification is to be taken in the first acception, for making of a Man Just by infusion of Real Holiness into him. So that with them to justify bears the same sense as to purify or sanctify. that is of a person unclean, unholy, unjust, to make him formally or inherently Pure, Holy and Just, by working in him the inherent Qualities of Purity, Sanctity and Righteousness. We on the contrary teach according to the Scriptures; That justification, is to be taken in the second acception, for the pleading of a persons innocency called into Question: whereby he is judicially absolved and freed from fault and punishment. So that with us to justify a person is in judicial proceeding to acquit him of the crime whereof he is accused, and to declare him free from desert of punishment. Whether of us twain be in the right is very material to be determined of, considering that all ensuing disputation touching the justification of a Sinner is to be framed upon one of these grounds, rightly taken; and an error here is like a thread misplaced at first, that runs awry afterward through the whole piece. Our Adversaries plead for their Assertion: the Etymology of the word iustificare is iustum facere, in that sense (say they) as P●rificare, Mortificare, Vi●ificare, and many the like signify to make pure, to make dead or alive, by the real induction of such and such Qualities. Again they allege Scriptures; as namely Dan: 12. 3. [They that turn many to righteousness [Heb. that justify many) shall shine as the Stars for ever] Apoc. 22. 11. [He that is righteous (iustificetur) Let him be righteous still.] Tit. 3. 7. [He hath saved us by the washing of Regeneration, & renewing of the holy Ghost,— That being justified by his grace we should be made Heirs according to the hope of eternal life.] Again, 1 Cor. 6. 11. [And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, in the name of the Lord jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.] Rom. 8. 30. Heb. 9 Out of these with some other places (but such as have scarce any show of good proof) they would fain conclude, that by justification nothing else is meant, but the Infusion of the Habit of justice unto him, that was before sinful and unjust. Hereto we answer. 1. First for the Etymology that the signification of words is to be ruled, not by Etymologies: but by the common use:— Quem penes arbitrium est et vis & norma loquendi— as the Poet truly defines. Now it's a thing notorious that in the custom of all Languages, this word justificare imports nothing but the declaration of the Innocency of a person▪ and lawfulness of any fact: against such accusations as implead either, of unjustice and Wrong. I will justify such a Man or such a Matter (say we in English) and what English Man understands thereby any thing but this, I will make it appear such a Man is honest, such a fact lawful, however questioned to the contrary. In other Languages my skill serves me not, nor is it needful to trouble you with Instances. Those that have written of this subject of every Nation witness every one for their own Language. And further this word justificare being of a latter●stampe, unknown to such Latin Authors, as are of ancient and purer Language, fitted by Ecclesiastical writers to express the meaning of those two words of the Original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; it is apparent the Copy must follow the Original, and the Latin word bear the same sense as the Hebrew and Greek words do. And that this is that Legal sense which we have spoken of is a point so manifest throughout the whole Bible: that nothing but impudence can deny it. As we shall presently perceive. For in the next place. 2 As to the Scriptures which they allege for proof of their Interpretation of the word: We answer: That of a Multitude of places of Scripture, wherein the word justify is used, our Adversaries may truly pick out one two or three that seem to favour their Assertion of Infusion of habitual justice: yet have they gained little thereby, For where ten or more may be alleged against one in which the contrary signification is used, reason tells us, that an Article and Doctrine of Religion ought to be framed out of the signification of words and phrases, which is usual, ordinary, and regular; and not out of that which sometimes comes in by way of particular exception. Might he not be judged destitute of sense or modesty, that would quarrel 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 civil meeting of people together? Wherefore we may grant them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that of Dan. 12. and (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Apoc. 22.) is to be made just, formaliter, by infusion of inherent Holiness in a Sinner. For so Ministers may be said to justify many (as it is in Daniel) viz. by Ministry turn many to righteousness, directing them to the means of Holiness, and as God's Instruments, working in them the graces of Conversion and Regeneration. And so he that is just (in the Apoc.) may be justified still: (that is) increase in the inward Habit and outward Exercise of Holiness, more and more. thus we may yield them in these two places without seeking too, other Interpretations further off. And yet will this be no prejudice to our Doctrine grounded upon the other signification so generally used. We answer, Lib. 1. de Just, cap. 1▪ that of all those other places alleged by Bell, and Becanus, there is not any one that do necessarily enforce such a meaning of the word; See luke 18. 14 This Man went down to his house justified rather than the other. His prayer was for pardon. God be merciful, etc. For he went home justified (i. e) pardoned and absolved rather than the Pharisee. as he and his fellows stand for. These above the rest have most appearance, namely, 1 Cor: 6. & Tit. 3. Rome 8. 30. where justification is, say they, confounded as one and the same with Sanctification; & Regeneration. Whereunto I answer that they do ill to confound those things that the Apostle hath distinguished very plainly. He tells the Corinthians; that the Unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God, and that themselves had been such, even of the most notorious rank: but now they were washed, sanctified and justified. By three words the Apostle expresseth the change of their former condition. One Metaphorical (yea are washed) The meaning whereof he declareth in two proper words following. [ye are Sanctified] that's one degree of washing or cleansing from the corruption of Nature (in part) by the [Spirit of our God] of whom is the gift of inherent grace. And [ye are justified] that's another sort of washing, from the guilt of Sin (in the whole) [in the name of the Lord jesus] that is, by the Righteousness a●d Merits of jesus Christ. Nothing can be more perspicuous and elegant. That place to Tit. Chap. 3 is also as plain. God (sayeth the Apostle) speaking of the Heirs and sons of GOD in Christ) (hath saved us [not by any works of ours; but by his own mercy. ver. 5. This salvation is set forth to us in the Means and in the End. The means are two Regeneration and justification. [He hath saved us by the washing of Regeneration, & renewing of the Holy Ghost] This is the first Means (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 Holiness. 2 By the cause efficient the Holy Ghost, [whom he hath shed on us abundantly] or richly, following the Metaphor, Which is referred, ad gratiam Regenerationis. comparing the Holy Ghost in this operation to water poured out. 2 The Meritorious Cause of it [Through jesus Christ our Saviour] who hath procured the sending down of the [Holy ghost] into the hearts of the elect. ver. 6. This is one step to Heaven, our Regeneration, but it is imperfect and cannot abide the severity of God's judgements: now we must be absolutely free from all fault and guiltiness before we can have hope of obtaining eternal Life: Therefore follows the other means of salvation (viz.) our justification, by the free grace of God which utterly frees us from all blame whatsoever, both of obedience to the law and satisfaction for Sins against the law; that thus being Regenerate and justified we might obtain the end of our salvation, eternal Life. The third place is that [Rom. 8. 30, Whom God hath Praedestinated, Tom. 2. tract. 4. Cap. 2. Parag. ●. these he hath called, whom called, justified; whom justified, glorified] In this place Becanus triumphs. For (saith he) The Apostle here describing the order of Man's salvation, first in God's decree; then in the Execution of it by three degrees of Vocation justification and Glorification: it follows necessarily from thence; that either Sanctification is left out: or that it is confounded with one of those three degrees named. 'tis a desperate shift to say that Sanctification is signified by Vocation or Glorification: therefore it must be the same with justification; And this cannot be avoided by any Elusion. We leave shifts to the Jesuits, returning him to this place, this plain direct answer. That Sanctification is here comprised in the word Vocation. For whereas the links of this golden chain are inseparable, and all those that are called must needs be justified and glorified: by vocation, must here be meant that calling which is inward and effectual, not that alone which is outward by the external Ministry of the Word. For all that are thus called, be not justified, as is apparent; and again, some, as Infants, are justified 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, enlightening his Eyes, opening his Ear, changing his Heart, turning him from darkness to light, from the power of Satan, to the obedience of God; in a word, in the Renovation of his Faculties? Which what is it else but Sanctification? or Regeneration? or Conversion? Only styled by that term of Vocation in regard of the means whereby it is ordinarily effected (that is) the preaching of the word. He must needs coin us some new Mystery in Divinity: who will persuade us that some other work of Grace is meant by Vocation; and not that of Sanctification. Therefore we have neither one Link snapped out, nor two shuffled together in this chain of our Salvation: But four, as distinct, as undivideable. Election, Sanctification, (whereto we are called by the Gospel preached, 2 Thess. 2. 14.) justification by Faith, (which is a fruit of Sanctification) and Glorification. The fourth place is that in the Epistle to the Hebrews, Chap. 13. 14. [For if the blood of Bulls and Goats, and the ashes of an Heifer, sprinkling them that are unclean, sanctifieth as touching the purifying of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without fault to God, purge our consciences from dead works, to serve the living God.] Hence they argue; That as Leviticall Sacrifices and Washings did sanctify the flesh from outward Legal impurity: so the Sacrifice of Christ doth purge the Conscience from inward spiritual uncleanness of dead Works or Sins. This purging of the conscience is nothing, but justification of a sinner. Wherefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be all of one meaning. To which I answer, That the Apostle in that Chapter, and the next disputing of the virtue and efficacy of Christ's death, far exceeding the force of all Leviticall Sacrifices (the shadows of it) ascribes unto it what could not be effected by those, (viz.) eternal Redemption [verse 12.] purging of the conscience from dead works [verse 12.] the putting away of sin, [verse 26.] The Sanctification of the Elect, [Chap. 10. 7. 10.] made Heirs according to the hope of eternal life. In neither then of those places is our sanctification confounded with our justification: but both distinctly declared, as two several parts of graces and means of the Accomplishment of our eternal Happiness. 'Tis scarce worth the labour to examine those other Scriptures produced by our Adversaries, whereof some part do directly cross, and the rest do but only in appearance confirm their assertion. In general therefore for them, thus much we confidently affirm, that let the Concordance be studied, and all those places examined wherein either [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] is used in the Old or [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] in the New Testament: there will not one be found, no not one, in which those words carry any other meaning, Rome 6. 7. then that which we stand for (viz.) the clearing of a party's innocence questioned as faulty, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] significat liberatur: sed sersus loci d●scrimen indicat. and blame-worthy. Take a taste of some places. 1 justification is sometimes applied to 1. God, when Man justifies God. As Psal. 51. 4. Rom. 3. 4. [That thou mightest be justified [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] in thy saying, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.] Matth. 11. 19 [And wisdom is justified [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] of her children,] Luke 7. 35. Luke 7. 29. [And the Publicans justified [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] God, being baptised with the baptism of john.] Can there be any other meaning of justification here●: but this only? That God is then justified, when his works, his wisdom, his sacred ordinances, being accused by profane men, as untrue, unequal, vn●ust, and foolish, are by the Godly acknowledged, or any other means evidently cleared unto all men, to be full of all Truth, Equity, Wisdom, and Holiness? 2 Man and that 1 Before Man in things between Man and Man. When Man justifies Man, Deut. 25. 1. [If there be a controversy between Men, and they come unto judgement, that the judge may judge them, than they shall justify [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] the righteous and condemn the wicked,] Isaiah 5. 23. [Woe to them wh●ch justify the wicked for a reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him] Proverb. 17. 15. [He that justifieth th● wicked, and condemneth the just, even they both are an abomination to the lord] 2 Sam. 15. 4. [Oh that I were made judge in the Land, that every man that hath any suit or cause, might come to me, and I would do him Iusti●e. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] In these & many the like places, to justify is in iud● ciall proceeding to absolve a party from fault & blame: whether it be rightfully or wrongfully done. Ezek. 16. 52. [Be thou confounded and bear thy shame, in that thou hast justified thy sisters] speaks God unto jerusalem; in comparison of whose abomination the sins of Sodom and Samaria, were scarce to be accounted any faults. They were Saints to her. Of the pharisees Christ speaks, Luke 16. 15. [Ye are they that justify yourselves before men: but God knoweth your hearts.] That is, You stand upon the defence and ostentation of outward Holiness, and deeming it sufficient to make it appear before Men you are holy: without regard of acquitting the sincerity of your hearts before God. 2 Before God, where God justifies Man Exod. 23. 7. [The innocent and the righteous slay thou not, for I will not justify the wicked.] by esteeming him as innocent, and letting him go from punishment. Isaiah 50. 8. (He is near that justifieth me, who will contend with me?) saith the Prophet in the person of Christ, signifying God would make it appear that he was blameless, for the rejection of his people the jews who perished for their own and not his fault. Rom. 5. 18. (As by the offence of one judgement came on all Men to condemnation: So by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men to the justification of life,) Rome▪ 8. 33. 34. [Who shall lay thing to the charge of God's Elect? It is God that justifies; who shall condemn? 1 Cor. 4. 4. [I know nothing by myself: yet in this am I not justified. He that judgeth me is God. q. d. I have kept a good conscience in my Ministry, but God is my judge, though my conscience pronounce me innocent, yet God is my sole judge that judgeth me and my conscience. Acts 13. 38. 39 [Through this Man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and from all things from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses; by him every one that believeth is justified. By which places (not to name more) it appears plainly: that justification is opposed to Accusation and Condemnation: and therefore can signify nothing else but the defence & absolution of a person accused for an offender. Which thing is so clear and evident that it cannot be gaynsayed, except by those alone who are wilfully blind, and obstinately resolved to contradict any truth, that makes against their inveterate errors. For ourselves, we may not, nor dare not shut our eyes against so clear Light: nor ought we to be so bold when God hath acquainted us with his meaning; as to follow another of our own making. And there fore according to the Scriptures we acknowledge and maintain, that as in other places where mention is made of the justification 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 justification nothing else is meant; but the gracious Act of Almighty God whereby he absolves a believing sinner accused at the Tribunal of his justice, pronouncing him just and acquitting him of all punishment for Christ's sake. CHAP III▪ The Confutation of our Adversary's cavils against our acception of the word justification. OUR Adversaries have little to reply against these so plain places. Something they answer, namely. 1 That it cannot be denied but that justification, 〈…〉 doth many times bear that sense we stand for. But with all they would have us obseru this rule that [Quotiescunque in Scriptures Deus dicitur iustificare impium: semper intelligendum est ex impio facere iustum. God cannot declare a man to be just: but of unjust he must make him just.] And they give the Reason. Because the judgement of God is according to Truth Rom. 2. 2. We embrace this Rule and the Reason of it, acknowledging that where ever there is justification, there must be justice some way or other in the party justified. But the Question stands still in what manner God makes a sinner just: whom he in judgemenr pronounceth so to be. They say by bestowing on him the grace of Sanctification & perfect Righteousness inherent in his own Person. We affirm, that it is by imputing unto him the perfect Righteousness of Christ, accepting Christ's obedience for his. In which diversity let us come as near them as Truth will give leave. Thus far we go along with them. 1 That there is inherent Righteousness bestowed upon a Sinner, whereby of unholy, impure, unjust; he is made holy, clean, and just. We all confessed this work of the Holy Ghost renewing Man in the spirit of his mind, restoring in him the a Eph●. 4. 24. Col. 3. 9 Image of God in a Eph●. 4. 24. Col. 3. 9 Knowledge, Righteousness, and Holiness. That the Holy Ghost dwells in the Elect, as in b 1 Cor. 3. 16. 6. 19 2 Cor. 6. 16. Rom. 8. Temples dedicated to his service, which he adorns by communicating unto them his Heavenly graces. That he makes them Living c Rom. 12. 5. 1 Cor. 12. 11. Members of Christ's Body: and fruitful d joh. 15. 4. Branches of that true Vine. That this grace infused is a fountain of e joh. 4. 14. Living water springing up to eternal Life. These things we believe and teach. Wherefore whereas the Popish Doctors fall foul on our reformed writers, charging Calvin & others for denying all Inherent Righteousness in Believers, & maintaining only an Imputed Righteousness without them: We tell them 'tis a gross Calumny forged by perverse. Minds, that list not to understand men's plainest writings. Nor Calvin 1 Cal. justit. lib. 3 cap. 1●. nor any that ever maintained the truth with him, ever denied the Righteousness o● Sanctification. But this he denies & we also with the Scriptures that the Righteousness which justifies us in God's judgement is not in ourselves: but all in Christ. That inherent Righteousness or sanctification alway keep company with justification, in the same Person. Severed they are never in their common Subject (viz) a True Believer. as appears Rom. 8. 30. Rom. 8. 30. But that therefore they must be confounded for one and the same Grace and work of God; may be affirmed with as good Reason: as that in the Sun Light and Heat are all one: because always joined to gather. That by this grace of Inherent Righteousness, a Man is in some sort justified before God. That is so far as a Man by the grace of God is become truly holy and good: so far God esteems him holy & good. God taketh notice of his own graces in his Children, he approves of them and gives Testimony of them in case it be needful; as appears by the Righteousness of job, David, Zachary and other holy Men; who were good and did good in God's sight. Yea in the Life to come when (all corruptions being utterly done away▪) the Saints shallbe invested with perfection of Inherent Holiness: by the Righteousness of their own, and not by any other shall they then appear just in God's fight. Thus far we agree with them. But herein now we differ, that although by the grace of Sanctification infused, God do make him righteous and holy in some measure that was before altogether unholy and wicked: nevertheless we affirm that by and for this Holiness, the best of Saints living never were nor shallbe justified in God's sight; that is pronounced just and innocent before the Tribunal of his justice.. For we here take up the forenamed Rule laid down by our adversaries, Whomsoever God pronounceth to be perfectly just; he must needs be made perfectly just. For God's judgement is according to truth. Now that no man in this life, is made perfectly just by any such inherent Holiness in him as is able to outstand the severe and exact trial of God's judgement: is a Truth witnessed by the Scripture and confessed always by the most holy Saints of God. Our Adversaries indeed stiffly plead the contrary: teaching that sin and Corruption in the justified is utterly abolished. The error and pride of which Imagination we shall shortly have occasion more at Large to Discover unto you. Mean while let that much stand for good: that Man being not made perfectly just in himself cannot thereby be declared perfectly just before God: and therefore some other Righteousness, & not that of Sanctification is to be sought for, whereby a sinner may be justified in God's sight. To that argument of ours from the Opposition of justification to Accusation and Condemnation confirmed by so many places of Scripture; 〈◊〉. Ibid. Parag. 9 They answer. That this hinders nothing at all Both may agree to God who of his mercy justifies some; (that is) makes them inherently Just; of his justice condemns other (that is) punisheth them. To which slight Answers we make this short reply. That where words are opposite, (as they acknowledge these to be) there according to the Laws of opposition, they must carry opposite Meaning. But unto Accusation, Comdemnation, and punishment nothing is opposite but defence, Absolution, and Pardon. Where therefore justificare is coupled with these words; it must needs bear 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 justly, and after made good. I should but trouble you to allege more of their Cavils. Let thus much suffice for the clearing of this point: That justification and Sanctification are to be Distinguished and not confounded. The Righteousness of the one is in us, in its Nature, true and good: but for its degree and measure, Imperfect; and always yoked with the remainder of natural Corruption▪ And therefore if a sinner should plead this before the judgement seat of God, (offering himself to be judged according to this Righteousness and Innocency) oh how soon his mouth would be stopped; And this confession wrung out from out his Conscience; All my Righteousness is as filthy Rags! And again Vilis sum; I am vile, what shall I answer thee! But that other Righteousness of justification is without us in Christ's possession: but ours by God's gracious gift and acceptation, and this every way perfect and unreproved in the severest judgement of God. And therefore when a sinner is drawn before the Bar of God's judgement, accused by the law, Satan, his Conscience; convicted by the evidence of the Fact, and to be now sentenced and delivered to punishment by the unpartial justice of God: In this case he hath to allege for himself the all-sufficient righteousness of a Mighty redeemer who only had Done and suffered for him that which he could never do nor suffer for himself. This Plea alone and no other in the world, can stop up 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 judge. This alone will procure favour and absolution in the presence of that judge of the whole world. This alone brings down from Heaven into our Consciences that blessed peace, which passeth all understanding; but of him that hath it. Whereby we rest ourselves secure from fear of Condemnation; being provided of a defence that will not fail us, when after death we shall come into judgement. SECT. 2. CHAP. I. The Orthodox opinion concerning the manner of justification by Faith, and the confutation of Popish errors in this point. Having thus cleared the meaning of this word [justification] and showed that the Scriptures, Sect. 2. ●. ●. when they speak of the justification of a sinner before God, do thereby understand the absolution of him in judgement from sin and punishment. We are now upon this ground to proceed unto the further explication of this point, to inquire by what Means and in what Manner, this justification of a sinner is accomplished. That we may go on more distinctly: I will reduce all our ensuing discourse of this point into three heads. First, ● Gen. Head●. touching the condition required in them that shall be justified. Secondly, the matter of our justification. ● Cap. 7. (viz.) What righteousness is it wherefore a sinner is justified. Thirdly; touching the form of justification, in what the quality of this judicial Act of God, justifying a sinner, consisteth. Concerning the first at this time. The condition required in such as shall be partakers of this grace of justification is true faith, General head. whereunto God hath ordinarily annexed this great privilege; That by faith and faith only, a sinner shall be justified: This the Scriptures witness in terms as direct and express, as any can be. [Rome 3. 28. We conclude a man is justified by faith without the works of the Law.] and Rom. 4. 9 [For we say that faith was imputed unto Abraham for righteousness.] and Rom. 5. 1. [Then being justified by faith we have peace towards God through jesus Christ our Lord.] With other the like places. Whence it is agreed upon on all sides, that a sinner is justified by faith: but touching the manner, how he is said to be justified by faith, there is much controversy and brawl, between the Orthodox of the reformed Churches, and their Adversaries 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 justified by faith, not properly as it is a quality or action; which by its own dignity and merit, deserves at God's hands Remission of sins; or is by God's favourable acceptance taken for the whole and perfect righteousness of the Law, which is otherwise required of a sinner: but only in relation unto the object of it, the righteousness of Christ; which it embraceth and resteth upon. Secondly, that a sinner is justified by faith in opposition unto the Righteousness of works in the fulfilling of the Law. Whereby now no man can be justified. In this relative and inclusive sense do the Reformed Churches take this proposition [A man is justified by faith.] They explain themselves thus: There are two Covenants that God hath made with man; By one of which and by no other means in the world, salvation is to be obtained. The one is the Covenant of works, The tenor whereof is [Do this and thou shalt live.] This Covenant is now utterly void, in regard of us; who through the weakness of our sinful flesh cannot possibly fulfil the condition of Obedience required thereby: and therefore we cannot expect justification & Life by this means. The other is the Covenant of grace the Tenor whereof is, Believe in the Lord jesus and thou shalt be saved. The condition of this covenant is Faith: the performance whereof differs from the performance of the condition of that other Covenant. Do this and Live is a compact of pure justice wherein wages is given by debt, so that he which doth the work obeying the Law, may in strict justice for the work sake claim the wages, eternal life, upon just desert. Believe this and live is a compact of freest and purest Mercy: wherein the reward of eternal life is given us in favour for that which bears not the least proportion of worth with it: so that he which persons the condition cannot yet demand the wages, as due unto him in severity of justice; but only by the grace of a freer promise, the fulfilling of which he may humbly sue for. By which grand difference between these two Covenants clearly expressed in Scriptures, it appears manifestly that these two Propositions. [A man is justified by works,] [A man is justified by Faith,] carry meanings utterly opposite one to the other. The one is proper and formal: the other metonymical and Relative. In this Proposition (A Man is justified by works) we understand all in proper and precise terms: 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 justified in God's sight from all blame and punishment whatsoever; because perfect obedience to the moral Law in itself, for it own sake deserves the approbation of God's severe justice and the reward of Heaven. But in that other Proposition (A man is justified by Faith.) We must understand all things relatively thus. A sinner is justified in the sight of God from all sin and punishment by faith (that is) by the obedience of jesus Christ believed on; and embraced by a true faith. Which Act of justification of a sinner, although it be properly the only work of God, for the only merit of Christ: yet is it rightly ascribed unto faith, and it alone, for as much as faith is that main condition of that new Covenant, which as we must perform if we will be justified: so by the performance thereof we are said to obtain justification and life. For when God by grace hath enabled us to perform the condition of believing; then do we begin to enjoy the benefit of the Covenant; then is the sentence of absolution pronounced in our consciences; which shall be after confirmed in our death; and published in the last judgement. Secondly, our faith and no other grace directly respects the promises of the Gospel; accepting what God offers, sealing unto the truth thereof by assenting thereto, and embracing the benefit and fruit of it unto itself, by relying wholly upon it. This interpretation of that proposition the Reformed Churches do admit, & none other: rejecting as erroneous and contrary to the Scriptures such glosses as ascribe any thing to the dignity of faith; or make any combination between Faith and Works, in the point of our justification. Amongst which there are three erroneous assertions touching man's justification by Faith; which we are briefly to examine and refute. 1 That faith justifieth us [Per modum Causae efficientis & meritoriae] as a proper efficient and meritorious cause. Which by its own worth and dignity deserves to obtain justification, Remission of sins, and the grace of well-doing. This is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, which Bellarmine labours to prove▪ in his 17. Chap. lib. pr. de justificatione, where disputing against justification by faith alone, he tells us. If we could be persuaded that faith doth justify [impetrando, promerendo, & suo modo inchoando justificationem,] then we would never deny that love, fear, hope, and other virtues did justify us as well as faith. Whereupon he sets himself to prove that there is in faith itself some efficacy and merit to obtain and deserve justification. His Arguments are chiely two. From those places of Scripture, wherein a man is said to be justified, a Gal. 2. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. b Rom. 5. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, c Rom. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. or absolutely without Article or Preposition. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per fidem, ex fide (or) fide. Wherein these Prepositions, signify, saith he, the true cause of our justification. Which he proves 1 By the contrary, when a man is said to be justified [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, d Rom. 4. 2. & 3. 20. Gal 2. 16. jam. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.] This notes the true efficient deserving cause of his justification. Secondly, By the like in other places where we are said to be redeemed, saved, sanctified, Per Christum, per sanguinem, per mortem, per vulnera; and in the whole 11. to the Heb. The Saints are said to do such and such things (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) by faith. All signifying the proper cause. From those places of Scripture which (saith he) plainly show: Faith doth impetrare remissionem, & suo quidem modo mereri. Such are those [Thy Faith● hath saved thee] or made thee whole. A speech that Christ used often; as to the a Luke 7. 5●. woman that washed his feet; To her b Mat. 9 22. that had an issue of Blood; To the c Ma●. 10. 52. blind man recovered of his sight. And that to the Cananitish woman [O woman d Mat. 15. 21. great is thy Faith] now see what the merit of this Faith was, (For this e Mat. 7. 29. saying go thy way the Devil is gone out of thy Daughter) Thus Abraham, being f Rom. 4. 20. strenghened in Faith glorified God.) who therefore justified him for the Merit of his Faith. And again in the eleventh to the Heb. by many examples we are taught that (by g Heb. 21. 5▪ 6. Faith (that is) by the merit and price of Faith Enoch and other men pleased God. For answer here unto. 1 Unto the Argument from the Proposition we reply; That if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be needs strictly taken in the same kind of Causality: then the jesuits should do well to stand to that and make the similitude between Faith and works run thus. A Man is justified (by) works that is for the proper and only Merits of his obedience; so a Man is justified (by) Faith that is for the only merit of his Believing in Christ: and by that means both shallbe true and effectual causes of justification. But if Bellarmine dare not thus press the similitude for fear of being found guilty of despising the blood of the New Covenant, attributing that to the Merit of Faith which belongs only to the Merit of Christ; he must then give us that leave to distinguish which he takes to himself; and if he fall to his Qualifications and quodammodoes: he must pardon if we also seek out such an Interpretation of those places; as may not cross other Scriptures. Which for as much as they testify that (We i Rom. 3. 24. are justified by his grace through the Redemption that is in Christ) that (All k Heb. 1. 3. sin is purged by the blood of Christ) that (By the sacrifice of himself he hath put away Sin) and (With offering hath consecrated for over them that are sanctified.): we dare not without horrible sacrilege ascribe the grace of our justification unto the work and worth of any thing whatsoever in ourselves; but wholly and only to the Righteousness of Christ. And therefore when the Scriptures say we are justified (by) Faith; we take not the word (By) in this formal and legal sense; we are justified by the efficacy of our Faith, or for the worth of our Faith, according as 'tis understood in justification by works: but we take it Relatively & Instrumentally: We are justified by Faith (that is) by the Righteousness of Christ, the benefit whereof unto our justification, we are made partakers of by Faith, as the only grace which accepts of the promise, and gives us assurance of the performance. He that looked to the Brazen serpent and was cured, might truly be said to be healed (by) his looking on, though this Action was no proper cause working the cure by any efficacy or dignity of itself; but was only a necessary condition required of them that would be healed, upon the obedient observance whereof, God would show them favour: so he that looketh on Christ believing in him, may truly be said to be saved and justified by Faith, not as for the worth, and by the efficacy 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 us: upon our Obedience where unto God is pleased of his free grace to justify, Nor is this Trope, any way harsh, or unusual to put Oppositum pro opposito, Relatum pro Correlato, Habitum pro Obiecto. In Sacramental locutions 'tis a general Custom, to put the sign for the thing signified: and the like is used in other passages [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And the n Act. 6. 7. & 6. 5. word of God grew, etc. and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the o 1 Tim. 3. 9 & 4. 6. 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 seen is not hope, that is, res visa non sperata est. That of Ignatius, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Like to that (Christ our joy) Anni spem credere Terrae) Georg. 1. Virg. Georg. 1. And if we list not to be contentious, 'tis plain enough, that in those places, where the Apostle treats of justification by faith (viz) the grace of God in Christ; opposing works and faith, that is the Law and the Gospel, the Righteousness of the Law, to the righteousness of the Gospel, which is no other but the Righteousness of Christ. Thus faith is taken, Gal. 3. 23. Where he expressly treats of justification. But before Faith came, we were kept under the Law, shut up unto the Faith, which should afterward be revealed.] p Gal. 3. 23. That is, Before Christ came, and the clear exhibition of the Gospel, and the Righteousness thereof: the Church was kept under the Ceremonial Law, as under a Schoolmaster, Act. 13. 38. directing her unto Christ, that so [We might be justified by Faith.] that is, not by the Lesson of the Law, but by Christ, typified and figured unto us therein. 2 Unto the other Argument proving the merit of faith, we reply; That in those places is no ground, at all for such a conceit. [Thy Faith hath saved thee,] saith Christ to some whom he cured both in Body & Soul. But what? was it by the efficacy and for the word of their faith that this was done? No: As 'twas virtue went out of Christ that cured their bodily diseases; and his compassion that moved him to it: so 'twas his grace and merits and free love that healed their souls, and brought them pardon of their sins in the sight of GOD: Yet he saith; Their faith saved them, because by believing in the Son of God, they received this favour, though for their believing they did not deserve it. God bestows mercy where he finds faith, not because faith merits such favour at his hands: but because he is pleased to disperse his favours in such an order, as himself hath appointed; and upon such conditions as he thinks good. To that of the Canaanitish woman: Her great faith could not claim by desert, that favour which Christ showed unto her daughter: only Christ was pleased to honour her faith by his testimony of it; and to help the daughter at the Mother's entreaty. Christ did it upon that request of hers so instant and full of faith; But yet who can say she merited aught at CHRIST'S hands by that her faithful and instant petition? Herself yet living would deny it; and she doth deny it there, counting herself a dog unworthy of the children's bread, when yet she believed strongly, and was a child of Abraham according to the faith▪ To that of Abraham who gave glory to God, and of Henoch and others, who pleased God by their faith: We answer: That it is one thing for a man to glorify and please God by his Obedience; 'Tis another, by so doing to deserve aught at his hands. If God in much grace and favour accept of the honour and contentment we are able to do him by our Faith and Obedience: It follows not that therefore we must in justice merit at his hands. Other Arguments for them there are: but so weakly knit; they fall in sunder of themselves. Against them we have to object the Scriptures, that so often say, [We are justified] gratiâ and gratis; and the Council of Trent which they respect more than the Scriptures, which hath defined thus: Nihil eorum quae justificationem praecedunt, sive fides, sive opera, ipsam justificationis gratiam promeretur, Sess. 6. Cap. 8. How then can they say Faith merits justification. here our Adversaries have two shifts to run unto, whereby they would avoid the absurdity of this Assertion. 1 That this merit is not from us: but of God. Because Faith is the gift of God's grace; and therefore though we be justified by merit: yet we are justified by grace, because merit is of grace. 'Tis of grace that our faith merits. This you may be sure, is some of that smoke of the bottomless pit, wherein hell vented out the Jesuits, and they their dark Imaginations; all to confound whatsoever is clear and lightsome in Scripture. Scripture opposeth these pairs; Grace, Rom. 11. 6. and Nature, Grace and Merit. As the Pelagians of old confounded Nature & Grace, teaching that we were saved by Grace: yet affirming that we are also saved by Nature, and the natural strength of freewill. Which they salved thus. To be saved by Nature, is to be saved by Grace: for Nature is of God's grace and giving. 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: unless we will senslesly affirm, that the gift deserves something of the giver. That he that gives an hundred pound freely, is thereby bound to give an hundred more. Had they said that faith is good, because of Gods giving; that were true, and we may grant them that God is honoured and pleased with his own gifts: but that every good thing merits, and that we can deserve of God by his own gifts, is affirmed without all Reason, or Scriptures; and will never be proved by either. But there is yet another shift. 2 Faith merits justification [Non de condigno] of the worthiness of it: but [de Congruo] of the fitness: 〈…〉 that is, God in justice is not bound to bestow justification where there is faith: but yet in fitness he ought to do it. So that if he do not justify him that believes: he is likely to omit a thing very fit and agreeable. This distinction is a mere Imposture and collusion. Bellarmine in dealing with it seems to have a dog by the ears, he is loath to lose him: yet knows not well how to hold him. If he be urged where Scriptures make any the least Intimation of such a distinction: he refers you to Divines, that is, Popish Schoolmen, who out of their own imagination have forged it, and in time made it Authentical. But he sticks in the mire, when he is to show what merit of Condignity and merit of Congruity is. Merits of Condignity are works, to which wages is due of justice.. What then are merits of Congruity? Such works whereto wages is not due by any justice.. As for example: He that labours the whole day in the Vineyard, merits a penny of Condignity: because in justice his labour is worth his hire. But he that for an hour's work, receives a penny, he deserves it of Congruity: because though his labour be not worth it, yet he was promised a penny by him that set him on work: Then which fond imagination nothing can be more ridiculous, and contrary to common sense. For the merit of any work is the proportionableness of 'tis worth with the Reward. Now in reason wherein ariseth this proportion of any work with that reward? Stands it in the dignity of the work itself; or in the compact made between him that worketh and him that rewardeth? It is apparent that the work is deserving or not-deseruing according to ' its own Nature, not according to a compact made. He that promiseth unto one more for a little work, then to another for a great deal in the same kind: doth not by such a compact make the little labour of the one more deserving than the others great pains. We must look to the work, what it is in its own Nature: & as it is of some worth or no worth, so account it deserving or not deserving▪ Wherefore when in the distinction they make some merits of Condignity or worthiness, some of Congruity, or of fitness without worthiness, they offend two ways, grossly against two rules of Reason. First in opposing terms not opposite: Worthiness and fitness: being the same, if you take them in regard of the work. For that which deserves a reward worthily, deserves it fitly: (how else is it worthy of the reward, if the reward be not fit for it?) and that which deserves it fitly (if it deserves) it deserves it worthily. 2 In distinguishing upon terms that do not convenire t●ti. For Worthiness agrees to merit only: but fitness belongs to Compact. So that in plainer English, the distinction runs thus. Merits or deserts, are of two sorts. Some, that are merits and do deserve because they are worthy of a reward: others that are no merits and do not deserve because they are not worthy of the Reward: but only obtain it, ex Congruo, in regard of Compact and Promise. For this Rule is most certain, That a work which deserves nothing by its own worthiness: can never deserve any thing by compact or promise. The Jesuits are senseless in defending the contrary. If (saith Bellarmine) a King promise a Beggar 1000▪ pounds' a year, upon no condition, than indeed the Beggar doth not deserve it. But if upon 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 Beggar deserves it: and he may come to the King, and tell him, he hath merited his 1000 pounds a year. Every man, but a jesuit, would say 'twere extreme impudence in a Beggar to make such a demand, so derogatorily to the King's gracious bounty. Now can it help them to say, That a Promise binds unto performance, so that God should be unjust and untrue, if he should not bestow the reward promised, although the works be not equal to the reward. For God's justice and Truth in performing his promise, do not imply our merit in performing the Condition. We do not deserve by our well-doing; because God is just in his rewarding. And the reason is manifest; Because God in making the promise, respected merely the freeness and bounty of his own grace, not the worthiness of our works. And therefore that obligation whereby he hath tied himself to performance, is founded merely in his own Truth: not a ●ot in our merit. Wherefore when they tell us, that faith merits justification [de Congruo] they entrap themselves in a gross Contradiction; seeing to deserve [de Congruo] is not to deserve at all; but only to receive the reward by mere promise: God having promised to justify believers. Thus much touching the first Assertion, that Faith is the proper Cause of justification, working it by it own efficacy and merits. CHAP TWO▪ The Confutation of the Arminian error, showing that faith doth not justify, 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: 'tis this. 2 That we are justified by Faith sensu proprio, that is, the Act of believing, in that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere, is imputed to us for righteousness, being accepted of God and accounted unto us for that whole Righteousness of the Law which we were bound to perform. So that our very Faith is that Righteousness, for which we are justified in the sight of God; no● quidem merito suo: sed propter gratuitam acceptilationem Dei. The authors of this opinion are Faustus Socinus that unhappy Haereticke in his most Blasphemous Book [de Christo servatore:] & Michael Servetus a Spaniard in his second Book [the league & Evangelio] which Errors are confuted by Calvin in his opuscula. A stiff 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 Man's Redemption, was wi●h his companion Andreas Vaidonitus banished the Low Countries where he had seated himself and published his opinions; Arminius, and his followers have been chief promoters of it. Arminius himself, as in other his opinions: so in the publishing of this used much closeness and cunning conveyance. In his private disputations [Tit. de justificatione] he seems plainly to condemn it, saying that it is an abuse to say that Fides est causa formalis justificationis, and an error to affirm [That Christ hath deserved, ut fidei dignitate et merito iustificemur.] In his public disputations he opens himself somewhat plainly: Thes. 48. 2. 3. yet darkly enough [Thes. 19 de justificat. cat. Thes. 7. These are his words. [Fidei vero justificatio tribuitur, non quod illa sit justitia ipsa quae rigido & severo De● iudicio oppont possit; quanquam Deo grata: sed quod in iudicio mis●ri●ordiae triumphans supra iudicium absolutionem a peccatis obtineat & gratiose in justitiam imputetur. Cuius rei causaest tum Deus iustus & misericors, tum Christus obedient●● oblatione et intercessione suâ secundum Deum in beneplacito et mandato ipsius.] Here Faith itself is imputed for Righteousness. But 'tis not in God's severe judgement, but in his judgement of Mercy. Faith in itself is not worthy: but yet Christ by his merits hath deserved that God will graciously accept of it. This opinion published was quickly contradicted: whereupon Arminius makes known his mind in plainer Terms, In declaratiove sententiae ad ordines Holland: & Westfrisiae he confesseth that in the forenamed Thesis his meaning was, pag 6●. that [ipsa fides tanquam actus iuxta Evangelij mandatum praestitus imputatur coram Deo in sive ad iustitiam, idque in gratiâ, cum non sit ipsamet iustitia Legis. And in his Responsione ad 31. Artic. art. 4. he brancheth cut his opinion in three distinct propositions. 1 justitia Christi imputatur nobis. 2 justitia Christi imputatur in iustitiam. 3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 credere imputatur in iustitiam. The first of these Propositions, he grants: That Christ's Righteousness is imputed to us. The second he denies, That Christ's Righteousness is imputed for Righteousness. The third ●e grants, That the Act of believing is imputed for Righteousness. Here by Mysteries in these Propositions, hereafter to be unfolded. We 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 fellows the Remonstrants, of c A●tibell. pag. 106. Vorstius, of d Collat. cu● Sib. Lubber. Peter Bertius, of e Thesibu, de ●ustific. Episcopius, and the 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. rest. With whom Bellarmine agrees pat [Liber ●. de Iust. cap. 17. When upon that Rome 4. (His faith is imputed for righteousness.] he saith thus. [Vbiipsa fides censetur esse justitia, ac per hoc non apprehendit fides iustitiam Christi: sed ipsa fides in Christum est iustitia.] In sum, their opinion runs thus. God in the Legal Covenant required the exact obedience of his Commandment: but now in the Covenant of grace, he requires faith, which in his gracious estimation stands in stead of that obedience to the Moral Law, which we ought to perform. Which comes to pass by the Merit of Christ; for whose sake God accounts our imperfect saith to be perfect obedience. This Assertion we reject as erroneous, and in place thereof we defend this Proposition. God doth not justify a man by Faith properly, impuring unto him faith in Christ for his perfect obedience to the Law, and therefore accounting him just and innocent in his sight. Which we prove by these Reasons. 1 We are not justified by any work of our own. But believing is an Act of our own: Therefore by the Act of believing we are not justified. The Mayor is most manifest by the Scriptures, which teach that we are saved by grace Ephes. 2. 5. [and therefore not by the works of Righteousness which we had wrought.] Tit. 3. 6. [For if it be of Works, than were grace no more grace] Ro. 11. 6. The Minor is likewise evident. [That Faith is a work of ours.] For though john 6. 29. it be said, [This is the work of God that ye believe in him whom he hath sent] yet will not our adversaries conclude thence, that Faith is God's work within us, and not our work by his help. For so should they run into that absurdity which they would fasten upon us. (viz.) That when a Man believes, 'tis not man believes: but God believes in him. To believe, though it be done by God's aid: yet 'tis we that do it; and the Act is properly ours. And being so, we conclude, that by it we are not justified in God's sight. Here two Exceptions may be made. 1 First that we are not justified by any work of our own (viz▪) which we ourselves do by our own strength without the help of grace: But yet we may be justified by some work which we do (viz) by the aid of Grace; and such a work is Faith. We answer. This Distinction of works done without Grace and works done by Grace, was devised by one that had neither Wit nor Grace; being a Thick to elude the force of such Scriptures as exclude indefinitely all works from our justification, without distinguishing either of Time when they are done, before or after; or of the aid & help 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 justified by works (that is) by works done by worth of Nature before and without Grace. A Man is justified by Grace (that is) by works done by aid of Grace. These Interpretations are mere forged inventions of froward Minds, affirmed but not proved: as we shall more hereafter declare, 2 That we are not justified by any works of our own, (that is) by any works of the Law: but by a work of the Gospel such as faith is we may be justified. Male res agitur ubi opus est tot Remedijs (saith Erasmus in another case.) 'tis a certain sign of an untrue opinion when it must be bolstered up with so many distinctions. Nor yet hath this distinction any ground in Scripture, or in Reason: for both tell us that the works commamded in the Law, and works commanded in the Gospel are one and the same for the substance of them, What work can be named, that is enjoined us in the New Testament, which is not also commanded us in that summary precept of the Moral Law [Thou shalt love the L●rd thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all they strength, and with all thy mind: and thy neighbour as thyself.] Luc. 5. 27. Deut. 6. 5 What sin is there against the Gospel, that is not a transgression of the Law? If the Gospel command Charity, is it any other then that which the Law commands: If the Gospel command Faith, doth not the Law enjoin the same? you will say No. It doth not command Faith in Christ. I answer, yea, it doth: For that which commands us in general to Believe what ever God shall propose unto us: commands us also to believe in Christ, as soon as God shall make known that 'tis his will we should believe in him. The Gospel discovers unto us the Object; the Law commands us the obedience of believing it. Wherefore Faith, for the Substance of the Grace and works done by us, is a work of the Law; and so to be justified by the Action of believing, is to be justified by works and by our own Righteousness, contrary to the Scriptures; and that Phil: 5. 9 (That I may be found not, etc. This of the first Reason. 2 God accounts that only for perfect Righteousness 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 justice of the Law; such as can stand before the severity of God's judgements. The Mayor must be proved: That God accounts not that for perfect justice which is not perfect indeed. This appears by that Rom. 2. 2. [The judgement of God is according to truth.] Where therefore any thing is not truly good and perfect: there God esteems it not so. Here also willbe excepted. That God some time judgeth judicio iustitiae, according to exact justice; and then he ●udgeth nothing perfectly just, but that whi●h hath true perfection of justice in it. Sometimes he judgeth iudicio misericord●ae; according to mercy: and so he may esteem a Man perfectly righteous for that which is not perfect righteousness in itself; namely for his Faith. Surely, this is a trim distinction thus applied, that sets God's Mercy and Truth together by the Ears. As who would say, When God judgeth out of Mercy: he than doth not judge according to truth. The Scriptures do not acquaint us with any such merciful judgement of God. This they do acquaint us with, That God judgeth according to mercy, not when he doth pronounce and clear a Sinner to be perfectly righteous for that righteousness which is truly imperfect: but when he judgeth a Sinner to be righteous for that righteousness which is perfect; but is not his own. In this judgement there is both Truth and Mercy. Truth, in that he esteems me perfectly righteous, for that righteousness sake which is every way perfect: and mercy, that he accepteth for sin, that righteousness which is performed for me by Christ my surety; but is not mine own. Other merciful judgement of God besides this, we acknowledge none. 3 We are not justified by two righteousnesses existing in two diverse subjects. But if we be justified by the work of Faith: we shall be justified partly by that righteousness which is in us, (viz.) of Faith: partly by the righteousness of Christ without us. Ergo we are not justified by Faith properly. The Minor is apparent. The Righteousness of Faith is inherent in us. and by it we are justified (say our Adversaries.) The righteousness of Christ is inherent in him: and by it are we justified, say the Scriptures. [Being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.] Ro. 5 9 & v. 19 [By the obedience of one, many shall be made just.] Wherefore either we are properly justified by both, or there is an error, and one part must stand out▪ We cannot be properly justified by both, for our own faith and Christ's obedience too: for if we be perfectly just in God's sight for our own Faith, what need the Imputation of Christ's obedience to make us just? If for Christ's righteousness we be perfectly justified: how can God accounted us perfectly just for our faith? Arminius and his friends, seeing these things cannot stand together; have (according to the good will which they bear toward the righteousness of Christ) kept in our faith, and thrust out Christ's obedience, denying utterly that it is imputed unto us for righteousness. But my Brethren (which I hope make a better choice) seeing it cannot part with ours: part with our own righteousness, leaning wholly upon the righteousness of Christ; and seeking for the comfort of our justification in his perfect obedience, and not in our weak and imperfect saith. These Reasons may suffice to show the error of that Assertion. We are justified by Fa●●h, sensu prop●rio, God accepting the Act of believing for the perfect obedience of the Law. And therefore that in those places, We are saved by grace through faith. Ephes. 2. 8. where 'tis said, [Faith is imputed for righteousness,] the Phrase is to be expounded metonymices, (that is) Christ's righteousness believed on by Faith, is imputed to the believer for righteousness. Whereas our Adversaries say that faith of its own dignity and desert, doth not obtain this favour of God, to be esteemed for the perfect righteousness of the Moral Law: but this comes to pass only by the Merits of Christ, who hath procured this grace unto us, that God should thus accept of our Faith: we answer, that this is affirmed, but 'tis not proved. They speak a little more favourably than the Romanists, who make faith of itself to merit justification: these will have it not to merit it; but to be graciously accepted for righteousness. But we find not in Scripture any such Doctrine as this, [Christ hath merited that we should be justified for our faith,] or [Christ hath merited for our faith, that faith should be esteemed by God for that perfect justice of the Law; whereby we are justified in God's sight.] These things the Scriptures teach not: they teach, that Christ is our righteousness, and that we are justified by his blood and obedience. But that he hath merited by his obedience, that we should be justified by our own obedience and righteousness, is a perverse assertion of men that love to run about the bush, and leaving the straight, to run in crooked and froward ways. And it differs little from the like shift of the Disciples of Rome, who to maintain Merit of our works and of Christ too; salve it with this trick. Christ hath merited that we might merit. But we acknowledge, as no other merit, but that of Christ; so no other righteousness to justification, but his alone. Thus much of the second Assertion. CHAP. III. The confutation of Popish Doctrine, that other graces do justify us, and not faith alone. THe third and last follows, wherein the Controversy is between us and those of Rome; whose Assertion is: that 3 A sinner is not justified by faith alone, but also by other virtues and graces; as Hope, Love, Repentance, Fear of God, etc. This we also reject as an error, contrary to the Scriptures, whereby we are taught, That a man is justified by faith alone. For opening the truth of which point: you must call to mind the different acception of the word justify: wherein it is taken by us, and by our Adversaries. With them to justify is all one, as to Sanctify: of unjust and unholy, to make inherently just and holy. With us to justify is to absolve an offender, quitting him from blame and punishment. According to these different Acceptions, this proposition [A man is justified by faith alone] hath a double meaning; one thus [A man by faith alone is inherently sanctified] another thus: [A man by faith alone obtains absolution in God's judgement, from all faultiness and punishment. This latter meaning only is true, and 'tis that only which is defended by us of the Reformed Churches; Namely, that faith only is the grace of God whereby a sinner believing the promise, and resting himself upon the righteousness of Christ, receives mercy from God in absolving him from the fault and punishment of all his Transgressions: and to be accounted Righteous for Christ's sake. Which gracious privilege God hath annexed unto faith, as unto the Condition of the New Covenant, and not unto Love, Hope, Fear, Repentance, or any other grace; For not these, but Faith only, respecteth the promise of the Gospel. The former sense of that Proposition, is false and absurd, viz. [A Man by faith alone is inherently sanctified] nor do any of the Reformed detain such a Construction thereof. Wherefore when Bellarmine and his Complices dispute eagerly against justification by faith alone, those Arguments wherewith they suppose to smite through the Truth of our Assertion, are let fly at a wrong Mark; being all aimed at this Butt, (viz) to prove; That a man is sanctified by other inherent Graces as well as faith. Which point we easily yield them, confessing that inherent righteousness, consists not of one, but of the a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. manifold graces of God's Spirit, wrought in the heart of such as are Regenerate. Nevertheless for the showing of some points which may be doubted of; Let us briefly take a view of the chief passages of Bellarmine's long discourse; which he maintains from the twelfth Chapter of his first book de justificatione, to the end. For to prove that a Man is justified not by faith alone. Of his Arguments which are few, I shall name three only, which are material. 1 If other virtues justify as well as Faith, 1 Arg. Bell. than not faith alone. But other virtues do justify— Therefore, etc. The Minor he proves out of the Council of Trent, Sess. 6. cap. 6. where seven preparatory, graces to justification, are reckoned up. 1 Faith. 2 The Fear of God, 3 Hope in his mercy. 4 Love of God, as the Fountain of justice (& ad benefactoris, saith Bellarmine) 5 Repentance, a sorrow and detestation of sin. 6 A desire of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism. 7 A purpose to lead a new life, and keep Gods Commandments. All these (saith Bellarmine) do justify a Man, Praeparatoriè, antecedentèr, dispositiuè. Faith, that's the root and beginning of our justification, the rest follow in order; all must go before as needful preparations: and justification follows, as the effect of all in common, etc. Ergo, Not of Faith alone. The b Lib. 1. cap. 13. jesuit goes over every particular, to show by Scriptures what force each of those graces have to justify. But 'tis not worth-while to repeat his proofs. Unto the Argument, we answer two things. 1 That it is framed upon the error which puts out of frame the whole dispute of our Adversaries, about this Article of justification; namely, that Regeneration and Sanctification is all one thing with justification; and that to justify a sinner is nothing but to do away inherent corruption, by infusion of inherent righteousness. This we have heretofore by the Scriptures cleared to be false; and therefore this Argument proving our Sanctification to be wrought by other graces as well as by faith, toucheth not the point of justification in the Remission of sins, which faith alone obtaineth through the promise. 2 Touching these graces which they make preparatory unto justification, that is to Sanctification: We answer, that 'tis a Philosophical dream of such as measure out the works of God's Spirit in man's conversion, according to Aristotle's Physics; and those disputes touching praevious, or foregoing dispositions, that qualify the matter for receiving of the Form. We acknowledge, that in man's Regeneration all graces of the Spirit are not perfected at once. But as the joints and sinews in the bodily: so the graces of Sanctification in the spiritual Newbirth, are at first weak 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 Spiritual life in such a one which was before dead in sin: although there be not the free and able exercise of all the vital powers. Health there is, but not entire from all degrees o● sickness, and every kind of disease. Wherefore we affirm that these virtues which are by our Aduersarics reckoned only as dispositions unto Regeneration: are, if they be true and not counterfeit Mettle, the main parts and fruits of Regeneration. Hence we believe that these are foul errors (viz.) To teach that a man without grace by the power of his freewill may dispose himself to his Regeneration, by believing in Christ, fearing and loving of God, hoping of his Mercy, repenting of his sins, resolving upon amendment, and all this with true and sincere affection: or to teach if a man cannot do these things of his own mere strength and freewill; yet by the Special aid of God inciting and helping him; 〈◊〉 may do them whilst he is utterly unsanctified in statu peccati. That true Faith, and Fear, and Hope, and Love, and Repentance, and purpose of Reformation, are Virtues and Graces in a Man that is yet graceless and without Virtue, because destitute of Sanctification. That these Graces consisting in the inward motion of the soul, 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 Virtue and aid (they know not what) a Lib. 1. cap. 2●. Nectamen est a Deo intus inhabitante, per gra●●am Sanctificari: sidextrins●cus ad●●vante, & exitonte. external, a Et Cap: 13. pag. 311. H. exciting and helping forward the strength of Nature. a Fear. All these are monstrous and misshapen imaginations, bred in proud hearts that would fain share the glory of their Conversion, between God's grace and their own freewill, and maintained by curious heads, whom Philosophical speculations have transported beyond the simplicity of divine 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. [The are all the Children of God by Faith in jesus Christ] saith the Apostle Paul Gal. 3. 28. Whosoever shall confess that jesus is the son of God: God dwelleth in him and he in God.] saith john 1. 1. joh. 4. 15. and Chap. 5. 1. [Whosoever believeth that jesus is that Christ; is borne of God.] Do we by true Faith become the Children of God, borne of him, in whom he dwelleth and we in him, when as yet in the mean time we are yet unsanctified, unholy, unclean, & not in the state of Grace? Bellarmine will prove that a man may have Faith; yet not the Child of God: ou● of john 1. 12. [As many as received him, to them he gave power to become the Sons of God: even to them th●t believe on his name.] See (s●●th he) they that believe are not yet, but have power if they list, to become the Sons of God, (viz.) by going on further from Faith to Hope and Love, and the rest of the Tridentine dispositions. For 'tis Love properly and not Faith, that makes us the Sons of God; as he would prove (contrary to that express place of the Galat.) out of the 1 Ep. of john, where the Apostle hath much excellent matter, but nothing to that purpose. To the place of john, we answer, that the jesuit playeth with the ambiguity of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is not here a liberty to do what we list; as if we could at our pleasure become God's adopted sons: but 'tis a right and privilege which Christ the natural Son bestows on true believers, to be made Gods adopted sons, and so coheirs with him of the heavenly inheritance. When is this privilege of Adoption bestowed? Then when they believe, and as soon as they believe, before they be Regenerate? No, Saint john denies it. [He gives power to be the Sons of God, even to those that believe in him.] Who be they? He answers, vers. 15. [Which were borne not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.] Faith than is not a Preparative to justification, but a part of it. And is not Fear of GOD too? Fear. No, saith Bellarmine. That is the b Psal ●11. 10. Pro. ●. 7. Faith is radix: a part of the tree. beginning of wisdom (that is) of a perfect justification. A bad interpretation, but a worse Argument. 'tis the beginning, therefore not part. Nay; If the fear of God be the Alpha of Christian graces, certainly itself makes one Letter of that Alphabet. 'tis such a beginning of wisdom: as its self is wisdom too. Else God himself deceives us: who, as it is, job 28. 28. [Said unto man: Behold the fear of the Lord that is wisdom, and to depart from evil is understanding.] And therefore to take it in the jesuits gloss, Fear of God is justification as well as the beginning of it. For Hope; Hope. If it be true, (viz.) That c Rom. 5. 5. which makes not ashamed,] Which is the d Heb. 6. 18. Anchor of the Soul, sure and steadfast, that entereth within the Veil.] It would be known what difference the jesuit will put between that Hope which is in a man before: and that which is in him after his Sanctification. If he say, It differs only in degree: then he grants, 'tis the same in substance: whence we have a fair position; That man sanctified and unsanctified, is alike capable of the saving graces of God's Spirit. The like we say for Love of God, if it be sincere and without dissimulation bred in the heart: Love.. Upon those spiritual considerations not only of God's Mercy in Christ: but also of his justice and infinite Righteousness; (For so the Trent Fathers will have this Love to respect God, ut fontem justitiae) than we affirm this spiritual Love is not to be found but only in those Hearts, that are in some measure Regenerate and made spiritual. In (whom e Rom. 5. 5. this Love of God is shed abroad by the Holy Ghost that is given to them.] as the a Rom. 5. 5. Apostle speaketh. This Bellarmine is so●ne forced to grant: yet he puts it off with a distinction [No man can love God perfectly with all his heart, without the Holy Ghost: but love him he may imperfectly without the Holy Ghost dwelling in him, though not without the special aid of God.] Whereto we answer; 'tis one thing to love God perfectly, and another to love him truly. To love him perfectly, is to love him with all the heart, all the soul, all the mind, & all the strength: which we grant no man can do without the Holy Ghost: but we also affirm, that no man did or shall ever do it in this life, so long as there is lustful corruption in him causing any the least aversion of his soul from God in any motion thereof. So that if none have the Holy Ghost abiding in them; but such in whom Love is thus perfected; he must be confined with the Saints in heaven, and not have his dwelling with the faithful on earth. But if imperfect Love of God be also from the Holy Ghost, dwelling in the hearts of the Godly, who love God truly in unfeigned uprightness of heart; though in much imperfection by reason of sin, which diverts the heart unto other pleasures: than it must be known of the jesuit, what he means by imperfect Love.. Is it false Love, such a mere natural Man may conceive upon general grounds: That God is good, the chiefest good, just, holy, and full of all excellency? He will not say for shame, this is a true preparative unto justification. Is it true love, but in its degree imperfect, not so vigorous, so vehement, so hot as coals of juniper: yet such as hath some strength and warmth of spiritual affection? Then we require that these men will draw us out a line by the Rule of the Scriptures, and to tell us how far the true Love of God may come, without the grace of the Holy Ghost sanctifying the heart: But after 'tis past such a degree, than there is required the sanctifying grace of the Holy Ghost for it. 'twill trouble their Mathematics to describe unto us in what degree of Perfection that Woman's love was situated, whose example they allege for a proof of this point out of Luke 7. 47. [Her sins which were many, are forgiven her, for she loved much.] Can Bellarmine tell us how much this was? that so by that pattern we may know how far men go in the true Love of God before they be at all sanctified by inherent Grace? For such wonders they would make us believe concerning this penitent Sinner; that when her soul was full of Faith and Love to Christ, her heart full of sorrow, her eyes full of tears for her sins; yet for all that she was a graceless, unholy person, whose Love, and Faith, and Sorrow, came not from the sanctifying grace of the Holy Ghost, but only from freewill helped with some kind of external aid of God. We have not Faith to believe such Mysteries as these. Nor yet in the last place can we conceive how there should be true repentance, Repentance. with a sincere purpose of Reformation and obedience, Reformation. where the Heart is not changed and renewed by the Holy Ghost. Not of Ahab or judas. That Godly sorrow and Hatred of sin should spring out of a graceless heart, that so holy a Resolution of Amendment of Life should be in an unholy person; be Assertions so contradictory and jarring: that no Christian Ear can with patience endure to hear them. We conclude then touching these dispositions unto Sanctification, that if these Graces be true, they are parts and chief Branches of inherent Righteousness. But if they be false and counterfeit, they are not so much as Preparations thereunto. So much of this first Argument: wherein yet one of these 7 dispositions first reckoned up is omitted (viz.) a Desire of receiving the Sacrament of Baptism. (that is) A Man that's baptised in his youth, afterward, before he be justified, must have a desire to be Rebaptised. For what is it for one baptised to desire to receive that Sacrament again? This conceit is so absured that however Bellarmine reckon it up among the other Dispositions; because of the Authority of the council of Trent: yet a Tom. 2. Tract. ● cap. 3. Quest. 3. Bell. lib. 1. c. 14. Becanus gives it over in plain Field; numbering these fore naming six graces only, choosing rather to venture the Counsels credit, than his own, by defending an unreasonable position. 2 Argument. 2 Arg. If Faith alone do justify us; than it may d●e●t when other graces are absent; as well as when they are present. For seeing the Virtue of justifing us depends upon Faith alone: and that in this act it receives no aid from any other grace; It followeth that it needs not the company of any other grace: as in the law of sense. If the whole force of Burning proceed only from Heat: then where Heat is, though there be no other Qualities yet there will be burning; yea if Faith only have force to justify, it will follow, that it may justify not only 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 justifying. But 'twere absurd to affirm, that Faith can justify without other virtues with other vices— Ergo, The force of justifying is not in Faith alone. To this we answer. That this sophism is fashioned upon the same Block with the former, that to justify and Sanctify are all one. In which sense we confess the Consequence is unavoidable. If Faith alone by it own virtue and force did sanctify: than it would effect this not only 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 confirm that of the Adversaries. 'tis the eye only sees, say our Men: yet the Ear is in the Head too. Yea, reply they, But the eye could see well notwithstanding the Ear were deaf. 'tis the a 〈◊〉 antid. ●onc. Trid. Sess. 6 cap. II. Heat only of the fire or Sun that warms, though there be light joined with it. True say they, But if there were no Light, yet if heat remained, it would warm for all that: as the Heat of an Oven, or of Hell, burns, though it shine not. Thou holdest in thy hands many seeds ('tis the old comparison of Luther on the 15 of Gen.) I inquire not what 'tis together but what is the virtue of each one single. Yea, reply our Adversaries; that's a very needless question indeed. For if among them many seeds there be some one that hath such sovereign virtue; that it alone can cure all diseases, then 'tis no Matter whether thou have many or few, or none at all of any other sort in thy hand. Thou hast that which by it own virtue without other ingredients will work the Cure Nor have we ought to make answer in this case; If, as the Eye sees, heat warms, seeds and other simples do cure by their own proper Virtue: so Faith alone by its own efficacy did sanctify us. But there is the Error. Faith works not in our sanctification or justification by any such inward power & virtue of its own, from whence these effects should properly follow. For Sanctification Faith, as we have seen, is part of that inherent Righteousness which the Holy Ghost hath wrought in the Regenerate: and 'tis 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 Love, Fear, Zeal, Hope, Repentance, etc. Inasmuch as Man's regeneration is not the infusion of one; but of the Habit of all graces. Again, 'tis not the Virtue of Faith that justifies us; The grace of justification is from God, he works it: but 'tis our Faith applies it and makes it ours. The Act of justification is Gods mere work; but our Faith only brings us the Benefit and Assurance of it. justification is an external privilege which God bestows on believers; having therein respect only to their Faith, which grace only hath peculiar respect to the Righteousness of Christ and the promise in him. Whereby 'tis manifest that this argument is vain. Faith alone is respected in our justification: therefore Faith is or may be alone without other graces of justification. Bellar: b Cap. 15. eiu●dem Lib. primi. would undertake to prove that true saith may be severed from Charity and other Virtues: but we have heretofore spoken of that Point: and showed, that [true Faith, yet without a Form:] [true Faith, dead, and without a soul] be Contradictions as vain as [A true Man without reason] [A true Fire without heat.] We confess indeed that the faith of Jesuits (the same with that of Simon Magus) may very well be without Charity and all other sanctifying graces; a bare assent to the truth of Divine Revelations, because of God's Authority. As 'tis in Devils, so 'tis in Papists and other Heretics. But we deny that this is that which deserves the name of true Faith: which whosoever hath, he also hath eternal life. As it is, john 6. 47. 3 Argument. 3 Argu● That which Scripture doth not affirm, that is false doctrine. But the Scripture doth not affirm that we are justified by Faith alone— Ergo, so to teach, is to teach false Doctrine. This Argument toucheth the quick: and if the Minor can be proved, we must needs yield them the Cause. For that the Jesuits conceive that this is a plain case: Bell. lib. 1 cap. 16. for where is there any one place in all the Bible, that saith, Faith alone justifies? They even laugh at the simplicity of the Heretics (as they christian us) that glory they have found out at last the word (Only) in Luc. 8. 50. in that speech of Christ, to the Ruler of the Synagogue, [Fear not, believe only, and she shall be made whole.] And much sport they make themselves with Luther: That to help out this matter at a dead lift, by plain fraud he foisted into the Text, in the 3. to the Romans, the word (Only.) When being taught with the fact, and required a Reason: He made answer according to his Modesty, (Sic volo, sic iubeo, stet pro ratione voluntas.) 'tis true that Luther in his Translation of the Bible into the German tongue: read the 28. verse of that Chapter, thus. (We conclude that men are justified without the works of the Law: only through Faith.) [Allein durch ●en gsaubren.] Which word only is not in the Original. Where, in so doing, if he fulfilled not the Office of a faithful Translator: yet he did the part of a faithful Paraphrast, keeping the sense exactly in that Alteration of words. And if he be not free from blame: yet of all men the Jesuits are most unfit to reprove him; whose dealing in the corrupting of all sort of Writers, Divine and humane, are long since notorious and infamous throughout Christendom. What Luther's Modesty was in answering those that found fault with his Translation: Bell. quotes Lu●beri Resp. ad duos Art. ad ami●●m quendam. we have not to say. Only thus much, That the impudent Forgeries of this Generation, witness abundantly: that it is no rare thing for a Lie to drop out of a Jesuits or Friars pen. But be it, as it may be; 'tis not Luther's Translation; Nor that place in the 8. of Luke, that our Doctrine, [touching justification by Faith alone,] is founded upon. We have better proofs than these: as shall appear unto you in the confirmation of the Minor of this Syllogism. Whatsoever the Scriptures affirm, that's true doctrine. But the Scriptures affirm, a man is justified by Faith alone. Therefore thus to teach, is to teach according to the word of whole-some doctrine. Our Adversary's demand proof of the Minor. We allege all those places wherein the Scriptures witness: that we are justified by faith, without the works of the Law. Such places are these. Rom. 3. 28. (Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the works of the Law.) Rom. 4. 2. 3. (If Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory: but not before God. For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God: and it was counted to him for righteousness.) And vers. 14. 15. 16. (For if they which are of the Law be heirs: 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 justified by the works of the Law, but by the Faith of jesus Christ: Even we have believed in Christ, that we might be justified by the Faith of Christ, and not by the works of the Law. For by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified.) Gal. 3. 21. 22. (Is the Law then against the promises of God? God forbid. For if there had been a Law given, which could have given Life: verily righteousness should have been by the Law. But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin: that the promise by the faith of jesus Christ, might be given by them that believe.) Ephe. 2. 8. 9 (For by grace ye are saved, through Faith, and that not of yourselves; It is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.) Phillip 3. 8. 9 (Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the Knowledge of Christ jesus my Lord. For whom I have suffered the loss of all things: and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ. And be found of him not having mine own righteousness, which is of the Law: but that which is through the faith of Christ: a Tit. 3. 5. 6. 7. the Righteousness which is of God by Faith.) Out of which places, not to name more, expressly touching this point of our justification, we argue thus. A Man is justified either by the works of the Law, or by faith in Christ. But he is not justified by the works of the Law. Ergo, He is justified only by faith in Christ. In this disiunctive Syllogism, they cannot find ●ault with us for adding the word [only] in the Conclusion; which was not in the Praemises. For Reason will teach them, that where two Terms are immediately opposite, if one be taken away, the other remains alone. So that in every disjunctive Syllogism, whose Mayor Proposition standeth upon two Terms immediately opposite: if one be removed in the Minor, the Conclusion is plainly equivalent to an exclusive Proposition. As if we argue thus. Either the wicked are saved: or the godly. But the wicked are not saved. Thence it follows in exclusive Terms, Therefore the godly only are saved. Our Adversaries cannot deny, but that the Proposition [A Man is justified by works, or by Faith,] consists of Terms immediately opposite. For else they accuse the Apostle Paul of want of Logic, who Rom. 3. should conclude falsely, [A man is iusitified by faith without works: if he be justified either by both together, or else by neither. Seeing then he opposeth Faith and works as incompatible, and exclude works from justification: we conclude infallibly by the Scriptures, That a man is justified by faith alone. This Argument not avoidable by any sound answer, puts our adversaries miserably to their shifts. Yet rather than yield unto the truth, they fall unto their distinctions: whereby, if 'twere possible, they would shift off the force of this Argument. Whereas therefore the Scriptures oppose Works and Faith: the [Law of Works,] and the [Law of Faith.] Our [own righteousness which is of the Law] and the (Righteousness of God by Faith,) manifestly telling us that we are justified, (Not by Works, by the Law of Works, nor by our own Righteousness which is of the Law, but that we are justified by Faith, by the Righteousness of God by Faith.) Our Adversaries have a distinction to salve this Matter withal. They say then Works are of two sorts. 1 Some go before Grace and Faith, and are performed by the only strength of freewill: out of that Knowledge of the Law, whereunto Men may attain by the light of Nature, or the bare Revelation of the Scriptures. These works or this obedience unto the law, which a mere natural man can perform, is (say they) that Righteousness which the Scripture calls our own. By this kind of Righteousness and Works, they grant none is justified. 2 Some follow Grace and Faith: which are done by Man's freewill, excited and aided by the special help of Grace. Such Obedience and Righteousness is (say they) called the (Righteousness of God,) because it is wrought in us of his gift and grace. And by this Righteousness a man is justified. By this Invention they turn of with a wet finger, all those Scriptures that we have alleged. We are justified (not by the works of the Law,) that is, by the Obedience of the Moral Law, which a man may perform without God's Grace: But we are justified by (Faith of Christ,) that is, by that obedience of the Moral Law, which a man may perform by faith, and the help of God's grace. b Rom. 3. 〈◊〉. Boasting is excluded, saith the Apostle, by what Law? By the Law of works, that is, by the Law performed by the strength of Nature? Nay, For he that performs the Law by his own strength, hath cause to boast of it. By what Law then? By the Law of Faith, that is, by faith which obtains God's grace to fulfil the Moral Law. Now he that obeys the Law by God's help, hath no cause to boast. ( c Rom. 9 31. 32 How knows Bellarm●ne that? Bell. lib. 1. c. 19▪ Israel which followed the Law of righteousness, could not attain unto the law of righteousness.) Wherefore? Because they sought it not by Faith; that is, they sought not to perform the Law by God's Grace; (But as by the works of the Law,) that is, by their own strength: Thus Paul desires to be found in Christ, (not having his own righteousness which is of the Law) that is that righteousness he performed without God's grace before his Conversion; ●ello. cap. 16. But (the righteousness of God which is by faith.) i.e. That righteousness which he performed in obeying the Law by God's grace after his Conversion. For confirmation of this distinction, and the Interpretations thereon grounded, Bellarmine brings three reasons to show that when works and faith are opposed: all works of the Law are not excluded. 1 It's manifest; Faith is a work: and that there is a Law of Faith as well as works. If therefore, Rom. 3. all works, and all Law be excluded from justification: then to be justified by Faith, were to be justified without faith. 2 It's plain the Apostle, Rom. 3. intends to prove that neither jews by the a Bell lib. 1. ●. 19 naked observation of the law of Moses: nor the Gentiles for their good works; before they were b 〈◊〉. Tom. 2, tract. 4. cap. 2▪ quest. 6. §. 15. converted to the faith of Christ, could obtain righteousness from God. 3 The Apostle shows, Rom. 4. 4. what works he excludes from justification, (viz.) such whereto wages is due, by debt, not by grace. Now works performed without Gods help deserve c Bell. cap. 19▪ reward (ex Debito:) but works performed by his help, deserve wages (ex gratia. I doubt but (notwithstanding these seeming Reasons) the forenamed distinction and expositions of Scripture according thereto; appear unto you at the first sight, strange, uncouth, far besides the intent of the Holy Ghost, in all those fore-reckoned passages of Scripture. Let us examine it a little more narrowly: and ye shall quickly perceive; that in this School distinction, there is nothing but fraud & shifting. (By works done, by the strength of Nature we are not justified. By works done with the help of grace we are justified.) This is the distinction: resolve it now into these terms which are more proper, & it runs thus. (A man is not sanctified by those works of the Moral Law which he doth without grace: but a man is sanctified by those works of the Moral Law he doth by Grace.) Both Sentences are squint eyed, and look quite awry from the Apostles aim in this dispute touching justification. Is it his intent, Rom. 3. to prove that a sinner destitute of grace cannot be made inherently holy, by Morality, or outward works of Piety? or thus. That a Sinner cannot attain to Sanctification by his own strength: but he must attain to it by the grace of God? Take a survey of the Chapter, and follow the Apostles Argumentation. All both jews and Gentiles are under sin, verse 9 therefore (every mouth must be stopped) and none can plead innocency; (and all the world must be guilty before God.) and so liable to condemnation, verse 19 What followeth hence now? (Therefore by the works of the Law, shall no flesh be justified in his sight, verse. 20. How strange were this Conclusion, taken in our Adversaries Construction. Ergo, By Obedience unto the Moral Law done without grace no flesh can attain Sanctification in his sight. For neither doth the Apostle speak of Sanctification, but of absolution as is apparent; All are sinners against the Law, Ergo, by pleading innocency in the keeping of the Law, no Man can be wholly sanctified nor justified nor absolved from Blame in God's sight. Nor yet will the Reason immediately annexed admit that gloss [Works without Grace] By the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified in his sight. Why] For by the Law cometh the Knowledge of Sin] that is, By the Law Men are convinced of Sin, and declared not to be innocent. Which reason is not worth a Rush, according to our Adversary's Construction. He that without grace shall do the works of the Law: he is not thereby made holy. Why? Because the Law is the knowledge of sin. The Law thus observed tells him he is a sinner. In which reason there is no force, unless it be true on the other side. He that by the help of grace doth the works of the Law, is thereby sanctified: because the Law thus kept tells him he is not a sinner, which is most untrue. In as much, as not only those which are destitute of grace; but those that have grace also, and by the help thereof, keep the Law in some measure, are by the Law notwithstanding convinced to be sinners. The Apostle yet goes forward. (If we be not justified by the works of the Law, by what then? He answers, (verse 21.) But now is the righteousness of God made manifest without the Law.) We are justified by the righteousness of God: But what is that? It is (saith the distinction) that obedience to the Law which we perform by God's grace. A gloss apparently false. For the righteousness of God here is a Righteousness without the Law: But obedience to the Law, though performed with grace, is a Righteousness (with) the Law; because 'tis the Righteousness of the Law. For 'tis all one, he that obeys the Law by his own strength; if he do it d As Adam. perfectly he hath the righteousness of the law, & he that obeyethit perfectly, by God's grace, hath still the same righteousness of the law, and no other. For so the Law be kept, it altars not the righteousness thereof, that we keep it by our own strength, that we have of ourselves, or another help that gives us strength to do it. For then that strength which he gives us is our own. Which point duly observed cuts in sunder the sinews of this distinction; for 'tis clear the Apostle distinguisheth the Righteousness of the Law and of God as different in their kinds: these make them to be one and the same thing, [Obedience to the moral Law] but done by diverse helps; one by mere nature: the other by Grace. This is most contrary to the Scriptures, and specially to that excellent place Rom. 10. 3. 4. etc. where the Apostle showing the difference between the Righteousness which is our own or of the Law; and that which is the Righteousness of God or Faith: tells us. The Righteousness of the Law is thus described [Th' Man that doth these things shall live thereby:] but the Righteousness of Faith speaketh on this wise [whosoever believeth on him (i. e. Christ) shall not be ashamed.) Can any thing be more plain; then that the Apostle opposeth here [Doing of the Law; and [Believing] in Christ: Not [doing] the Law by our own strength, and doing of the Law by [Gods grace.] These are jesuitical glosses that corrupt Apostolical Doctrine, and strangely pervert the work of Christ in our Redemption as if he had done no more for us but this a So Bellarmin● cap. 19 answering that place▪ Gal. 2. [If righ●teousnesse be by the Law, than Christ died in vain] saith: Nay, seeing we are justified by faith▪ and works following it, Christ died to purpose, that God might give us grace so to be justified. (viz.) procured that where as we could not live by doing of the Law through our own strength: God will now aid us by his grace, that we may fulfil the Law, and by that Legal Righteousness obtain justification and remission of Sins. We abhor such Doctrine, and do reject as vain and imaginary that distinction whence such absurdities necessarily follow b Works without grace do not justify. More h Why? because imperfect, or because done by nature's strength. Not the later: For then Adam not justified. Not the former force all good works of the best are imperfect. might be said in confutation thereof, were it needful: but we have dealt long upon this point, and 'tis time to hasten forward. By the way unto the jesuits Arguments in the defence of this Distinction We answer. 1 We confess Faith is a work, and in doing of it we obey the Law, because (as Saint john speaks) john. 3. 23. [This is God's Commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son jesus Chris.], And therefore the Gospel is called [The Law of Faith.] because the promise of grace in Christ is propounded with Commandment that Men believe it. But now we deny that Faith justifies us, as 'tis a work which we perform in Obedience to this Law: It justifieth us only as the Condition required of us; and an Instrument embracing Christ's Righteousness. Nor can the contrary be proved. 2 The jesuits are mistaken in the scope of the Apostle Rom. 3. whose intent is not to show the jew or Gentile could not attain Sanctification without God's grace; by such Obedience to the Law; as they could perform through the mere strength of Natural Abilities. They affirm it strongly: but their Proofs are weak, being manifestly confuted by the whole File of the Apostles disputation, who clearly and plainly exclude both jews and Gentiles, from being justified by the works of the Law without making mention or giving the least Intimation, by what means these works must be performed, whether without grace or by the Help of grace. Yea it had been quite besides his purpose so to have done. For the Apostles argument is clear as the Light; and strong as a threefold cord. All are Sinners against the Law, therefore by obedience unto the Law, (Let Men perform which way they list or can, without grace or with grace) no Man is in God's sight pronounced innocent, 3 To the Last argument out of Rom. 4. 4. we answer, The Apostle there proves: that the Faithful, children of Abraham; are not justified by works. Because Abraham the Father of the Faithful was justified by Faith; and not by works. Where we affirm; That the Apostle excludeth all the works of Abraham from his justification: both such as he performed when he had no grace, and those he did when he had grace. For those works are excluded wherein Abraham might glory before Men. Now Abraham might glory before Men as well in those works which he did by the help of God's grace: as those which he did without it. Nay more in those: then in these. As in his obedient Departure from his own Country at God's command; his patient expectation of the promises; his ready willingness even to offer his own Son out of Love and Duty to God, his religious and Just demeaning of himself 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 Conversion: when he served other Gods beyond the Flood. Therefore we conclude that Abraham was justified; neither by such works; as went before Faith and grace in him: nor yet by such as followed after. This is most clear by the v. 2. [If Abraham where justified by works, he had wherein to glory: but not with God.] Admit here the Popish Interpretation: and this speech of the Apostles will be false. Thus [If Abraham were justified by works] that is by such works as he performed without God's gracious help [he hath wherein to glory▪] viz. before Men: but [not with God.] Nay, that's quite otherwise. For its evident. If a Man be justified by obeying the Law through his own strength: he may boldly glory before God, as well as before Men; seeing in that case he is not beholding to God for his help. But according to our doctrine, the Meaning of the Apostle is perspicuous. Abraham might glory before Men in those excellent works of piety, which he performed after his vocation: and in men's sight he might be justified by them. But he could not glory in them before God: nor yet be justified by them in his sight. So then all works whatsoever are excluded from Abraham's justification: and nothing lest but Faith, which is imputed unto him for Righteousness; as it is v. 3. Whence it follows. That as Abraham: so all others are justified without all Merit, by God's free grace and favour. For so it follows, verse 4. 5. [Now unto him that worketh, the wages is not counted by favour; but by Debt: but to him that worketh not; but believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for Righteousness.] These words run clear, till a jesuit put his Foot into the stream to raise up the Mud. To him that worketh] that is, which fulfileth the Righteousness of the Moral Law: [the wages of justification and Life [is not counted by favour: but by debt] for by the perfect Righteousness of the Law▪ a Man deserves to be justified and saved. [But to him that worketh not] that hath not fulfiled the righteousness of the Law in doing all things; that are written therein: [But believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly] That is relieth upon Christ, who by his Righteousness obtained absolution for him (that is) righteousness in himself.] His Faith is imputed for Righteousness] that is. He by his Faith ob●aynes I●stification in God's sight: not by Merit of his own, but God's gracious acceptation of Christ's Righteousness for his. But here our Adversary's trouble the water by a false Interpretation. [To him that worketh] that is, say they that fulfil, the Law by his own strength. Wages is not counted by favour, but by debt,] but if he fulfil it by God's grace, his wages is pai●● him by favour, not of debt. Where unto we reply: That 1 This gloze is a plain corruption of the Text. For by works in this fourth verse the Apostle understands that kind of works were of mention is made v 2 By which Abraham was not justified: and these as we have showed where works done by the help of Grace not by the mere strength of Nature. 2 And again for the Assertion itself, namely [He that fulfils the moral Law by the help of God's grace is justified, by favour not by debt] we say 'tis either a manifest falsehood or at best, an ambiguous speech. For 'tis one thing to bestow Grace on a Man to fulfil the Law: and 'tis another thing to justify him; when he hath fulfilled the Law. If God should give strength to a Man exactly to fulfil the Moral Law that were indeed of his free favour and grace: but when this man, that hath received this strength shall come before God with the perfect Righteousness of the Law, pleading that in every point he had done what was required God is bound in justice to pronounce him innocent, and of due Debt to bestow on him the wages of eternal Life. Adam's case is not unlike to such a Man. For God gave Adam what strength he had: yet Adam fulfilling the Law by that strength, should have merited justification and Life. Therefore when the Apostle speak 〈◊〉 all works in the perfect fulfilling of the Law, he saith, that [too him that worketh Wages is not counted by favour but: but by debt:] he speaketh exactly, and the jesuits in excluding works done by Grace comment absurdly. Thus much touching the third point concerning Man's justification by Faith alone: as also of the first general Head promised in the Beginning. Namely, the condition required of us unto justification (viz.) Faith. SECT. 3. CHAP. I▪ Of the righteousness whereby a man is justified before God: that it is not his own inherent in himself: that in this life no 〈◊〉 hath perfection of holiness inherent in him. I Proceed unto the second General, Sect. 3. c. 1. of the Matter of our justification where we are to inquire what Righteousness it is, for which a Sinner is justified in God's sight. justification and justice a●e still coupled together; and some Righteousness there must be, for which God pronounceth a Man Righteous: and for the sake whereof he for Gives unto him all his Sins. No● is a Sinner just before God because justified: bu● he is therefore justified because he is some way or other Iust.— The Righteousness for which a Man can be justified before God is of necessity one of these two. 2 General. heads. 1 Either inherent in his own Person and done by himself. 2 Or inherent in the Person of Christ: but imputed unto him. A Man is justified either by something in him and performed by him: or by some thing in another performed for him. The wisdom of Angels and Men hath not been able to show unto us any third Means. For whereas it is affirmed by some that God might have reconciled Mankind unto himself by a free and absolute parden of their Sins without the intervention of any such Righteousness, either in themselves or in Christ whereby to procure it: to that we say That God hath seen it good in this matter rather to follow his own most wise Counsels; then these men's foolish Directions. 'tis to no purpose now to dispute what God might have done, whether God by his absolute omnipotency could not have freed Men from a 〈…〉 Hell, by some other Means without taking satisfaction for Sin from Christ: whether God ought not to have the same privilege which we give unto any mortale King, freely to pardon a Rebel, and receive him to favour, without consideration of any goodness in him or satisfaction made by him, or ano● for him? Or, whether Sin do make such a deep wound in God's justice and Honour, that he cannot with the safeguard of either pass by it without amendes. Such question▪ as these are vain and curious prosecuted by idle and unthinkfull▪ 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 ado about nothing, & teach him to have go●e a more compendious way to work, then by sending his own son to 〈◊〉 for us. 〈…〉 stand what God hath not tell him what he might or should have done. 〈…〉 According to which course of his now revealed will we know that God hath declared his everlasting hatred against Sin▪ as that thing which most directly and immediately opposeth the Holiness of his Nature, and the justice of his Commandments. We know that for this hatred which God beareth to Sin, no sinful creature can be able to stand in 〈…〉 And therefore before reconciliation it was needful, Satisfaction should be made where offence had been given. Which seeing man could not effect by himself▪ God thought it good to provide a Mediator, who should in make peace between both. So that what ever may be imagined of possibility of other means to bring man to Life: yet now we know that sicioportuit, Thus Christ ought to suffer, Luc. 24. 26. and that it (Behoved him to be like us that being a Faithful high Priest, he might make Reconciliation for our Sins.) Heb. 2. 17. Leaving then this new way to Heaven never frequented, but by Imagination; let us follow the old ways of justification that the Scriptures have discovered unto us: which are two and no more. Either by our own Righteousness and works: or by the Righteousness & works of another (viz) Christ. The former is that way whereby Man might have obtained justification and life, had he not been a Sinner. But now, Man, that is a Sinner, cannot be justified and saved: but only in the later way (viz.) by the Righteousness of Christ the Mediator. This Duine truth is of most infallible certainty and sovereign consolation unto the conscience of a Sinner: as shall appear in the process of our Discourse wherein we shall first remove [our own Righteousness: that so in the second place we may [establish the Righteousness of Christ] as the only Matter of our justification in God's sight. By our own Righteousness we understand as the Apostle doth Rom. 10▪ [The Righteousness of the Law or of works] which is twofold. 1. The fulfilling of the Law whether by the [Habitual Holiness of the Heart: or by the [Actual justice] of good works proceeding thence For the Law requires both, That the P●rson be Holy▪ endued with all inward qualities of [Purity and justice] and that the works 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 debtor to the Law: but to be accounted Just and no Violater thereof: We must now inquire touching these two: whether a Man can be justified▪ by his own O-Obedience to the Moral Law▪ Secondly, Whether he can be justified by▪ his own Satisfaction for Transgression of the Moral Law. Concerning which two Quaeres: we lay down these two Conclusions which are to be made good. 1 No Man that is a Sinner is justified by▪ his own Obedience to the Moral Law. 2 No Man is justified by his own satisfaction for his Transgression. For the former. It is the Conclusion of the Apostle Rom. 3. 20. Conclusion. Therefore by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified in his sight] which we prove by these Arguments. The first shall be that of the Apostle in the forenamed place which stands thus. Arg. Whosoever is a Transgressor of the Moral Law: he cannot be justified by his Obedience thereto. But every Man is a Transgressor of the Moral Law. ergo, No Man can be justified by his obedience thereto. The Mayor is an undeniable Principal in Reason. It being a thing Impossible that a party accused as an offender should be absolved and pronounced innocent by pleading Obedience to that Law which he hath plainly disobeyed. Wherefore the Apostle takes this Proposition for granted in these words of his [For by the law cometh the Knowledge of Sin] v. 20. That which convinceth us to be sinners: by that 'tis impossible we should be declared to be righteous. that plea wilnever quit us; which proves us guilty. Yea 'twere not only folly, but madness to allege that for ones just excuse which itself is his very fault whereof he is accused. The Mayor than is certain. The minor is no less. (viz.) That every man is a transgressor of the Moral Law) If any Son of Adam will deny this, his own conscience will give his tongue the Lie: and the Scriptures will double it upon him. Which having concluded [ a Rom. 3. Gal. 2. all under Sin] aver. That b john 1. 8. [If we (an Apostle not excepted) say We have no sin we deceive our sel●es and the truth is not in us.] Yea (If c Verse 10. we say we have not sinned, we make God a her, and his word is not in us] The conclusion than is unfallable (That by the Obedience of the Moral Law, no Man shall be justified (that is) quitted & pronounced innocent before God's judgement seat.] This apostical argument utterly overthrows the pride of Man in seeking for justification by the Law: and it is of so clear evidence, that the Adversaries of this Doctrine cannot tell how to avoid it. But, for as much 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 evasions. Which we shall do in the next argument. Which is this. 2 Whosoever having once broken the Law & can never after perfectly fulfil it: 2 Argument. he cannot be justified by his obedience thereto. But Man having once broken God's Law can 〈◊〉 after that perfectly fulfil it. Ergo, Man cannot be justified by Obedience of the Law. The Mayor of this Argument is framed upon another ground then the former & opposed unto that erroneous tenant of our Adversaries. [That howsoever a man be a sinner against the Law, yet neurthelesse afterward be may be justified by his obedience of the Law. Because God for the time following▪ gives him grace perfectly to fulfil it.] Which opinion is directly contrary to the reason of the Apostle which is: [That once a sinner, and always uncapable of justification by the Law: for how should the Law declare him innocent that hath, though but once transgressed against it.] He that hath stolen in his youth, and ever after lived truly and justly, can never quit himself in judgement from the guilt and punishment of thee very by pleading, he hath kept the Law in his latter Times. Obedience that follows after, justifies not from the guilt that went before. As we shall see more hereafter in the point of Man's satisfaction. But let us grant that the Law though once broken, yet afterwards fulfiled would justify a Man: we here defend the Minor (That Man having broken G●ds Law, can never after wards perfectly fulfil it) and so by that means also he is excluded from justification by it. This Proposition the Romanists will not yield to, with out strong proof: Let us explain it and confirm it. The Proposition may beset down in these terms [No Man whosoever can perfectly fulfil the Moral Law in this Life] Man hear we consider in a twofold 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 utterly and absolutely impossible unto him. But concerning Man regenerate and justified, they of Rome affirm he may keep the Law: we of the Reformation granting that absolutely it is not impossible (for we will not say; but God might if he saw good bestown such perfection of grace upon a Regenerate Man, that afterwards he should Live without all 〈◊〉, and be translated to Heaven without death) yet, according to the order which God now holdeth in bringing Man to salvation; we deny that there ever was or ever will be any Mortal Man that hath or shall perfectly fulfil the Righteousness of the Moral Law: This shall appear unto you, by parting the Righteousness of the Law into its branches, whereby you may see what it is to fulfil the Law, and how impossible it is so to do. The Righteousness required by the Moral Law is of two sorts. 1 Habitual, in the inherent holiness of Man's whole person, when such gracious Qualities are fixed and planted in every faculty of soul and Body: as do dispose and incline the Motions of both only unto that which is conformable to the Righteousness of the Law. That such Righteousness is required by the Law, is a plain Case and confessed; That which commands the good, or forbids the evil action; doth command the virtuous and forbid the vicious Habit too. He that looks for purity in the stream, cannot but dislike poison in the Fountain: and God that commands us to do good, bids us also to be holy; Pure in heart undefiled 〈◊〉 the way, nor can we do the one, unless we do the other. And therefore the Apostle joins both together. [The end of the Commandment is love, (but where?) out of a pure heart.] 1 Tim. 1. 5. 2 Actual, In the exercise of all good works enjoined by the Law, and forbearing the contrary evil works. Whether these good or evil works be inward in that spiritual obedience which the Law required; (viz.) in the right ordering of all the motions of our souls, that every one of our Thoughts, Imaginations, Purposes of our mind, and all the secret workings and stir of our affections, be altogether employed upon Piety and Charity, not so much as touching upon any thing, that is contrary to the love of God, or our neighbour. Or, whether these good and evil works be outward in the bodily obedience unto the Law, in doing all and every external duty of Religion towards God: of justice and Mercy towards man; and in leaving undone the contrary. Further this actual righteousness of the Law is to be considered two ways: 1 As it respects all the Commandments, and so that righteousness is only perfect, which fulfils all and every particular precept of the Law. 2 As it respects any one Commandment, or any one duty therein contained. And so we may call that righteousness perfect, which exactly performs any one point of the Law, though it fail in others. So you see what is to be done of him that will perfectly fulfil the Law: let us now see whether any man can do so, or no. We say no man can do it; and we make it good in the confirmation of these three Propositions. 1 No man in this life hath perfection of grace and holiness inherent. 2 2 Cap. ●. No man in this life can fully observe all those good works both inward and outward which the Law requires. 3 3 Cap. 3. No man in this life can perform any one particular good work so exactly, that in every point it shall answer the rigour of the Law, and Gods severe judgement. For the first we prove it by this Argument▪ Where sinful corruption remains in part, Proposition. there in herent holiness is not perfect. But in every Man during this life there remaineth sinful corruption. Ergo, In no man is there, during this life, perfect inherent holiness. The mayor is without exception. For he that is part bad and sinful, 'tis not possible, he should be totally good and holy. The minor is most evident by Scriptures and each Man's experience and reason itself. Gal. 5. 17. The Apostle describes the Combat that is between the flesh and the spirit, (that is) between 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 do the same things that ye would.] Who can say that holiness is perfect in that man, in whom corruption of Nature, not only troubleth, but hindereth grace in its holy operation? Shall we say this contention lasts but for a while after a man is newly regenerate: but in success of time the Spirit gets an absolute victory, corruption being not only overmastered; but also annihilated? If we say so, experience will accuse us, & conscience will judge us to be Liars Where is that man, and who is he named, that can say, he finds no rebellion or distemper in his affections or desires, no disorder in any motion of his soul: but that all within him is sweetly tuned unto obedience, without jar and discord arising from corruption? Certainly that humble confession of a most holy Apostle, may cause blushing in any such proud justiciary▪ Had Paul the body of sin 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 checked and mated by it, that [He can neither do the good he would, nor avoid the evil he would not, when he would do well, evil is still present with him.] And so tedious is this toil unto him; that he complains of it at the very heart, and cries out bitterly for help in this conflict. Whereupon though he have help from God through jesus Christ, yet hath he not full deliverance from this inherent corruption; but is fain to conclude in this pitiful manner, [So than I a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. even I myself. myself in my mind serve the law of God: but in my flesh the law of sin.] Even Paul serves God in the better half of him: do what he can, sin will have a place in his heart, & a part of his service, though he be unwilling to yield it. If any will compare and prefer himself to this holy man: he may prove himself prouder, but better then him he cannot. 'tis arrogance for a simple Friar to claim perfection, when so great an Apostle disavows it. He that will not acknowledge that corruption in himself, which Paul (in the name of all) confesseth in his own person; 'tis not because such a one is more holy than the Apostle: but because he is ignorant, and sees it not; or highminded and scorns to be known of it. Furthermore, Reason confirms what Scriptures and experience do witness; (viz.) that sinful corruption will hang fast upon us unto our dying day: for if we suppose an utter abolishment of sin and corruption in our Nature; it must needs follow, there will never be any sinfulness at all in our works and lives. Where the Habit is perfect, the Action is so too: and a sweet Fountain cannot send forth bitter waters. Wherefore seeing not the best of men can live without manifold actual sins: It it apparent, that this ill fruit comes from a bad humour, in the tree, and this defect of actual obedience, comes from the imperfection of habitual holiness. This is sufficient for justification of the truth of our first Preposition [That inherent holiness in this life, is not perfect;] Because 'tis always coupled with some sinful corruption. But here our Adversaries cry out with open mouth, that we maintain moastrous propositions. Namely b 〈…〉 That there is n● inherent holiness in a man that's justified, that after justification, a man still remains a sianer and unjust. That in justification, sin is not abolished, but only covered with Christ's mantle. Thence they fall to their Rhetoric, That all Calvinists are but painted Sepulchers, fair without full of rottenness within. Like foolish Virgins that have no oil of their own: But think to be supplied by that of other folks. Like Wolves in a Lamb's skin, which hides, but takes not away their ravening and fierce nature. Like a leprous person in fine clothes; that looks to be favoured and embraced by his King, because his is well apparelled. For this is (say they) to teach, That a Man justified is yet a sinner in himself. That corruption, filthiness, and uncleanness remain in him, when yet in God's sight he is accounted pure and clean, because he hath hid himself v●der the cloak of Christ's righteousness. Whence also they tell us it well follow, We make Christ's body monstrous, a holy, beautiful head joined to filthy leprous members. Christ's marriage polluted; A most holy and fair Bridegroom coupled to a foul deformed Spouse. To this we say. Truth is modest; yet she will not be outfaced with big words. Their eloquence hath slandered; partly us, partly the truth. Us, in that they affirm we deny all inherent righteousness in a person justified, which is an impudent calumny. The truth, in condemning that for an error which is sacred verity taught us by God in the Scriptures, (viz.) That a person justified, is yet after that in himself in part sinful. This we still teach and maintain for a truth, firm as the foundation of the earth, that cannot be shaken, namely, That although a justified 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 do dwell in him till death. And therefore the most justified person living, is yet in himself partly sinful and unjust; but the sinfulness is pardoned unto him in CHRIST. Against this the R●manists contend, labouring to prove, that in him that is justified. Sin doth not remain at all: but is utterly abolished. They prove it by such Arguments as these. 1 The Scriptures testify, That Christ is the c john 1. 29. Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world. That He was d Heb 9 28. offered to take away the sins of many. That in Repentance, our sins are e Acts 3. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. blotted out. That God will subdue our iniquities and f Micah. 7. 19 cast our sins into the bottom of the Sea; in allusion to the drowning of the Egyptians in the red Sea. Wherefore if sin be taken away, blotted out, drowned in the Sea, like the Egyptians: then sure it is abolished, and remains no longer. 2 They prove it from the Properties which are ascribed to Sin; as namely these. 1 Sin is compared to spots, stains and filthiness: but from thence we are washed by the pouring on of (clean a Ezek. 16. 2●. water) upon us; and by the (Blood of Christ) Apoc 1. 6. 1 john 1. ●7. 2 Sin is compared to Bonds, Fetters, & the Prison, whereby we are holden captive under the power of Satan: Now Christ hath broken these Chains and opened these prison doors, having (delivered us c Col. 1. 13. from the power of darkness) and (redeemed d Tit. 2. 14. us from all iniquity) & (made us free e Rom. 6. 18. 2● from Sin to be come the servants of Righteousness.) 3 Sin is compared to sicknesses, diseases, & wounds. Now God is the best Physician, the most skilful Chirurgeon: and where he undertakes the Cure, he doth his work throughly: he cures all diseases and each on perfectly. He doth not spread on a sick Man a fair Coverlid, or cover a festered wound with a fair cloth, as Calvin imagines: but by a purgative potion he expelles the disease, by a healing plaster he cures the wound. So that there is not left, nor corrupt matter, nor dangerous sore, that can prove deadly according to that Rom. 8. 1. (There is no condemnation to those that are in Christ jesus.) that is. There is no matter at all for which they deserve Condemnation, as those expound. 4 Sin is likened to death, nay it is the spiritual Death of the Soul. Now he that is justified is restored to Spiritual Life, and where Life is there death is quite taken away, seeing a Man cannot be alive and dead both together. Wherefore the Apostle saith Rom. 6. 6. [Our old Man is f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. crucified with him, that the Body of Sin might be g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. destroyed, that hence forth We might not serve Sin) and v. 11. (We are dead unto Sinne.) Hence they conclude. If the filthiness of sin be washed away, the Chains of sin broken, the Diseases and hurts of Sin healed, the Death of Sin abolished: than it follows, that Sin is quite exstinguished, and remains no more in those that are justified. 3 They argue thus. If Sin remain in those that are justified and be only covered: then God either knows of the sin or knows it not. To say he were ignorant of it were blasphemy (all h Heb. 4. 14 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 then 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, than he which is justified shall yet be condemned which is absurd. Unto these Arguments we answer. Unto the two former thus. When we say Sin remains in a Man regenerate and justified we must distinguish the ambiguity of the word Sin. In Sin, to use that distinction which is authentical with ou● Adversaries; There are three things. 1 The offence of God, which is the fault. 2 The obligation unto eternal punishment, which is the guilt. 3 The stain or pollution of the soul, (viz) the inherent vicious inclination of it unto evil. From whence the fault committed first issued, and which by committing of the fault is augmented. For evil once committed leaves a further proneness in the heart to do it again. This we call the corruption of Sinne. Thus than we answer. Sin doth not remain in those that are justified, & regenerate in the two first respects, viz. of the fault and the guilt, both which are taken away by the death of Christ. But Sin doth remain in the regenerate according to the 3 respect, (viz.) the vicious quality and corruption thereof, inherent in the soul: We shall explain these answers, and apply them to the Arguments. We say then; That the fault & guilt of sin in the regenerate, is utterly abolished by the death of Christ. Which we do 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 sins, were neither faulty nor guilty, were a gross untruth, ● seeing 'tis impossible that man should sin, yet God not be offended; that man should sin, and yet not be guilty, and deserving eternal death. Wherefore we confess that in the holiest of men, if they sin, there's a true fault, and God is displeased with it; there is also true guilt, and for it they deserve to go to Hell. But yet this truth also must be acknowledged withal, that all faultiness and guiltiness are quite abolished and taken away from them by Christ, because that both are pardoned unto them. God is offended; but yet they feel not the woeful effects of his indignation: because in Christ he is graciously contented to be reconciled with them. Again they have deserved everlasting death: but they come not to the pains thereof, because freed from the punishment by Christ's satisfaction. Thus than we understand the first part of the answer. That the fault and guilt of sin is utterly abolished, that is, totally pardoned unto the Regenerate, by means of Christ, so that no final eternal punishment shall befall them therefore. The other part. That Sin (in the vicious quality and corruption if it remain in Men justified) we understand with this necessary a Rom. 6. 12. 14. Limitation, That it remains in them not in its power and strength: but in its Being and Life. It hath vitam: but not Regnum. It reigns where there is no Grace at all: but it lives even where Grace is. which though it mightily abate to power of it: it cannot utterly destroy its being. Hence now its easy to untie the Arguments. Sin is taken away, blotted out, drowned in the bottom of the Sea, in regare of those mischievous effects which sin would have borough on us: God is reconciled, the obligation, to punishment canceled; 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 up as an adversary in judgement to condemn us. The Gild of Sin is washed away total by the blood of Christ: the filthiness of corrupted Nature is in part by Degrees cleansed by the Spirit of Christ poured on us in his sanctifying Grace. The Fetters and bonds of Sin, whereby we were held in bondage under condemnation, these are quite broken asunder: but those chains, whereby with Paul, Rom. 7 (we are led captive) to disobedience are some broken, all weakened. We are freed from the power of Satan and fear of Hell: but not wholly freed from Sin, whereby we are often captives against our will. Sin is a sickness, and God is the Physician; a wound, and God is the Chirurgeon, true: but the cures neither perectly, yet correct that word. He cures our sickness and sores perfectly: but not suddenly, where he begins the work he will finish it: but he will not do all in a day. The cure begins and goes onward to perfection during this life: but 'tis never finished till after death. He forgives b Psal. 103. 3. 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 fear the censure of a jesuit for unskilfulness nor stands he in need of Man's counsel, for prescription, nor Man's help to hold his hand in working, if the Cure go on more slowly than our foolish hastiness thinks fit. That's fit and best what God thinks so: and if we count him faithful and wise in his art; 'tis our duty to take his advice: but saucy presumption to give him any. Lastly, where Sin is said to be the (Spiritual Death of the Soul) and so Life being restored in justification Death must needs be quite abolished: the weakness of this Argument appears straight, if the metaphorical term be changed in to proper. The death of Sin is either the Separation of all grace from the Soul, or the Separation of God's Favour from the Soul. We are dead in trespasses and Sins both ways: In regard that in the state of unregeneration the Soul is utterly destitute of all Grace and goodness: and also be cause in that condition it is liable to eternal Death. Now the Death of Sin that is eternal death in the perpetual Loss of God's favour this is clean 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 Soul) They say. That in Regeneration Grace and Holiness is restored to the Soul, yet not so perfectly as to abolish every degree of Sinful Corruption. Before Regeneration the Soul had no grace atall and so was utterly dead but it follows not, That therefore in Regeneration, it hath all grace given it in all perfection, and so made perfectly alive: what ever harshness there is in the Metaphor, the plain terms in this case are smooth enough. A Man may be at once a live and dead, that is, at once a Man may be partly holy, and partly sinful. [Our old Man is crucified with Christ upon whose Cross it received 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 natural corruptions by degrees. [That so the body of sin might be destroyed.] that is, not presently annihilated: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made of no force and strength, made unable to work strongly in us. [That henceforth we might not serve sin.] Though always we should have sin in us. So are we [dead to sin] not as if sin were utterly dead in us; or had no more working in us, than it hath in a dead carcase: but because the guilt of sin is fully taken away, and the power of sin hat● received a deadly wound, doth bleed out some of its life now, and shall infallibly bleed out the last drop of its life hereafter. Unto the third Argument, we answer thus, That the Horns of those Dilemmas be made of wood, and may be easily battered. We say then that God sees and knows the sinful corruption which is in the regenerate; for we cannot assent unto that wild and frantic imagination of some; who have 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 jesus. We believe that nothing is hid from his eyes: nor be our sins less visible to him then our graces. God knows what sins his children commit, he judgeth them to be faults, and such as deserve his infinite wrath. Yea, to go further, as he sees the sin of the regenerate: so he hates it with a perfect hatred; it being impossible, that his pure eyes should behold impurity and love it. But now what follows hence? If he see it and hate it, than he cannot but punish it. True, that consequence is certain. But what's next? If God punish that sin which is in the Regenerate how then is their sin covered and their iniquities forgiven? How doth he account them Just, whom he knoweth and punisheth for unjust? Here's a Sophism. He sees sin, and hates sin, and punisheth sin of the Regenerate: Therefore he punisheth it in, and upon their own persons. That's a non sequitur. He punisheth it, but 'tis in the person of Christ [who hath trodden the Winepress,] of the fierce wrath of God conceived against all sinfulness whatsoever in his Elect: by which means his hatred towards the sin of the Regenerate, is fully satisfied, and also his love towards their persons procured. He graciously passeth by their iniquity, pardoning unto them what he hates, and hath punished in Christ: in which respect he may be truly said not to see that sin in them which he will never punish in them, and to cover that sin which shall never be laid open in judgement against them. CHAP. II. No man can perfectly fulfil the Law in performing all such works, both inward and outward, as each commandment requires, against which truth Popish Objections are answered. ANd thus much touching the first Proposition and the first point wherein Man falls short of his obedience to the Moral Law, (viz.) in the imperfection of habitual inherent holiness. We go on unto the next Proposition, touching Man's actual Obedience unto the whole Law. Where we teach, That no man can perfectly obey the Law in performing all such works, 2 Proposition. both inward and outward, as each commandment requires. A man would think this point needed no other proof but only experience. In all the Catalogue of the Saints, can you prick out one that after regeneration, never committed sin against the Law? We shall kiss the ground he treads on, if we know where that man haunts, who can assure us that since his conversion he never broke the Law. Shall we find this perfection in a Monks Cell, or in a Hermit's Lodge, an Anachorites Move, under a Cardinal's Hat, or in the Pope's Chair? All these are Cages of uncleanness, not Temples wherein dwells undefiled Sanctity. Never to sin; that's a happiness of Saints and Angels, with whom we shall hereafter enjoy it: but whilst w●e are mortal we can but wish for it. [Thy Law, (saith David) is exceeding large.] It compriseth in it not a few, but many and manifold duties. Good works are by a kind of Popish Solecism brought to a short sum Prayer, Fasting, and Almsdeeds. These are eminent among the rest: but not the hundreth part of the whole number. There is beside a world of duties enjoined, and as many sins forbidden: each Commandment hath it several Ranks, every duty its manifold Circumstances; to reckon up all, were a business which the wit of the subtlest jesuit, or the profoundest Diu●ne could hardly master. To perform them is a task, which is beyond the strength of the holiest Man, who in finding it a great difficulty to do any one well, would forthwith judge the performance of so many an impossibility. But if this suffice not; we have express Scriptures to prove 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 just man upon earth that doth good and sinneth not. (3) james 3. 2. In many things we offend all. (4) 1 john 1. 8. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. Whence we conclude, that [de facto] never any man did keep the Law: but broke it in some, yea, in many things. And therefore we say that the dispute of our Adversaries, touching the possibility of keeping the Law, vanishes to nothing. For seeing no man hath, or will ever actually keep it (as the Scriptures witness) to what end serves all the quarrelling a●d dispute about the possibility of keeping it. No man shall be justified by the Law, because he hath a power to keep it if he list: but because he hath actually kept it. Whence it is manifest that the reply of our Adversaries is ridiculous. No man indeed doth keep it: but yet they may if they will. For 1. what is that to justification? Can a man that's regenerate be justified by his obedience of the Law, when yet after his regeneration he doth not keep it? 2. And again. How know these men that there was, or is, such a power in the Saints to keep the Law, when yet the world never saw it brought into Act? Is it not more probable that what never was nor will be done, never could nor can be done? Were they all idle, and did not do their best endeavour? 'tis true, none doth so much good as he should and might; but yet 'tis a sharp censure to say that none would put themselves forward to the utmost of their might. What shall be said of Saint Paul, (Phil. 3. 12.) He confesseth that himself 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 mark 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 14. Here was diligence, and we cannot say that Saint Paul did not do his best. Did Paul then fulfil the Law? It seemeth so, for here we see he was willing, Lib. 4. cap. ●0. and in another place Bellarmine tells us he was able, for so we have it, Paul. 4. 13. I can do all things through Christ that strengtheneth me: that is, fulfil the Moral Law by the grace of Christ. Now if he were willing and able, then certainly he kept it. Nay 'tis certain he did not keep it. Witness the Testimony of himself. I do not the good things which I would: but the evil which I would not, that do I Rom. 7. 19 Where is the fault then? In the Apostles will? No, 'tis plai●e he would have done it. Wast then in his ability? Yea, this was it. to will was present with him: but he found no means to perform that which is good verse 8. The jesuit then abuseth us with a false exposition of of that place to the Philippians interpreting it of the Apostles ability to perform the moral Law, which himself meant concerning that strength where with Christ enabled him unto contentation and patience in all conditions whatsoever. Paul was able to bear all afflictions patiently, to use prosperity soberly: but to fulfil the Law in all things perfectly he was not able. And if he were not, who is? We conclude that the actual Obedience of the moral Law in fulfilling all the commandments exactly, is impossible to a regenerate Man in this Life. Let us now take a short survey of our Adversary's Arguments whereby they would prove That actual obedience to the whole Law is not only possible: but also very easy to the regenerate and justified. They are those. ● That burden which is light may be carried without shrinking under it, Bell. lib. 4. de Iust. cap. 1. 10. 11. 12 13. Bec●tom 2. tract 4. cap. 4. quest. 1. that yoke which is easy, is worn without pain; those commandments which are not burdensome, may be observed without difficulty. But such is the moral Law. [My yoke is easy and my burden light] Mat. 11. 30. [This is the love of God that ye keep his cammandments, and his commandments are not c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, grievous.] 1 john 5. 3. Ergo, The Moral Law may be easily observed. To this we answer, That the place of Matthew is to be understood not of the Moral Law: but of the yoke and burden of the cross and afflictions which every one must bear, that will follow Christ and obey the Gospel. To those that are wearied and laden with the Cross, Christ's speaks by way of Consolation, telling them whether to resort for help. (Come to me and I will give you rest) that is comfort and deliverance. 2 Then he persuades them to patience under their affliction. (Take up my yoke upon you) and bear it cheerfully, which is persuasion he strength theus with three arguments. 1 From his own example. (Learn of me) to do and suffer as I do, enduring so many persecutions and afflictions with all meekness 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 have unjustly persecuted me. 2 From the success of this patient enduring according to CHRIST'S example. And ye shall find rest unto your souls; comfort in affliction, seasonable deliverance from affliction. 3 From the Nature of such crosses. For my yoke is easy, etc. Though they be yokes and burdens which for the present seem grievous: yet they be easy, they be light, because Christ's yoke and Christ's burden which he lays on all his true Disciples that follow him, and which he will give them strength to support and bear out with cheerfulness. This seems the most natural interpretation of this place, & it is most agreeable to the twelfth Chapter to the Hebrews. Where the like Arguments are used to comfort the godly in such afflictions, as follow the profession of the Gospel. But yet if we understand it of the yoke and burden of the Law: We answer to it, and that place in john, That the Commandments of God are not grievous to the Regenerate; not because they can perfectly and easily fulfil them: but because that which made them intolerable and unsupportable unto them, is now taken away. What's that? The rigour of the Law in requiring of every man exact obedience, under pain of the curse of eternal death. Here was the uneasiness of the yoke which punched man in his sinful state; this was the weight of the burden, under which every man out of Christ must needs be crushed and sink down to Hell. Now Christ having fulfilled the Law, and satisfied for all our transgressions thereof, hath made this yoke easy for the necks, and this burden light upon the shoulders of the Regenerate; because though they be tied to obey; yet not upon those severe terms of being eternally accursed, if they at any time disobey. Now they are assured their hearty obedience shall be accepted, so far as they are able to perform it; and where they fail they shall be mercifully pardoned. Which is a singular encouragement of a Christian heart, to show all willing and cheerful endeavour in obeying God's Commandments, whereby he may give good proof of his unfeigned love unto God himself. Again we answer that his uneasiness and burdensomeness of the moral Law, is to be taken in regard of the Enmity and opposition which a carnal man bears unto the obedience thereof. Unto a natural man it is the greatest toil and wearisomeness in the world, for him to be made to draw in this yoke. For him to bridle his desires: to check his disordered affections; to restrain himself of his pleasures; 〈…〉 to be tied to the exercises of Religion; to have a lawless mind brought in subjection to a strict Law: Oh what a weariness is it, how he snuffs at it? He chafes and sweats under such a burden, more than under the weight of ten talents of Lead. But now unto a heart sanctified by grace, all such obedience becomes sweet, pleasant, and delightful. 〈…〉 The heart now loves the holiness of the Law; it b Rom. 〈◊〉. delighteth in the Law; takes contentment in c Psal. 119. per 〈◊〉 the obedience of it, and is full of singular affection and desire after it. Whence, though it fail in many things through manifold infirmities and temptations: yet it ceaseth not in a willing, constant, and cheerful endeavour to perform all. Grace fighteth with may difficulties, and in the combat takes many a foil: but yet at last the victory falls on her side. For (saith Saint john,) d Verse. ● He that is borne of God overcometh the world. So that The lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life; which he understands by the world, (1 john 3. 16.) prevail not against him, to turn him away from the holy Commandment given unto him. But he still obeys cheerfully and sincerely; though not every 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 observed,— Ergo, the rest also. They prove the minor thus. Three precepts there are, which are most hard as all confess. 1 Thou shalt love the Lord with all thy heart. 2 Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 3 Thou shalt not covet— The tenth Commandment. But now all these three commandments may be kept by the Regenerate. Ergo the rest; and so the whole Law. We 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 prove it in each particular. 1 That a man in this life may love God with all his heart. This they prove. ● By Scripture. Deut. 30. 6. The Lord thy God will circumcise thy heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live. This is a predication or promise of that which was heretofore, and is still accomplished in the regenerate, who being sanctified and purified from sin (a work of God's Spirit in the heart figured by external circumcision of the flesh) should love God with all their hearts. 2 By example of David, who saith of himself, Psal. 1 9 10. With my whole heart have I sought thee; and God also testifies of him: That he kept his commandments, and followed him with all his heart, to do that only which was righteous in his eyes, 1 Kings 14. 8. The like is recorded of josiah, 2 Kings 23. 25. And like unto him was there no King before him that turned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the Law of Moses: neither after him arose any like him. These men than loved God with all their hearts. 3 By reason; For to love God with all the heart, carries one of these three senses. First, to love him only, and nothing else, and so we are not commanded to love God with all our heart, because we must love our neighbour too. 2 To love 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 'twere impossible to love God as much as one can. 3 To love God above all (that is) to prefer him before all creatures, before father and mother, as Christ did, Mat. 10. 37. and as Abraham did; before his only Son. Now this only is to love God with all the heart, and this, men may do, as appeareth in the Martyrs and others, who left all for God's love. Unto these Arguments we answer. That it is not so easy a matter to love God, with all the heart: as these imagine. a Lib. 4. cap. 1●. Bellarmine indeed makes a (But) at it. There is nothing required (saith he) of us: But to love God with all the Heart. As if it were as easily done, as spoken. But we believe that in this (But) God hath set up a white, which all the men in the world, may and must aim at: but none will shoot so steadily as to hit it. Unto the place of Deuteronomy, we say. God therein tells us what his gracious work is in circumcising, or sanctifying our hearts, & what our bounden duty is thereupon (viz.) to love him with all our hearts: the performance whereof we must endeavour sincerely, chough we cannot do it perfectly. For the examples of David and josiah, who are said to follow the Lord with all their heart; there is nothing else meant thereby: but a sincere intent and endeavour in the general to establish and maintain Gods pure Religion in their Kingdom free from corruption of Idolatry; as also for their own particular conversation to live unblamably. For David, 'tis a clear case that not perfection; but sincerity is his commendations; whose many sins recorded in the Scriptures witness sufficiently that he had in his heart that corruption which many times turned the love thereof from God to other things. How did he love God with all his heart when he defiled Vriahs' bed, shed Vriahs' blood, intended to murder Nabal, judged away an honest man's Lands to a fawning Sycophant, with such other faults. The Prophet himself in that place in 119. Psal. witnesseth; as the uprightness of his heart, [With my whole heart have I sought thee:] so withal, the weakness and corruption of it; against which he humbly craves God's assistance in the very next words, [Let me not wander from thy commandments.] For josiah: 'tis plain that this singular commendations is given him, because of his through reformations of the most corrupt estate of Religion, which was before his reign. Wherein many Godly Kings before him had done something in redressing some abuses: but none went so far in a zealous reformation of all, according to Moses Law. Wherefore the Text saith, that there was no King before him like unto him, which cannot be meant absolutely of all, (for David is said to follow Gods will with all his heart; as well as josiah:) but since the time that Religion began to be corrupted in the jewish Church, there was none of all the Kings of judah, that was so faithful as josiah, to restore all things to their first purity. Whence he hath the praise, that he turned unto God more entirely, than any other King before or after him. But now from josiahs' zeal in reformation to conclude, that in every particular of his life he kept the Law perfectly, loving God with all his heart; is a consequence, that wants strength of connexion. Unto 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 love God with all the heart, is to love him as much as may be. The jesuit hath no reason either to deny, that this is not commanded; or to affirm that if it were commanded, 'tis yet possible to do it. Would any man say; except he care not what he say, that God doth not command us to love him as much as may be? Or will it be a truth from any man's tongue, to say, that he loves God with as great perfection as may be? It cannot. Which appears thus. God's will is, that we should love him with all our hearts. Now Christ hath taught us to pray. Thy will be done in earth as it is in Heaven. Thence 'tis evident, We on Earth are bound to fulfil the Commandment of loving God: as the Saints in Heaven do fulfil it. But now our Adversaries themselves grant, that whilst we be [in viâ] we cannot love God so much as we shall dye [in Patriâ] Whence it follows, that no man can love him so much as may be, and as he ought to do: seeing no man hath his heart replenished with that measure of Divine love, whereof his Nature is capable, which either Adam had in his inoncency; or the Saints have in glory. Touching the third sense of the words, we grant indeed; that to Love God with all the heart, is to love him super omnia, that is above all Creatures. But the Jesuits take here but one part of true love of God. 'tis a singular part of Divine love, when the heart is so fixed on God: that neither the love nor fear of any earthly thing can draw it from obeying of God. Which we say, is a matter wherein every one fails in some kind or other, more or less, though in the end may Martyrs and other holy men, have herein by faith overcome the world. But this is not enough unto perfect love, to prefer God before all Temporal pains and pleasures, profits or discommodities. He loves God with all his heart, not only who loves him above all, but also obeys God in all. This is the love of God, that we keep his Commandments. He that for God's love will not obey God's Law: he loves his sins more than God. Offend but in the least thing, there's presently want of love: for he that will not do as God bids him then, is void of that love which moves him to obey at other times. He than that keepeth God's word, in him is the love of God perfect indeed.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 john 2. 5. Perfect obedience and perfect love are inseparable. Now seeing the former cannot be found in mortal men: we cannot in them seek for the latter. And therefore this Commandment [Love God above all things] cannot be kept in this life. 2 That a man may love his neighbour as himself. For which purpose they turn us unto Rom. 13. 8. He that loveth another hath fulfilled the Law. Because the Law is comprehended in this saying, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, v. 9 and love doth not evil to his neighbour: therefore is love the fulfilling of the Law, vers. 10. And they bid us look Gal. 5. 14. Where we read, For all the Law is fulfilled in one Word: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Hereto we answer. That there's in these places, nothing that needs answering. We grant, that the love of our neighbour as of ourselves, is the fulfilling of the Law; that is, of the second Table of the Law, touching our duty unto man, and so much these places witness, commanding us also so to do. But now how do our Adversaries prove out of these places, that men can perfectly ob●serue this Law. We yield the Regenerate love their neighboars as themselves: but that perfection of love, which in every point fulfils the Law, doing our neighbour no hurt, but all good, in all our thoughts words and deeds; this we cannot grant them, unless upon better proofs. Let us go to the tenth Commandment, which they say may be kept, that is, 3 Thou shalt not covet. This tenth Commandment of the Decalogue, is (say they) possible to be fulfilled by a Regenerate man. For three things must be observed, touching this concupiscence or coveting forbidden in the tenth Commandment. 1 The vicious proneness and inclination of Nature unto baddesires, which is styled concupiscence in actu primo. As to have a thievish mind. 2 The inordinate motions of the heart immediately arising from that corrupt disposition, which prevent reason, and go before consent; as to desire another man's money: but suddenly vanisheth of itself, or upon deliberation 'tis checked. 3 The consent of the will, when either it takes 〈◊〉 mediate delight in such desires themselves; as speculative fornication etc. or when it resolves to put in execution what the heart imagined; as to lay a plot to spoil another of his goods. The two former, the vicious disposition of Nature, and the inordinate desires that go before consent: these be no sins (say the Romanists) and so not forbidden in the ten Commandments. The last (viz.) Evil desires with consent, they be the very sins which are forbidden in that Commandment; Whence they conclude that a Regenerate man may avoid the breach of this commandment; seeing it is in the power of his will, whether he will consent unto such motions of the heart or no: and if he do not consent: then, he sins not. Hereunto we answer. That whereas they of Rome teach, that the Habitual viciousness of Nature and the disorderly motions of the Heart which go before Consent, are no Sins: they therein err grossily against Scriptures and sound Reason. This the gift of these Men always to judge flatteringly and favourably on Nature's side: they concipt to themselves a God in Heaven like their God in Rome, Facilem Deum, one that will wink at small faults, and grant Indulgence by the Dozen. Look what they judge a small Matter God must be of there mind: or else they are not pleased. His Love must fit there Humours; what they think they can do; that God shall have leave to command or forbid: but if otherwise they'll tell him to his face, that he is a fool ct a Tyrant, to command them that, which now they cannot perform. For God (say they) to require of a Man a freedom from all vicious Inclinations and evil desires, this were as mad an injunction, as for a master to command his servant never to be hungry, or thirsty, hot or cold, and to threaten him, that he should look through a halter, in case it be otherwise with him. This error we shall more conveniently speak of in the refutation of common and general exceptions, which they make against all those proofs, that do 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 affirm that it is in a Regenerate Man's power not to yield consent to the motions of Sin, and that therefore he may fulfil the Law which said (thou shalt not lust:) we grant them that the Spirit may many times get the victory, overmastring such vuruly motions of the heart: but this is not perpetual. For who is there (except extremely ignorant of Grace and Nature) but will confess that many times these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, affections of Sin] as the Apostle calls them, do work in them so strongly, upon such circumstances and advantages; that they do not only [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, combat and fight] against the powers of grace: but also [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vanquish them] and even lead a Man regenerate captive unto the Law or command of sin. The Apostle confesseth so much of himself Rom. 7. 23. Who yet was able to do as much as he that thinks himself best. And therefore what ever power we may seem to have not to yield consent: yet 'tis certain that we shall often fail in in our practice. This of the second Argument touching the observation of the observation of the hardest precepts of the Law: The third follows. 3 If a Man may do more than the Law requires: 3 Arg. he may certainly do as much. But a Man may do more than the Law requires. Ergo He may do as much. The minor Bellarmine proves by the example of the young Man Mat: 〈◊〉 9 who telling Christ that he had observed all the commandments and that from his youth; our Saviour bids him do one thing more and then he should be perfect. [If thou wilt be perfect, go sell that thou hast and give to the poor and follow me.] ver. 20. Now if the young Man had done this, he had done more than the Law required. In as much as whatsoever the Law required he had observed formerly. For do you not believe him that he spoke true? [All these things have I observed from my youth] verse 9 Whereto we answer. That we do not believe the Testimony of that vain young Man touching his own Righteousness. Who boosted of keeping the 2. Table in the outward duties thereof: when as yet he wanted inward Charity towards his Neighbuor and Love towards God. He avouched that he had kept all perfectly fulfilling that commandment [Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself:] and there upon is so bold as to ask Christ. what lack I yet; Christ to convince him of his pride and wants, put him to the Trial. If thou hast such perfect Charity towards Man; then certainly if God command thee to bestow, that a part, but all thy goods upon the poor, upon promise of better things to thyself: thy duty unto God and singular Charity to Men, will make thee do so. [Go then sell all that thou hast and give a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈…〉 to the poor.] Upon this special Commandment, this covetous mind shows itself. Nay, 'tis plain he loved not his Neighbour, so well as his riches. He is neither so dutiful to God; nor charitable to the poor: as for either of their sakes, to part with his possessions. But, might he say, what? will not ordinary alms, or a little more than ordinary serve the turn? Must I give away all. Ind●ede the Law requires that I be merciful to the poor: but where's any Law that bids me sell my whole estate and distribute to them that want? Christ lays an unnecessary burden upon me; if I cannot be perfect without vndo●ing myself, I will content myself as I am, and not seek after such perfection. here a Papist will say he speak reason, seeing Christ's speech was but acounsaile of more perfection, than the Law required. Now a Man is not to be blamed if he choose only to be as perfect as the Law commands him, and so this young man was: if you'll believe him or them. But the Scripture makes it plain that he did evil in disobeying Christ; and, that if he had obeyed him in that particular, he had done no more than the Law required at his hands. For obedience to every special Commandment is included in the general. The Law indefinitely commands us to give alms: now if God by a special commandment limit how much we shall give; whether half, or all our Estates, to obey such a particular precept is not to do more than the general Law requires us. Such a particular Commandment was this of Christ unto the young Man, wherein he sets him a spell, according to that conceit of perfection which he had of himself: putting him to the practice of the highest duty which the Law of Liberality can possible require of a Man (viz.) to part with all. This he ought to have done upon Christ's particular commandment; in not doing of it he broke the Law, and proclaimed his heart to be full of covetousness, devoid of faith in God; and true Charity towards his Neighbour. From this place then our adversaries cannot prove, that this young Man might have done more than the Law required: or that we are bound at any time to do as Christ bid him. Christ's command was for his particular Trial: not for our Imitation. They that take it otherwise be a generation of men that profess Beggary; and possess Kingdoms, who were willing enough to part with that little they had of there own, that so they may live the more Largely and plentifully upon other men's. We go 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 than any Tyrant, too command us to do that which is impossible for us to do. To this we answer, That the consequences were true if God had given a Law which Men never had strength to perform. But now the Law written in tables on Mount Sina, was but a reviving and repetion of the same Law, which was written in Adam's heart; the Characters whereof were now defaced in his sinful Posterity. Adam had strength sufficient to fulfil it: which as he received for himself and us; so he lost it for both. Nevertheless though Strength to obey be lost: yet the obligation to Obedience remains. We are no more discharged of our duties, because we have no strength to do it: then a debtor 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 unto the Isralites, he did not qualify the exactness thereof, fitting the precepts to there abilities, commanding them to do just as much as they could or would do. Had God made a Law in that sort in favour of man's sinful nature: they might with better reason have laid folly to his charge, for bending the rule to the crookedness of man's heart; and not levelling it according to the straightness of the Rule. God was to set forth a Law of Liberty, that should not flatter but freely rebuke Man of all unrighteousness; a jam. 1. 25. Psal. 197. a perfect, Law containing in it a full description of Holiness and justice, which Man ought to have and perform towards God and his Neighbour: & in this case God had just reason to have respect unto man's duty; not his ability, which once he had; but now had forfeited and lost. The next Argument is. 5 Every Prayer made in Faith according to Gods will is heard and granted. ● Argu. But we pray that we may fulfil the Law perfectly. (For we pray that we may do Gods will in Earth, as it is in Heaven.) Ergo God hears us, and gives us such grace that we can doci. Hereto we answer. That this prayer shows us what we are bound too; and what is our duty continually to endeavour. That we may do Gods will every day more perfectly, cheerfully and constantly, than other. And so far God hears the faithful prayers of his loving children, enabling them to better performance, the longer they live. But that such perfection of Obedience is given to us in this life; as the Saints enjoy in Heaven, will not be granted by our Adversaries themselves. Wherefore they must also grant that that Prayer is heard and granted us by degrees. In this Life we attain such perfection as God sees fit for us: afterwards, that which is complete. 6 They prove by these Scriptures, that the Law may be fulfilled. 6 Arg. Gal 5. The apostle reckons up the fruits of the spirit. Love, joy, Peace etc. then he saith ver. 23. that against such there is no Law. [That is (sayeth Bellarmine) the Law cannot accuse such men of Sinne. So 1 john. 3. 9 [Whosoever is borne of God, doth not commit Sin, for his seed remaineth in him; and he cannot Sin because he is borne of God.] Ergo, the regenerate cannot so much as break the Law. We answer. That both these places are perverted by false Interpretations. Against a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ such there is no Law saith the Apostle. Against what? such persons, or such graces? If it be meant of Persons, (viz.) That such as have 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 own meaning, which he expresseth. verse 18. [If ye he led by the spirit ye are not under Law] How is that? Are not the Regenerate under the Law, that is under the Obedience of the Law? Yes, we grant on both sides that Grace frees us not from subjection and obedience unto Gods Law. How then are they not under the Law. 'tis plain. They are not under the Curse and Condemnation of the Law, as those be that walk in the flesh and do the works thereof, who therefore [shall not inherit the Kingdom of God] v, 19 and that's to be accursed. But such as walk in the Spirit being regenerate and justified, are not under the Curse: and therefore though the Law may and doth accuse them of Sin: yet the Law is not so against them, as to bring condemnation upon them (as it doth upon other) from which in Christ they are freed. If the clause be under stood of the Graces of the Spirit, there reckoned up the sense is this. Against such works 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 john [He that is borne of God doth not commit Sin yea cannot.] If our Adversary's exposition according to the very Letter may stand good it will ●ollow. That in the regenerate there is not only a possibility to keep the Law: but also an impossibility at any time to break it. But they easily see how absurd this position is, and that it being granted their doctrine of falling away from Grace lies flat in the dust; seeing john sayeth expressly. That a man regenerate, not only, doth not, but cannot Sinne. Therefore certainly he cannot fall from Grace. Wherefore they help it out with a distinction. He cannot sin, that is, mortally. He may sin, that is, venially, and venial sins 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, He that Sins venially (as they mince it.) breaks the Law; and again a Man Regenerate may sin mortally; which is true not only according to there doctrine who teach that a Man may fall from the Grace of Regeneration which to do is a mortal Sin: but much more according to the Scriptures and Experience which witness that Peter, David, Solomon, and Many, yea all the Saints, have at sometime or other there grievous falls; out of which notwithstanding, by the Grace of the Holy Ghost, abiding in them they recover themselves so that finally they fall not a way. The last Argument is from the examples of such men as have fulfilled the Law. 7 The Scriptures record that diverse men have been perfect in fulfilling the law in all things: 7 Argu. 〈◊〉 b Gen. 17. 1. Abraham, c Gen. 6. 9 Noah, d 1 King 14. 8. David, e 2 King 23. 25. josiah, f 2 Chro. 15. 17. Asa, g Luke 1. 6. Zacharie and Elizabeth, the h john. 17 6. Apostles, and other i Phil. 3. 15. holy Men. Therefore the Law is at least possible to be kept by some. Not to stand in particular examination of all the places of Scripture, which are alleged for proof of these examples; we answer briefly. That it is every man's duty to aim at perfection in his obedience, according to Christ's Commandment, Mat. 5. 48. Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect. 2 That in this life there are many degrees of grace, which God bestows diversely on diverse men, according to his own pleasure, and their greater or less diligence in the practice of Holiness. So that comparatively some men may be said to be perfect, because far more perfect than others, as the greatest stars be said to be of perfect light, because they shine brighter than those of lesser Magnitude, though yet not so bright as the Sun. But 3. we affirm that no man in this endeavour after perfection, goes so far, as for inward Holiness and outward obedience to answer the perfection of the Law in all points. Even in these holy Saints which they bring for instance, the Scriptures have recorded unto us their failings, that in them at once we may see a pattern of Holiness to be imitated, and an example of humane Infirmity, to be admonished by we have a Gen. 15. ●. 3. Abraham, sometimes misdoubting of God's promise & protection, and helping himself by a b Gen. 20. 11. shift scarce warrantable. c Gen. 9 21. Noah overseen in drink. d 2 Sam. 11. David breaking the sixth and seaventh Commandments, one after another. e 2 Chron. 25. v. 20. 21 22. josiah running wilfully upon a dangerous enterprise against God's Commandment. f 2 Chron. 16. 7 Asa relying on the King of Syria for help against the King of Israel, and not upon the Lord, g Ver. 10. & in a rage imprisoning the Prophets for reproving him; h Ver. 12. and in his disease seeking not to the Lord: but to the Physicians. i Luke 1. 18. Zachary not giving credence to the Angel's message. The k Mar. 14. 50▪ 66. etc. Apostles all at a clap forsaking, or denying Christ. We cannot then in these Saints find perfection in the full obedience to the Law; amongst whose few actions registered by the Holy Ghosts pen: we may read their sins together; with their good works. And had the Scriptures been silent in that point: yet who could thence have concluded, that these men or others had no faults, because no mention is made of them? It was God's purpose to relate the most eminent, not every particular action of their lives; even Christ's story falls l 〈◊〉 20. 30. 31. short of such exactness. We conclude then notwithstanding these Arguments. Our second Proposition standeth firm and good (viz.) That no man in this life can fulfil the Law in every duty both inward and outward: but that the justest man on earth will fail in many things. So if he should seek for justification by this his actual obedience to the Law: he throws himself under the curse of the Law. For cursed is every one that continues not in [all] things, which are written in the book of the Law to do them, saith the m Gal. 3. 10. Apostle out of n Deut. 27. 26. Moses. Which curse must needs light on those, that are of the works of the Law, that is, seek for justification 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 perform any particular good work, so exactly that in every point it shall answer the rigour of the Law, proved by conscience, Scriptures, reason; and Popish objections, answered. I Proceed unto the last Proposition, Proposition. which concerneth Man's actual Obedience to any one particular precept of the Law. Wherein will appear the third Imperfection of man's Obedience in fulfilling of the Moral Law. We have seen. That no man hath perfect inherent sanctity free from Nature's corruption. Again, That no man can perform perfect actual obedience to all and every duty of the Law without failing in any one point. And this much our Adversaries will not much stick to yield unto us, and confess. That there is no man, but sinneth at some time or other; and that 'tis scarce possible to avoid venial sins, as they style them. But then they deny utterly. That a man sins in every particular good work; though he cannot do all perfectly, yet in some he may exactly fulfil the Righteousness of the Law, not missing in any one circumstance. And therefore at least by that obedience he may be justified. This opinion of theirs hath neither truth in itself: nor yet brings any benefit at all to their main purpose in proving justification by works. For to what end serveth it them to stand quarrelling for the perfection of our obedience in some one or two good works; when yet we fail in many things beside? One thing well done will not justify him that doth many things ill. For that of Saint james must be a Truth: He that keepeth the whole Law, and yet faileth in one point, is guilty of all. james 2. 10. Much more guilty is he, that keepeth it in a few: and breaks it in many. But yet further, we reject this opinion also, as an Error: and we teach on the contrary. That No man in this life can perform any one particular good work, so exactly, that in every point, it shall answer the rigour of the Law, and the severe trial of God's judgement. About this Assertion our Adversaries raise much stir and many soul slanders against us, proclaiming us to all the world, open enemies to all good works, that we be Factors for the Kingdom of darkness, promoting as much as in us lieth all licentiousness in evil courses, and taking of the courage and endeavour of Men after pious duties. For who will set himself (say they) to do any good work if the Protestants doctrine be true, that in doing of it he shall commit a mortal Sin? who will pray, fast, and gives alms, if when he doth these things he cannot but sin? As good than it were to do evil as to do good: a man can but sin, and so he shall, let him do his best. These slanderous incongruities fastened on us, spring not out of our Doctrine rightly understood: but out of froward and perverse hearts, that will not see the truth. Such aspersions will easily be wiped of, when after the confirmation of the Truth we shall make answer to such objections, as seem to infringe it. We say then. That no man can perform any good work required in the Law with such exact observation of every circumstance: that (were it examined by the rigour of the Law and God's justice) no fault at all can be found in it. This we prove by Conscience, by Scriptures, by Reason. First we here appeal unto the Conscience of Man, the judgement whereof is to be regarded; and whereunto we dare stand in this matter. Thou that boastest that in such and such good works; that thou hastnot committed any Sin at all. Darest thou indeed stand to it, and upon these Terms appear in God's judgement? Darest thou abide the strictness of this examination standing ready to justify thyself against every thing that he can object; Wilt thou venture thyself upon this Trial even in the best works thou dost, That God cannot with his most piercing eye of justice spy a fault in them, if he number them, he shall find nothing short? if he weigh them not one grain too light? Again let conscience speak, when thou hast prayed, fasted, given alms, done any other excellent work of Piety and Charity in the devoutest, and most unblameable manner thou thinkest possible. Thinkest thou verily, that in this case thou dost not at all stand in need of God's favour, to pass by thine infirmities, and that thou needest not even in this behalf pray; Lord forgive me my trespasses? What man durst say or think in any good work: Lord in this particular I do not desire thou shouldest be merciful unto me? Without doubt there is no man living upon earth that shall in serious consideration of the severity of God's judgement, and the great infirmity of his own Nature, compare his own obedience with the severity of God's justice, but his heart will presently shrink within him, and his conscience shun this trial; as much as ever Adam did God's presence. The thought of such a strict proceeding in judgement, would make the proudest heart to stoop and tremble, the boldest face to gather blackness, filling the soul with an horrible fear 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 justice: not graciously pitied, pardoned, and accepted according to that merciful love of God which covereth and passeth by multitudes of sins. 'twere arrogant pride in any man to utter that speech in a sober temper; Whereunto job breaks out in a passion, chased by the sense of his miserable tortures; and the froward disputes of his friends. a job 16. ●1. Oh (saith he) that a man might plead with God, as a man pleadeth with his neighbour. And again, Lay b job 17. 3. down now, put me in a surety with thee, who is he that will strike hands with me? And again, Oh that c job. 23. 3. 4. ●. I knew where I might find him, that I might come even to his face, I would order my cause before him, and fill my mouth with arguments. I would know the words which he would answer me, and understand what he would say unto me. Speaks the man reason? or is he beside himself? what? challenge God to dispute with him, and hope to make his party good in the quarrel? This was jobs infirmity; It's our Adversary's arrogancy, who dare set their foot against Gods; and bid him pry as narrowly as he list into their good works: they will maintain the righteousness thereof against all that he can object to prove the least sinfulness. job saw his folly: God grant that these may theirs. In a calmer temper, when conscience was not overclouded with grief and anger: he reads us a quite contrary lesson. In the 9 Chapter of his book. How should man be just with God? if he contend with him he cannot answer him one of a thousand, v. 2. 3. And again, having reasoned & questioned of God's wisdom & power, not to be questioned or resisted by any. How much less shall I answer him (saith he) & choose out my words to reason with him? whom though I were righteous, yet would I not answer: but I would make supplication to my judge, v. 14. 15. Further, If I would justify myself mine own mouth will condemn me, If I say I am perfect, it shall prove me perverse. Though I were perfect yet would I not know my soul, I would despise my life, v. 20. 21. And once more. If I wash myself with snow water, & make my hands never so clean, yet that thou plunge me in the ditch, & mine own clothes shall abhor me. For he is not a man as I am that I should answer him, and we should come together in judgement, verse. 30. 31. 32 See, this holy Saint, who elsewhere stands peremptorily to the defence of his Innocency and uprightness against that wrongful imputation of hypocrisy which his friends charged him withal, telling them that till he die, he will not take away his innocency from himself, nor his heart shall not reprove him of his days: yet when he sets himself before the Tribunal of God's justice, he dares not stand out in his own justification, but submits himself to the mercy of his judge, with humble supplication for his favour. These confessions of job be not compliments out of a feigned and needless modesty: but the fruits of a conscience rightly informed and apprehensive of its own sinfulness, and the severe rigour of God's judgement. The serious meditation of which two particulars, we commend unto our Adversaries, and all other of their humour; that are apt to entertain favourable and gentle opinions touching their sins: and withal to nourish high conceits of their own goodness. Whence they grow by degrees to think, that God's judgement is like their own foolish imaginations; and where they out of blindness or self-love cannot see a fault: that there God himself can find none. We hardly see beams in our own eyes: are we then so skilful to spy the smallest moat? who can understand his faults (saith David) wilt thou answer him; Yes I do? A secret fault may soon s●●p it, a deceitful heart may in one circumstance go beyond thy wit & watchfulness. Here then humility would do well, and prayer for thy ignorances, for thy secret sins; unknown to thyself as much as others. Here true modesty would have her place, that thou prefer God's wisdom and judgement above thine own, remembering that he judgeth not as man judgeth: but sometimes otherwise then thou dost, accounting that abomination, which in thine eyes is much set by; and always more exactly than thou caused; seeing much evil in that where thou seest little, and some evil where thou think'st there is none. And therefore always speak unto thyself in those excellent words of Saint john▪ If my heart condemn (as in many things it doth) God is greater than my heart, and knoweth all things. 1 john 3. 20. God forbid then that in any thing I should presume to plead with him in my justification. He is wise in heart, and mighty in strength; who hath hardened himself against him and hath prospered, job. 9 2. Thus much touching our first Argument, for the inward witness of the conscience. Which in the most innocent life, often in the most holy work, draws back from God's judgement seat, and is afraid to put itself upon the trial of his severe justice.. We have the Scriptures to witness unto us the same Truth. Psa. 143. ●. 2. [Hear my prayer O Lord give ear● unto my supplication: in thy faithfulness answer me and in thy righteousness.] Here the prophet seems to appeal to the justice of God requiring his help upon such terms, as if God out of pure justice could not have denied him. But 'tis nothing so. 'tis the mercy of God the holy Prophet sues unto. Answer me in thy faithfulness and Righteousness, that is, in those gracious promises, wherein thou hast made me to trust, where upon I do rely. Thou art just and faithful: in keeping promise, be so to me in my distress, who according to thy promise seek unto thee for succour. Unto this Righteousness of God David presents himself, and his supplications; but before that strict & severe justice of God he dares not stand, but in all submissiveness prays in the next words. [And enter not into judgement with thy servant.] He craves merciful audience of his prayers: but deprecates the strict examination of his Life and doings. He knew well that if God should deal with him upon so hard Terms; his own Innocency could never have made his prayers exceptable (For (saith he) in this shall no Man living be justified). The force of this place a Lib. 1. cap. 20. Bell. seeks to decline by three poor miserable shifts. That David would not have God enter into judgement with him to judge him (seili●et) according to such things as he had of himself: N●li iudica●e ex his quae in me 〈◊〉. but according to such things as God had given him, that is, judge me not according to that righteousness which I have by Nature: but according to that righteousness which thou hast given by thy Grace.) Which interpretation how ridiculous a fantasy it is, and quite besides the meaning of the Prophet, 'tis easy for any one to judge by reading of that Psalm. Bell. therefore hath another string to his Bow: but as rotten as the Former. 2 That the place is meant of venial Sins without which a Man cannot live, and though they be small faults: yet would it be no justice in God to punish them. So that the meaning is, [Lord enter not into judgement,] that is, Lord I will not contend with thee I confess myself a sinner and crave pardon, divers small faults I have committed not against the Law: but besides the Law, and thou mayest easily pardon them. My case is not singular. I do therein, but as other Men do, amongst whom, there is none so just but some time fails and offends. And therefore do not lay such faults to my charge. Men of corrupt conscience that thus sport with Sin and play with the Scriptures. The jesuit must bring us better proofs, than he doth, else we shall never believe that David was a Man of Bellarmine his mind touching Venial Sins. That doctrine is part of the dregs of corrupted Nature, maynatined by Popish Moabites, who are settled on their Lees, infatuated by the Love of Sin, and flattering themselves in that wickedness as little & light which God accounteth worthy to be ha●ed. we acknowledge no Venial Sins: but such as deserve eternal death, which hereafter we shall make good. And therefore if David would not that God should enter into judgement with him, because of venial sins that accompany his holiest practices, 'tis in effect, that which we say; the difference is only in an Epithet. We say David prayed not to come into judgement, because [his best works were sinful:] and Bellarmine adds, Because venially, or, pardonably sinful. Which advantageth him not a jot. For let him mince it, how him l●st●tis manifest, that these were such sins, as for them David durst not venture his best works to come unto the Bar of God's severe judgement. There is yet another device. That thirdly David speaks by comparison. (viz.) That that though the Righteousness of his works were true, being absolutely considered: yet being compared with God's Righteousness, it seemed to be unrighteousness. As a candle set in the Sun, seems to have no light: and a little light compared to a greater, seems darkness. Whereto we answer that David here makes a confession of his own sinfulness; not a comparison of his own righteousness, with the righteousness of God. He desires that God will not enter into judgement with him; not because he had not so much righteousness as God, in comparison of whom it seemed little or nothing: but because he was sinful, and had not so much Righteousness as he should. Man may have a Righteousness of his own; infinite degrees, below the Righteousness of God, which yet may pass the Trial of God's judgement without all reproof. As is manifest in the Righteousness of Adam and Christ's Humanity: both which, though inferior to God's Righteousness, were yet able to endure that strict examination. Wherefore we are not accounted unjust for that imperfection, because we have less Righteousness than our Maker: but because we have not so much as we ought to have, according to the capacity of our Nature wherein he made us. But of this more hereafter. Let this serve 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 we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness is as filthy rags, and we all do fade as a leaf, and our iniquities like the wind have taken us away. This is the confession of the Church of God, submitting herself to him in the acknowledgement of her sins, and the justness of his anger against her. The confession is every way general: both for Persons, not one excluded; We all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are as an unclean thing, and likewise for works, none are excused from faultiness. All our Righteousness (nay in the plural) all our righteousness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are as filthy rags. Hence they acknowledge that God is justly angry with them, and that in his righteous displeasure, they are afflicted, consumed and brought into great adversity, the glory of the Church, and state decaying more and more, like a fading leaf that fall● from the tree, and is driven away with the wind; And we all do fade as a leaf, and our iniquities like the wind have taken us away. Against this plain acknowledgement of man's sinfulness in all his most righteous works, the Jesuits except diverse ways. 1 That the Prophet speaks here in the person, not of the godly: but of wicked, who make here this confession of their sins. And how proved they this? Thus. The Text saith. Behold thou art wrath, for we have sinned. Now God is not angry with the godly: but with the wicked. Again, the Text saith, There is none that calleth upon thy name. That is, None of the wicked persons, for the godly do call on God's Name. This exception is manifestly refuted by the whole order of the Text, whereby it is apparent to any that hath but half an eye, that this Recognition of Sin, 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 faithful therein, confessing their own faults, as well as others, and suing for relief, not only in behalf of others, but of themselves too. His reasons are worth nothing. God is not angry with the godly, saith Bellarmine. No? Then Peter is in an error, who saith, 1 Pet. 4. 17. 18. The time is come that judgement must begin at the house of God; and if it begin at us, what shall the end of them be that obey not the Gospel of God; And if the righteous be scarcely saved; where shall the ungodly and sinner appear? Here's judgement on God's house, that is, on the righteous, that obey the Gospel, as well as on the ungodly that obey it not. And so 'tis, when the godly sin, they smart for it, in private afflictions, in public calamities, both ways they find God is not well pleased with their ill doings. When a Church and a State is ruinated, may not the most righteous take up this confession. Lord thou art angry for we have sinned Even we by our sins have hastened and increased the public miseries? I trow, none will deny it. Again, the Text speaks of those that do not call upon God's Name. But the godly call upon it, Ergo. 'tis not meant of them. True, they do call upon God's Name: but is this done always with that diligence, with that zeal which God requires? How comes it to pass then, that the godliest men are many times secure, slothful, cold and careless 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 themselves begin to freeze in so general a coldness of the season, losing much of that servency of Spirit which the Apostle requires of us, as at all times: so then especially, when it should revive and put heat into others, when their love of Religion begins to wax cold. At such time's zeal in God's service, vehemency in prayer, constancy in all Relious exercises, resolute, but discreet forwardness in the holy profession of Religion is most commendable. But yet it so comes to pass, that even then much security and slackness overcomes the godly, and whilst they should be a means to prevent a mischief, they hasten it upon themselves and others. And thus the jewish Church here in this place confesseth, that there were none that called on the name of the Lord, a careless negligence, and slackness in the Service of God, was come upon them, so that as it is in the next words, [there was none that stirreth up himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to take hold of God.] None awaked and roused up himself with diligent endeavour to apply himself to the worship of God, A fault wherewith God may justly be angry: as he then was. This first exception than is frivolous. Others there be as idle. 2 That by (all) in this place is to be meant the greatest part; not all the jews, nor all their works were sinful; but the greatest part. For so the word [All] is taken in some places of Scripture: and therefore the jesuits think, it must needs be taken so here. 3 That if it be meant of (all) simply: yet 'tis not to be understood at all Times. All the People and their works were nought and sinful, when they were to be carried away Captive: but it follows not, that they were so at other times. 4 This must be restrained to the righteousness which consists in Obedience to the Ceremonial Law. [All our Righteousness] that is, all our Ceremonial works in Sacrifices, Observations of Sabboaths, New-moones, Fasts and such like, [are as filthy clouts] being done in that manner as we do them (viz) without Faith and Obedience. To these we say. That there would never be an end, were a Man bound punctually to refute every Cavil, which an Adversary may frame out of his fancyfull imagination, and froward heart. We owe the Romanists no such credit: as to assent to any point of Religion upon their bare affirmation. We can as confidently deny such Exceptions as these, without yielding them a refutation: as they do boldly make them without bringing any proof. And certainly most vain and ungodly is that course which our Adversaries or any that tread in there steps do hold in their Disputations, about serious points of Christian Doctrine: when being urged with convincing Scriptures, they think they have done the part of Scholars, and satisfied the Consciences of others desirous of Truth, if they can amuse and stonny you a little with two or three Interpretations and pretty exceptions, and so leave you to choose which you list. They will not tell you which they will stand to: but even when there answers cross one another, yet all shall down, that if one help not, another may, and altogether may vex you, when they cannot satisfy you. This quarrelsome humour of men, who seek not the truth in love: but write to maintain, to dispute, is not the least vexation of the spirit, and weariness to the flesh of man; as all those will witness, whose much reading hath led them along into the perplexed mazes of School-learning, whether Divine or humane. The third place of Scripture is, Psal 130. 3. If thou, Lord shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord who shall stand? This place is parallel to the former, wherein the holy Prophet desires God to be attentive to the voice of his supplications, craves this audience merely of God's favour; not upon any righteousness or worth of his own. As for that he confesseth. That if God should be strict to observe wherein he and all men do amiss: neither himself, nor any other could be able to stand in his presence. Whence he flies from his justice unto his mercy. But there is forgiveness with thee that thou mayest be feared. verse 4. Presumption than it is, and arrogant pride for any Romanist to say. Lord if thou do observe Iniquities: yet I shall be able to stand. In such and such good works, be extreme to mark what is done amiss; I fear not the trial, nor will sue to thy mercy. From Scriptures we come to Reason. Which is thus. Wheresoever there is concupiscence and inordinate motions of the heart; wheresoever there's a defect of Charity towards God and Man; Wheresoever venial sins (as our Adversaries calls them) are mingled with good works: there the best works of men are not free from some corruptions and sinfulness. But in a man Regenerate there is concupiscence and evil motions of the heart present with him, when he would do good; there is a want of that measure of love to God and Charity to Man, which he might and ought to have, there also are beside many venial faults that accompany his best works. Ergo, the works of a Man Regenerate are not every way good: but in part sinful. The Minor is clear and confessed by our Adversaries: especially for the two former circumstances of concupiscence, and imperfection of Charity: and for venial sins, they also acknowledge it a very hard matter to 〈…〉 in any good work. Wherefore they are a Bill▪ lib. 〈◊〉. 17. driven in a desperate manner to deny the Mayor and to avouch. That neither concupiscence nor imperfection of Charity to God or our Neighbour; nor yet venial sins mingled with good works, do at all impair the goodness and perfect righteousness o● our obedience to the Law; but that they are as good with those infirmities, as without them. Bad causes must be helped out, by bold and desperate attempts; and so it ●ares with our Adversaries in this point. They will utterly deny that there is any thing evil in a man Regenerate: rather than be forced to confess there is any thing evil in the works, that he performs. The impudent unreasonableness of this their Assertion, we shall shortly speak of. In the mean we go on unto the consideration of such Arguments, which are brought by our Adversaries, to prove. That the good works of men Regenerate, are truly and perfectly good, without all faultiness in them. They prove it then. 1 From the examples of job and David. 〈…〉 4. c. 13. 17. Of job is said. job 1. 22. In all this job sinned not; nor charged God foolishly, Be 〈◊〉. 2. tract. 2. cap 2. 〈◊〉 4 & cap 4. quest. 1. and chap. 2. verse 10. In all this did not job sin with his lips. Again for David: he is conscious to himself, of his own innocency, and that no fault can be found in his doings, wherefore he prays, Psal 7. 8. judge me, O Lord according to my righteousness, 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 upright before him, and I kept myself from mine iniquity. Therefore hath the Lord recompensed me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands in his sight. And Psal. 17. verse 3. He declares how GOD had throughly tried him: and yet found him faultless. Thou hast proved mine heart, thou hast visited me in the night, thou hast tried me, and yet shalt find nothing: I am purposed my mouth shall not transgress. How then can any man say that job and David sinned mortally in their sayings and doings: when God himself witnesseth for them that they d●e not sin? Hereto we answer. That we do not lay sin unto the charge of those holy men: nor do we say they did ill▪ where the Scriptures witness they did well. job in that first Act of his trial quitted himself well, and overcame 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 job sinned not. But whether jobs patience were in this first conflict every way so unreprovable, that not the least fault could be spied in it, in God's severe judgement, is more than we dare affirm, or our Adversaries will ever be able to prove. For David; his innocent demeanour of himself, in the time of Saul's reign was such: that no Imputation of unfaithfulness or ambition could justly be laid to his charge. Wherefore when Saul's followers accuse him of treason against their Master: David appeals unto God desiring him to deal with him according to his Innocency in that behalf. His own conscience, and God with his conscience, after trial made, acquit him from plotting and practising against Saul, as his Adversaries said he did. Thence it follows that David did not offend in that kind whereof his Adversaries accused him. His heart was upright; his life was innocent; neither his Aduersares could make proof, neither did his conscience accuse him, or God condemn him of these faults, that he was charged withal. Thus far David durst stand to God's judgement; that he was innocent in those particular evils, whereof man had accused him: but it follows not therefore he durst enter into judgement with God; and plead, that God himself could find no fault at all with him. He might have many secret faults and imperfections even in this most innocent passage of his life; which neither himself knew, nor his enemies could come to the knowledge of: and therefore though he dare plead his righteousness before God, so far as man can accuse him of unrighteousness, yet he dare not go further to clear himself against all that God may object against him. Hear what himself saith in this case, Psal. 139. 23. 24. Search me, O God and know my heart, try me and know my thoughts. Speaks the Prophet this out of confidence, that God upon search and trial, shall find no evil in his heart and thoughts? No, but out of holy desire, that whatsoever evil is found in him may be amended. He knows well that many things may be found faulty in him: and therefore he stands not to justify himself: but only sues for grace to redress them; adding in the next words. And see if there be any wicked way in me; and lead me in the way everlasting. 2 They prove that the works of Men regenerate are not Sinful by the Scriptures which call them good works and say that they are pleasing unto God. 1. That they are good. [Let your light so shine before Men that they may see your good work:] Matth: 5. 16. (Charge the rich that they do good and be rich in good works.) 1 Tim. 6. 18. [we are his workmanship created in Christ unto good works] Eph. 2. 10. [why trouble ye the woman; for she hath wrought a good work upon me.] Mat▪ 26. 10. 2. That they are also pleasing unto God is apparent by these places. Ye are made (an holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by jesus Christ) 1 Peter 2. 5. In the Epistle to the Philippians, the Apostle calleth their alms seat unto him (An odor of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable well pleasing unto God) Philip 4. 18. Again. (To do good and to communicate forget not, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased) Heb. 13. 16. Hence th●y argue. If the works of Men regenerate be good and acceptable unto God: then certainly the Protestants err in their Doctrine, teaching that the best works of Men are sinful, for as much as Sin is neither good in itself nor any way pleasing unto God. Who is infinitely, offended at all iniquity. Hereunto we answer. That this Argument is nothing, but a forward and wilful mistake of our doctrine. We teach, that the best works of the best men are in part sinful. They thereupon cry out that we take away all goodness from the works of the godly, and that we account them to be [in se. a 〈…〉 3. c. 14. §. ●. i. e. Ex natura sua] damnable and mortal sins. This is a foolish calumny of Men that cannot distinguish, between the disease and the diseased Body: but straightway conclude that the whole body itself is nothing else, but a mere rotten ulcer, because it hath swellings and sores in some parts of it. Wherefore to unfold their eyes in his point, they are to understand that we make a necessary & true distinction between That which is sin and that which is sinful: teaching that the good works of the Regenerate be not sins, though they be sinful. We explain it thus. That is to be called Sin in its own Nature, which is the transgression of the Law in doing any act forbidden; or in leaving undone any act commanded by the Law. The omitting, or committing of any such act is properly [ b Bell lib. 4. c. 77. errs in saying. [Opera b●na●x gen●●e ●ue ex obiecto, sed 〈◊〉 circumstance 〈…〉 And it is false which he adds that God doth simply condemn (facto) almsdeeds, &c done with a●●d intention for vain glory, etc. God doth not simply condemn the the wo●●● b●● them for their ill doing of it. in se & ex Naturâ suâ] a sin. 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 sins in their very proper Natures: because both are forbidden by the moral law. That we call sinful, which is for the main substance of the work conformable to the Law; but it fails 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 every point as the Law commands it: such a work, we say, is not a sin, though it be sinful; there is sin in it, but it is not all sin. This distinction our Adversaries cannot but admit of, as in the works of the Heathen and Christians unregerate: so in the good works of the Regenerate themselves. We and they confess that the moral Virtues of the Heathen were good and commendable in the substance thereof: nor do we think there is any men so devoid of reason, as to affirm that the justice, Temperance, Chastity, Liberality of a Heathen, are mere vices & sins. We all grant, they were virtues: but yet our Adversaries themselves cannot affirm, that they were every way virtuous, free from all spots and stains of b Su●t Vitata 〈…〉. Vice; seeing they had neither faith & sanctity from whence they sprung; nor the glory of God, at which they aimed. Now as the virtues of the natural man, are in part vicious: so the good works of the Regenerate are in part sinful. To fast, to pray, to give alms, with the like works of Piety or Mercy, we affirm and teach that they are good works, good in their nature and use: being such actions as the Law commands. We know none of our side so far gone with passion, as to maintain that a godly man sins, because he fasts, prays, and gives alms; as if those very acts were nothing but damnable sin. We detest such frantic opinions; and if any of our Writers have let slip such words, as may give occasion to our Adversaries, so to think of us: we do not, nor are we bound to justify every hot and choleric speech, breathed out in eagerness of disputation. Good works they be, truly and verily good: but they are not perfectly good. When a godly man prays he doth well: but he never doth so well; but he may do better. Nor dare any man in the world avouch, that either the root whence good actions come, is purged by perfect Holiness: or the manner of doing them, is so exactly kept in a precise observation of every circumstance, or the end in doing them Gods glory, and Man's good, so sincerely and truly aimed at: that the severity of God's justice, cannot find any the least failing in any of those things. This is all we teach touching the sinfulness of good works, and thus we stand too: as a most certain truth. And we say. That this sinfulness accompanying our good works, is sufficient to bar us from justification by them. For we deserve not reward for what is well done, except all were well done. But nevertheless it shall not hinder Gods gracious acceptation of our good works, who is well pleased with the obedience of his children so far as it is good and holy: and when it fails, for Christ's 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 means of well-doing: there a good work may be done without all fault.— But in a man Regenerate, there are causes and means sufficient for well-doing— Ergo, He may do well, and not offend. They prove the Minor thus. To the performance of any good work, 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 understanding is enlightened, so that he can easily know what is good to be done. Secondly, his will and affections are sanctified and aided by grace, to desire and endeavour the performance of it. And thirdly, and lastly, he hath power to put in practice what he knows and desires, there being no impediment inward, or outward that should hinder him— Ergo, he may do well and sin not. Here we desire them to show us. How a man Regenerate is enduded with such perfect abilities, as may help 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, given unto a Regenerate man, whereby he is freed from all contagion of sin: and such encumbrances, as hinder him in well-doing. For by this grace given to him, he is made a good tree: now [A good tree cannot bring forth ●ad fruit, Matth 7. 18.— And ergo, a good man cannot do bad works. 〈…〉 made a fruitful Branch of Christ the true Vine, as it is john 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 only which is good. Which Similitude of a Branch much illustrates the matter (in their Imagination.) For as in a Vine-Branch. If first it have sufficient moisture from the Body of the Vine. Secondly, if it have sufficient heat of the Sun to digest that moisture. And thirdly, if it be not hurt nor hindered by Frosts, Wet, Winds, Worms, or other such discommodities of the Air and Soil; then certainly it will be are very much, and very good fruit: so is it in a man regenerate. From Christ he receives sufficient moisture of Divine Grace, which is in him, [as a well of water springing up unto everlasting life. john 4. 14.] He hath heat sufficient of spiritual affection, to cause him to bud forth into good works. 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 burn within us] said the two Disciples that went to Emaus, Luk. 24. 32. Ergo, they have heat enough. Finally, they have no impediment. Neither inward. For why? It is written, Rom. 8. 1. There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ jesus. Ergo, no inward impediment to well-doing. Nor outward. For it written, [nothing shall separate us from the Love of God, that is in Christ jesus our Lord, Rom. 8. 38. Ergo, no outward impediment of good works. Hereunto we make answer. That this Argument is a sophistical cavillation; which proves that which we do not deny. They say that a Man Regenerate, hath sufficientia principia rectae & honestae operationis. We say so too; confessing that he is made a good tree, a fruitful Branch; that he is enlightened; sanctified, and strengthened by the spirit of God unto the performance of good works. We grant that now he is enabled to do well, who before his Regeneration could do nothing saue●ll: but the question still remains, whether now he do so well, as that he doth nothing ill when he doth best. We grant that the Vine, which in former time yielded nothing, but wild grapes, now being transplanted and grafted into the best Vine, bears good grapes: but we deny that they are so weet and kindly in eu●● respect, as not to have a little relish still of their former wildness and sourness. Wherefore our Adversaries do but trifle with us to tell us that Men Regenerate have means sufficient to do those works that be good: this we deny not; but we question whether they have help sufficient to perform any work so absolutely and perfectly good; that God himself cannot charge it with any Sin at all. This we constantly deny. And to their discourse, (That a regenerate Man hath sufficient Knowledge, Power and will to do good perfectly) in this they affirm more than will ever be proved. Our imperfections in every one of these three particulars witnessed to our Conscience by Scripture and experience doth disable us ever from doing any work entirely and totally good. Knowledge we have: but much darkened by ignorance. We have a will to do good: but that also corrupted with much forward Rebellion. A power we have to do good: but always crossed and much restrained by manifold Lusts within, and Temptations without us. How is it possible for us, being compassed about with so many infirmities: but we should offend in one thing or other; Becanus here brings us an instant of a good work: and bids us show what sin there is in it. If (saith he) A Man regenerate read or hear those words of Christ. Mat: 6. [give alms] he being enlightened knows that this is a worthy and honest work. Whereupon he is touched in heart and stirred up to do it. He consents to this motion, and resols upon the execution, which (supposing that he be rich) nothing now can hinder because he is both able and willing to give. Now than this alms being thus given out of knowledge, and a pious motion of the Heart tending to God's honour and our Neighbours good, the jesuit desires to knew of us, where their is any Sin in it. We say there is some evil in every good work and therefore he would have us tell him what evil there is in this Almesdeed. Unto this we say, that this enquiry of the jesuit is the most ridiculous and absurd thing, that can be. He asketh us where is the Sin? what if we answer him we do not know; Is he now ever the wiser? what hath he gained hereby? Are other men's work without all faults because we know not what they be? Nay, are they without fault, because themselves know not whether there be any in them: or no? what silinesse were it to argue in this sort? Therefore when we come to this point strictly to examine the works of Men. First we tell the jesuit that he must not put Cases touching generalities [suppose that such a good work be done so and so what then] we dispute now touching particulars in every Man's real practice. The enquiry is not for the general. (What evil is there in such and such a good work) done thus and thus, according as the Circumstances are framed in an Imagined Case. As to ask what Sin is their in an Almes-deede done out of Faith and Charity to God's glory. This is a fond question thus framed upon general terms we say their is no Sin in it. But the enquiry is in particular, what Evil their is in such a work done by this or that, Man, according to all Circumstances, that were at that time incident to the work, as. What sin was there in Zacheus or Cornelius almsdeeds? This question we admit, and answer to it, That some Sin there was for which those holy Men, as well as others, would not have been willing that God should enter into judgement with them, strictly to judge them. Yea, but will the jesuits reply, name what Sin this was; or else you wrong them. Now this is mere impudence. For who is judge of their actions? Are we? or is it God and their own Consciences? we can be no judges, who at furthest can judge but accordrng to outward appearance. We know not their Hearts: nor are we privy unto every particular Circumstance, that did accompany those actions of theirs Circumstances in every particular action differ infinitely, one Man may offend in this point, another in that: nor have we a general Rule whereby to judge alike of all. And therefore it is a childish quaere to ask on Man whether another Man offends, who may do evil a 1000 times, not only secret from others, but unwitting to himself. If then the jesuit will have an answer to his question, he must resort to particular men's Consciences, and to God: for only the spirit of Man, and the spirit of God know the things of Man. Let him ask a Cornelius when he gives alms, whether he do think this work so well done, that no fault can be found with it. Doubtless he will answer, that he cannot excuse himself from all faultiness: though he knew nothing by himself, yet he dares not stand to God's judgement. 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 me according to the greatness of thy mercy.] at once begging favourable acceptance of his obedience, and gracious pardon of his infirmities. If this suffice not in the next place, the jesuit is to repair to God almighty and question him, where the Sins in such and such a good works, who no doubt can shape him an answer that will sore confound his pride and folly, and make it quickly appear unto him, that sinful Man, when he pleads with God, is not able to answer him one objection of a 100, that God shall make against him. This of the third Argument. That Man hath sufficient means to do well and not Sinne. The last follows, drawn from such absurdities, as they say do follow upon our Doctrine. Thus. 4 If (say they) our Doctrine be true that the best works of Men be Sinful: then these absurdities be likewise true doctrine. That to be justified by faith is to be justified by Sin. That no man ought to believe, because the work [Believing] is Sinne. That all good works are forbidden, because all Sin is forbidden. That God should command us to commit Sin: because he commands us to do good works. That God bidding us be zealous of go●d works, should in effect bid us be zealous of mortal Sinne. That to pray for the pardon of Sin were a damnable Sinne. These and such other absurd Positions would be true: if the protestants doctrine concerning the sinfulness of good works may stand for good. Hereunto we answer. That these absurdities issue not out of our Doctrine, but out of our Adversary's malicious Imaginations. Who like the ragine Sea casting up mire and Dirt from its own Bottom would fain throw all this filth in the face of the Reformed Churches, to make them odious and hateful to the world. The best is. Truth cannot be disgraced though it may be belied. These foul Absurdities; touch us not: but follow upon 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 yield such an absurd consequence. But we defended it not: & they abuse us grossly, when in their writings they report of us the contrary that we do maintain. This only we teach. That men's good works are in part sinful. Much good they have in them: but with all some evil mingled therewith. Amongst the gold, some dross also will be sound, that will not be able to abide the fire of God's severe Trial. Imperfections will appear in our best works, so long as humane infirmity and mortality hangs upon us. This we teach, and from this Doctrine all that have reason, may see that no such unreasonable conclusions can be collected. And let thus much suffice for the clearing of this third Proposition, touching the imperfection of our obedience to the Moral Law of God, even in the good works which we perform. From whence every godly heart should le●rne both Christian Humility and also Industry. First, Humility not to boast in the flesh and glory in its own Righteousness, thinking that God must highly account off, and reward largely, that which is very little worth. Secondly, Industry in a faithful endeavour after perfection. That what cannot be done well as it ought: we may yet every day be done better then before it was. CHAP. FOUR Three general exceptions against the truths delivered in this third Section▪ THus we have stood long in the confirmation of our second Argument, touching the impossibility of Man's fulfilling of the Law in this Life, and so consequently of justification by the Law. Against all that have been said for the profit of this point; our Adversaries have three Common and general Exceptions. Which are these. 1 That Concupiscence or Natural Corruption in the first and second act of it, Bell. lib. 4. cap. 1●. & passim aubi. is no sin. 2 That imperfection in our Charity and Obedience is no sin. 3 That smaller faults, or (as they tell them) Venial sins, do not hinder the justice and goodness of any good work. To these three Positions they have continually recourse. ● Exceptio●●. For whereas they cannot deny; but that their is in the Regenerate; both a proneness of Nature unto Evil, and also many inordinate Sinful motions arising thence: they first deny, that, either these Natural Corruptions, or disordered Motions of the Heart be any sins. Again, they confess that no man hath such perfect love of God and Man; but that he may increase in charity: nor be his good works so perfectly good; but that they ought still to strive to do them better: but then here also they deny, that this imperfection of our charity and good works, is any sin. Lastly, they grant that no man can avoid venial sins, scarce in the best works he doth: but then they deny that venial sins be contrary to the Law, so that albeit a man commit them, yet he may perfectly fulfil the Law of God. I cannot stand largely in the refutation of these foul errors. The confutation whereof belongs properly to the Article of remission of sins; where the nature and kinds of sins 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 vicious inclination and proneness of Nature unto evil, Conclusion. as also the inordinate moti●ns of concupiscence, which go before consent, they are sins even in a man regenerate. That the inclination and proneness of Nature to sin is a sin, we prove thus. It is expressly so called by the Apostle, Rom. 7. not once nor twice: but almost in every verse of the Chapter. I am carnal sold under sin. The sin that dwelleth in me. ver. 17. 20. The Law of sin. verse 23. 25. In itself it is sin, and deserves the wages of sin, eternal death. For which cause the Apostle there calls it. The body of this death. verse 24. Because this inward Corruption (which is like a Body that hath many members consisting of divers evil affections spreading themselves throughout his whole Nature) made him liable to eternal death, from which only God's mercy in Christ could deliver him. 2 To rebel against the Law is Sinne. Ergo, To have a rebellious inclination is sin likewise. 〈…〉. 3. 12. 13. For if the act be evil, the habit must needs be naught: if the Law forbid one; it must needs forbid the other. If it be evil to break any Commandment in act: is it not evil to have, a proneness and readiness of mind to break it? 〈◊〉. 4. 8. ●ense your ●nds: purge ●ur hearts. The habit denominated a man sinful and not the act. Nor doth God less abhor the proneness of man to offend him: then we do abhor the ravenous disposition of a Wolf, though it be a Cubb, not yet used to the prey; or one tied up in a chain, and kept from ravening. That the evil motions of the heart without consent be sins. 1 They are forbidden in the Moral Law. In the tenth Commandment. Thou shalt not covet. For motions with consent are forbidden in the other Commandments. As appears manifestly in Christ's exposition of the Commandments. Mat. 5. 22. were not only the outward act of Adultery: but the inward desire is also forbidden; if we believe Christ the best interpreter of the Law: When Ergo the tenth Commandment forbids coveting [of our Neighbour's Wife, it either means the same kind of lusting, with a needless Tautology: or a different. viz. that which is not consented unto. Nor can our Adversary's shift this off: though Becanus most impudently denies it, Tom. 2. pag. 885. with out any reason of his so doing. 2 We prove it thus. Whatsoever is inordinate and repugnant to right Reason: that is Sinne. But these Motions without confent be inordinate.— Ergo They be Sin, The Minor is confessed. That these Motions be inordinati & recta Rationi repugnantes. The Mayor is apparent. For what is Ordo & recta Ratio in Moralibus: but that course of doing any thing, which is conformable to God's Law and his will. God is the God of order. Mark them that walk disorderly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i e. sinful, otherwise according to the Law. His Law is the rule of order in all humane actions. Recta Ratio what is it; but the conformity of man's understanding and will unto God's will, which only is the rule of righteousness; We never purpose and will matters aright: but when we will them agreeably to Gods will. Wherefore it is a gross absurdity to deny the sinfulness of these disorderly motions: seeing no man can break those orders which God hath made, and yet be faultless. Nor is it possible a Man should do that which is contrary to Gods will: And yet be without Sin in doing of it. These motions then without consent be confusions in Nature opposites to the righteousness of the will of God; and unto that even and straight order expressed in his Law. We conclude then that Concupiscence and inordinate motions of the Soul not consented unto, are Sins contrary to our Adversary's assertion. They bring some Reasons to prove they are not. 1 Original sin is taken away in Baptism. 1 Arg. Adu. But concupiscence is not taken away in Baptism; as appears by experience in the regenerate in whom it remains.— Ergo, concupiscence and proneness to Sin, is no sin. This Argument is frivolous. In Original sin, there are two things, First, the guilt. Secondly, the inherent corruptions. We say in Baptism the guilt is altogether washed away from the Baptised Elect, by the blood of Christ. And for the corruption thereof, it is part done away by the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, poured out upon the Regenerate, which by degrees purgeth out the inherent sinfulness of Nature, by replanting the graces of Sanctification in all parts. Concupiscence then, notwithstanding Baptism remains in the Regenerate, and is a sin in them, the guiltiness whereof God mercifully pardons in Christ. 2 What is not in our power to avoid: 2 Arg. Adu. that God doth not forbid us by his Law. But 'tis not in our power to avoid the Motions of the heart that prevent Reason and consent. Ergo, they be no sins forbidden us. To this we answer. The Mayor is true in things merely Natural, that fall out by the Necessity of Nature well disposed. So we say, God's Law were uncouth, should he command a man never to be an hungry or thirst, which things he cannot avoid, but they come upon him, will he, nill he; by the mere necessity of Nature. But concerning inordinate motions, there's no such matter. God hath laid no such necessity on Nature in her creation: but we by our sin have brought it upon ourselves. Now such a necessity excuses us not. In this case it helps a man no more to say. [I cannot avoid evil thoughts and desires:] then it doth a desperate sinner, that by countenance hath hardened himself in evil courses; or than it helps the Devils and the damned, if they should say; We cannot choose but do evil. 3 They argue thus. That which would have been natural and without fault in man, 3 Arg. Adu▪ if he had been created, in puris Naturalibus; that is, no sin nor fault in us. But motions preventing consent, would be natural, and without fault in men so made.— Ergo, In us they be no faults of themselves. here our Adversaries have 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, righteousness, and holiness, engraven on his understanding, will, affections, and whole person; nor yet, though it have it not, hath in him any contrary evil quality, that comes upon 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 Heaven's fall, we shall have Larks good cheap. Suppositions framed by our Imaginations touching what might be done, are vain and needless when we see what is done. This we see that Man was created in God's Image invested with all real Qualities of Righteousness and Holiness. This we see also, that Man being fall'n is borne in Original corruption, deprived of God's Image, & thereupon depraved in his whole Nature by sinful infirmity. Wherefore a man in his pure Naturals, one that hath neither Grace, nor Corruption, was never found in this world: yea, 'tis a contradiction to imagine a man thus naked without his Qualities; that he hath Reason, but neither enlightened, nor darkened, a will but merely indifferent, neither inclined to good, or evil; affections, but neither virtuously, nor viciously disposed. In a word, that he is a Man capable of Virtue, or Vice; Holiness, or Sinfulness, and yet hath neither. That were to make a Man little better than an unreasonable 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 jesuit is deceived in this his Imagination, and his Argument is not worth a Button. A Man in his pure Naturals should have two parts, a Soul and a Body, Spirit and Flesh; he should have two appetites, Reasonable and Sensual, ergo, these parts in their motions and desires would be contrary one to the other. This consequent is false. They would be divers, not opposite and repugnant. The Body and the Sensitives would lead a Man to those things that are agreeable to the Body. The Soul and reasonable appetite, or will would incline him to those higher and more noble objects agreeable to the Soul. But neither of these inclinations would cross and trouble one another, the inferior faculties, like the lower Spheres would move differently from the superior: but yet most orderly according to their own nature, without impeaching the Motions of the other. Each faculty in its place would work orderly in sweet harmony and agreement each with other, had not Sin brought in confusion and discord into the world, as between God and Man: so between Man and himself. This we further make good by this argument. Whatsoever is natural, and so without blame in Man: that Christ took one him— But these inordinate Motions of the sensitive appetite, repugnant unto Will and Reason; Christ took not on him— Ergo they are not natural, and without blame. The Mayor we prove by that, Phil. 3. 7. He was made like unto Man: and Heb. 2. 17. In all things it behoved him to be made like unto his Brethren. And again, Chap. 4. 15. We have 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 'tis manifest that Christ taking on him our Nature, took on him all the properties of our Nature, and with all such infirmities of our Nature as not sinful in themselves, or the effects or punishments of Sin in us. If therefore it be natural unto Man, that the Motions of the sensitive appetite should prevent and be repugnant unto Reason, and that this is no Sin except consent make it so: then certainly Christ had in him such motions and inordinate desires. But to affirm that, there were in Christ such disorderly Motions of his inferior Faculties, repugnant unto his Reason and Will, is a blasphemy against the immaculate Lamb of God, Christ was indeed tempted (as the text saith) and in like sort as we are: but will any Man here understand this of inward Temptations arirising from any thing within Christ, as if he were like unto us drawn aside with b jam. 1. 〈◊〉 Concupiscence and enticed, the motions of his sensitive faculties, inclining him to that which was contrary to his understanding and will? We confess that he was fiercely tempted by Satan and wicked Men from without: but that he was tempted by any thing in himself, by disorderly Motions of his heart tending unto evil, and ergo checked by his will and Reason, this we account an abominable Error touching the spotless humanity of our Saviour. Wherein we deny, that there ever was any the least disorderly desire, thought, word, or work whatsoever. And therefore we conclude, that such motions are not natural unto Men, becoming sinful only by accident, because they are consented unto: but they are accidental unto him, being the fruit of original Corruption, and are in themselves verily and properly Sins. For Conclusion of this point, let us hear that Argument which Bell. makes. 4 Arg. Bell. 4. Where there is no Law, c Lib. 4. cap. 1●. there is no sin. Rom. 4. 10. But there is no Law prescribed unto sense and sensual appetites. Ergo The Motions thereof are not sinful. The Mayor we grant. The Minor he proves▪ Because the Law praesupposeth Reason in all that whereto it is given. But the sensitive part of Man is without Reason, and ergo not capable of a Law, according as it is in bruit beasts, to whom ergo no Law is given. This he further proves by that place, Rom. 7. 20. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but Sin that dwelleth in me. Where 'tis plain (saith Bell.) that the Apostle did not sin, because he lusted against his will. 'Twas not he did the work: but 'twas the Sin in him. Wherefore he saith afterward. That in his mind, i. e. in his superior faculties he served the Law of God: and kept it: although in his flesh, i. e. sensitive appetite and inferior faculties he served the Law of sin: yet, for all that he sinned not in so doing, because sin cannot be but in the mind, and the Law is not given to those faculties that be unreasonable. To this we answer. That God gives no Law to unreasonable Creatures, but such as have Reason. The sensitive faculties of bruit-beasts have no other Rule than Nature's instinct, which guides and moderates their several motions in due order and measure. But in man those inferior faculties how ever unreasonable, are yet capable of Reason's Government, which according to God's Law prescribes unto the motions of the sensitive appetite their measure and bounds, beyond which they may not pass. If a man were uncorrupt, the appetite would obey this rule of Reason and keep itself within those prescribed Bounds. But being now corrupt by Sin, it breaks out beyond this compass and ouerbeares Reason and will, which in their sinful weakness are not able to bridle these unruly motions. wherefore when Bell. sayeth. That the Law is given to the reasonable will, not to the sensive appetite; it is utterly false: Because in Man it is probable of government, and so subject to the Law. Our Reason hath even in this our corrupted estate a civil command over our appetite and affections; so that it can moderate them by fair persuasions now and then. That which it can do sometimes, it ought to do always, and if any affections can obey Reason at sometimes, were they not infected with Sin, they would do it at all times. And if they do well when they obey, certainly they do evil 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 answer. That that Interpretation of it which Bell. brings is most perverse and against all Sense. The Apostle complains that he did the Evil, which he would not; no doubt in so doing he did sin. But what is it now which committed this guilt or sin? It is not I that do it sayeth the Apostle: but that sin 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 do this evil against my consent. So the meaning shallbe Concupiscence in that duel in the Apostle committed Sin: but the Apostle himself committed it not. Which is very absurd. As if a cholericke-Man having done a mischief in his anger should sa●e, It were not he did it; but his raging passion: or an adulterer, that 'twas not he committed the Sin; but his sinful Affection that carried him further than reason would. So that if God will punish such a sin; he must not punish him: but only his sensitive 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 sensitive appetite be no sins, which here the Apostle contradicts, saying plainly (that the Sin which dwelled in him did do the evil he would not. (viz, Sin:) it draweth after it this gross Error. That some faecultie in man may sin, and yet the man not sin himself. Wherefore the Apostle in that speech, 'Tis not I do it: but sin in me. doth not oppose one faculty against the other, the reasonable will, against the sensitive appetite, seeking for a shift to excuse his sin, by putting it off from himself, to that which was not capable of Sin: but he opposeth grace in every faculty to Corruption in the same faculty; as two contrary Principles and causes of his actions, one moving to good; the other inclining to bad. Thence the Apostle sayeth, that (when he doth evil) 'tis not I that do it. i. e, I regenerate according to the Grace, that dwelleth in me, for that inclines me to do good: but 'tis the Sin dwelling in me which (when I would do well) inclines me to do evil. He here shows the Root, whence this Evil comes: but yet he doth not put off the fault from himself. As 'tis himself doth well: so 'tis himself doth ill too, according as he concludes. verse 25. Then I myself. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do both well and ill; well, according to Grace, in my mind that is regenerate, part both of inferior and superior faculty. I serve the Law of God; but ill according to corruption remaining in me: but in my flesh, unregenerate part the Law of Sinne. Much more might be added: but 'tis not my purpose, here to enter upon the common place at large, I proceed to the second quaestion of our Adversaries, who teach that albeit our Love of God be imperfect: yet this imperfection is not sin in us. They grant. That no man hath any grace of the spirit: but he may increase in it daily. that the Love of God and our Neighbours may still grow on to farther degrees of affection; That no grace, nor good work hath that full perfection, which it might have in this Life, or which we shall attain unto in Heaven. But they deny this defect to be any fault or sin. 2. Defectus Charitatis quod (viz) non faciamus opera nostra tanto feruore dilectionis, Exception. quanto faciemus in patriâ, Be● lib. 4 c. 10. ● 17. ● cap. 〈◊〉. defectus quidemest: sed culpa & peccatum non est. sayeth Bell. and again 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 general, touching both Charity and all man Righteousness. The defects or want of Perfection in Man's Righteousness is Sinne. Conclusion. contr. For the proof of this point we are to observe, that the Imperfection, or Perfection of any thing is to be considered of two ways. 1 Comparatively. When any thing set by another is more or less perfect, than that other. 2 Absolutely. When considered in itself, it hath or wants that Perfection which it should have by its proper Nature. Between these there is great difference. For Comparative imperfection is not evil: absolute imperfection is Evil. We may see it in an example, The Senses that are in Man being compared with their like in other creatures, 'tis manifest they are much excelled by them, as by an Eagle for sight, a spider for touch. etc. here we say that the eye of a man is not perfect as the eye of an Eagle: but yet we do not account this imperfection any Natural evil of the eye of a man. God might have given a stronger and a clearer sight to men: but we, blame not his works; 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 Evil in Nature, when something is wanting to the perfection of any part, which by the Course of nature should be there. Thus 'tis also in Grace. Compare we the Righteousness of man, or Angels, with the Righteousness of God; we say that God's is infinitely more perfect than the Creatures. But now is this imperfection in Humane or Angelical righteousness any Evil and Sin in them? We say No. Neither are the Angels sinful because less righteous than God: nor Adam sinful because less righteous then either. God made them both less good than himself: yet very good and without all Sinne. There be degrees of Righteousness, and though the Creature be infinitely below the highest pitch of goodness (which is God:) yet he may be still above that lowest descent unto Sin and unrighteousness. In Philosophy 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 unto seven, whether there is any degree of cold mingled with it. 'Tis heard to say that there is. But concerning Grace and Righteousness 'tis certain, there is that remissio graduum without any admixtion of Sin and iniquity. As the Holiness of Saints is less than that of Angels; that of Angels less than the Holiness of Christ's glorified Humanity, this less than his Deity. And yet in the least of these Righteousnesses there is no Unrighteousness at all to be found, no not in the severe judgement of God. Except we say there is unrighteousness in Heaven where no unclean thing can enter. Well then. What Imperpection of man's Righteousness is it, which is Sin? We say. That Imperfection, when man in any Grace or good Work wants that degree of goodness, which he ought to have. As in nature. If the Eye want that cleernes of sight which should be in it: 'tis a natural Evil. In Morality if a man want that Temperance or degree of Temperance he ought to have, it's a vicious and moral evil: so in Grace the want of that righteousness or degree of righteousness which God requires to be in man, is a Sin and spiritual Evil. All such privations of what should be present are Evil in what kind soever. If they be in nature they be malamiseranda, deserve pity and cure: if in Virtue and Grace; they be mala culpanda worth of blame and punishment. Such defects as these in Grace, when man falls short, not only of that which is in others; but that which should be in himself, do always arise from the mixture of Corruption and Sinne. He that loves n●t God or his neighbour so much as he ought to do: 'tis because his heart be wicked, at the least in part; and that he loves others things more than he should do. These things are certain and undeniable according to those words of St. Augustin that are authentical. a 〈…〉 Profecto illud quod minus est quam debet, ex vitio est. And again. b Lib. de perfect. 〈…〉. 15 Pec●atum est, vel cum non est charitas, quae esse debet: vel minor est quam debet. 'Tis a Sin, not to love. God at all: or to love him less than we should. Wherefore here we ask the jesuit 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 affirm that this defect is no fault nor Sin: Can a man possibly do worse, or be worse than he should; and yet be i● no fault therefore? If he say they be as perfect as they should be, his own Conscience and the Conscience of all the men in the World will gainsay him for a liar. No man can say, that he loves God and his Neighbour as much as he ought to do: and that he is not bound in every grace and good work to arrive at greater perfection, than he hath for the present. He that thinks himself come nearest unto the mark, will yet be driven to confess, that he falls many bows short of those patterns which we ought to imitate, Adam in his Innocency; Christ's Humanity, and the Saints in Heaven. We here bid them (Depinge ubi sistam) make a point where we shall stop: that when we are come so far, we need seek no further perfection. If they cannot do this, than they must confess, as the truth is, that every man is bound by God's command to be more holy, to be more perfect in all Graeces and good works; and so far as he wants any degree or dram of goodness, that should be in him and his works, so far he is sinful and guilty of a fault. 3 I go on to the last Assertion of our Adversaries, 3 Exception. Bell. lib. 4 c. 17. which is touching venial sins, (viz.) That these do not hinder the righteousness of men's good works. A man may be a perfect just man, though he commit many venial sins. The reason whereof they make to be [because venial sins are not contrary to charity, the love of God and our neighbour, and so may stand well enough with the fulfilling of the Law. Against this error, tending to the obduration of man's hart in impenitency & love of sin: we maintain this conclusion. Those sins which the Church of Rome calls venial, Conclusion contr. do truly make a man regenerate, and his works unrighteousness in the sight of God. This we prove by this one Argument. Whosoever transgresseth the Law, he is unrighteous in so doing. But he that commits venial sins, transgresseth the Law. Ergo, He that commits venial sins is an unrighteous man. The Mayor is undeniable. For the Minor our Adversary 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 distinctions of simpliciter, 〈◊〉. 4. cap. 14. & secundum quid; perfectè and imperfectè, at last plainly denies that venial sins be contrary to the Law. For answering unto those places in james. [In many things we offend all,] and that in john. [If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves.] He saith they cannot handsomely shift themselves of those places, who hold that venial sins be [propriè contra Legem.] Such as be of that opinion [Let them look to it (saith he) what they will answer to that of Saint james.] He that keeps the Law in one point, etc.] He therefore will be more wise and wary. [Sol●da igitur respensio est (saith he) Peccata venialia, sine quibus non vivitur, non esse peccata simpliciter, sed imperfectè & secundum quid: neque esse contra Legem, sed praerer Legem.] And thus saith he, Omnia coherent (like a Pibble in a With) [Nam qui ostendit in uno praeuaricans scilicet unum 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 unbound Bosom, as will appear by undoing that distinction which seems to hold it together. Venial sins are not against the Law: but besides the Law. Well, we must now know what is against the Law, & what besides. ●●t●er meaning of these words [against] ●nd [Besides] there can be 〈…〉 That is against the Law, when any thing is done which the Law forbids; or left undone which it commands. That is beside the Law, when the thing done is neither commanded, nor forbidden in the Law. He than that commits a venial sin, doth some such act as the Law neither forbids nor commands. Here than we ask. Be venial sins, sins? Yea, they be. Is God offended with them? Yea, and he may justly punish them, on us with the loss of Heaven. For so Bellarmine himself confesseth. Lib. 4. cap. use. [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, deserve hell, offend God, in a word be sins, and yet for all this neither commanded nor forbidden in any Law of God. Was there ever such a toy heard of as this? as Sins beside the Law. 'tis 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, 'tis most apparent he sins not, nor offends not at all. For whom doth he offend, or who can challenge him of Sin? Doth God the Lawgiver? No, for 'twas 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 find fault or be displeased at it. Satan or Man cannot accuse him. For let them then show the Law that proves him an offender. If they cannot allege a Law against which he hath transgressed: they wrongfully accuse him of a fault. Were it not absurd accusation against a prisoner at the Bar; to say that he hath indeed done nothing against the Laws of the Land: but many things besides the Law not forbidden nor commanded in the Law, those he hath done and deserves to be punished for it as an offender? But now if those venial sins be mentioned in God's Law: then are such actions either commanded or forbidden. If commanded, than the not doing of such a thing, is plainly contrary to the Law. As for example. c 〈…〉 To steal a penny, or some other small matter, to please an idle word, to tell an officious lie; these be venial sins say our Adversaries. But how hnow they, they be sins? who told them so? The Scriptures they will say. Where? In the 8 and 9 Commandment. Ask them now. Did God intend in those Commandments to forbid those actions of stealing and lying? Yea, or No? If he intended it not; then 'tis no sin at all to do them, seeing it cro●seth not God's will, nor offends him. If he did intend to forbid us those things: then to do them is a sin, manifestly contrary to the holy will of God, the Lawgiver. Wherefore let us here remember that excellent rule of Bernard. Bernard de Praecept●● Dispen. [Non iussa quïdem licitè utrumlibet, vel admittuntur vel omittuntur: iussa vero sine culpa non negleguntur, sine crimine non ●ontemnuntur. For things not commanded: we may either lawfully do them or leave them: but for things commanded, to neglect them is a sin, to contemn them is a heinous crime. Wherefore this distinction of sins against, and sins beside the Law falleth to dust: and our Minor Proposition stands firm: That he who committeth venial Sin, transgresseth the Law of God, and therefore is unrighteous for his so doing. a Tom. 2. tract. 2 cap 2 q. 2. Becanus here forsakes the Cardinal in this distinction: and helps him by an other device. He grants that Venial Sins be against the Law, and proves it, [because every Venial Sin 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 Venial sins be against the Law: but no venial sin is properly against the end of the Law. that is, against Charity the Love of God or our Neighbour. Is not this a superfine Invention? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Man. confess praelud. ●. Num. 16. As if a Subject 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 Laws. viz. obedience to my Prince, and Love to the good of him and my Country. Though I break the Laws: yet I would not have you think; but I love and honour my Prince and Country well enough. Just so the jesuits. A man may commit many sins against God's Law: and yet observe the end of the Law, in loving God with all his heart; and his Neighbour as himself. Then which nothing can be more senseless, that a man should offend God in breaking of his Law: and yet not withstanding love God with his whole heart. That a man should wrong his Neighbour doing that to him which he would not have done to himself: and yet, for all that, love his Neighbour as himself. (If ye love me keep my Commandments) saith Christ. john. 14. 15. Nay (say the Romanists) we love him and yet break his Commandments. (Love doth none eull to his Neighbour) saith the Apostle Romans. 13.. 10 Nay (say the jesuits) Love may do evil to his Neighbour: and yet keep the name of love. A man may be angry with another without cause, revile him, and call him Racha, he may defraud him in small matters (for these they make venial sins) and yet in the mean time, all this without breath of Charity. Himself would not willingly be so used: but he will use another in this sort; and yet look to be thanked for his love too. Such gross absurdities do our Adversaries run in to, by coining such senseless distinctions of (Sinnes not against: but besides the Law) of sins not against the end of the Law: though against the Law itself. Our Consciences cannot be satisfied with such silly shifts: and therefore we leave them unto those that can content themselves; and choke up their Consciences with a little sophistry. Men who make a pastime of sin; and take liberty to qualify and dispense with God's Law as they think agreeable to their Conscience; hoping by tricks of wit and dodging Distinctions to a void the accusations of Conscience, and to elude the severity of God's judgement. SECT. 4. CHAP ay▪ justification by works makes void the covenant of grace of the difference between the law & the Gospel. of the use of the Law. of the erroneous conceit of our Adversaries in this point. THus much of these three Exceptions of our ●econd Argument, proving the impossibility of our justification by the works of the Law, because we cannot perfectly fulfil the ●aw. We go now forward unto two Arguments more; taken, the one from the difference of the two Covenants God hath made with man. First of works, the other of grace: and the other from the Nature of true Christian Liberty obtained for us by Christ's death. 3 〈◊〉. Argument. That which makes voide the Covenant of Grace is a false and haereticall doctrine. But justification of works of the Law, makes void the Covenant of Grace. Ergo, 'tis false and haeriticall so to teach. For confirmation of the minor in this Argument we must briefly show. 1 (What the Covenant of Grace, what the Covenant of works is) 2 What opposition their is between these two. By the Covenant of Grace Covenant of Grace. we understand in one word, the Gospel, i. e. the gracious appointment of God to bring man to Salvation by jesus Christ. In the administration of this gracious purpose of God we must observe four periods of time, where in God hath diversely ordered this means of Man's salvation. 1 The first is from Adam until Abraham. 〈◊〉. Werein God made the promise to Adam anon after his miserable fall: and renewed it as occasion served unto the patriarchs and Holy men of that first Age of the world. viz. That (the seed of the woman should break the Serpent's head) This blessed promise containing the whole substance of man's redemption by Christ, was religiously accepted of, and embraced by the servants of God in those times. who witnessed their Faith in it, by their offering of sacrifice as God had taught them: and their Thankfulness for it, by their Obedience and holy Conversation. The second is from Abraham to Moses. After that men had now almost forgot Gods promise and their own duty: and Idolatry was crept into those Families, wherein by succession the Church of God had continued, God calls forth Abraham from amongst his Idolatrous kindred, & with him renews that former promise in form of a League and Covenant confirmed by word & solemn 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 believing the promise, and accepting the condition of obedience to walk before God in uprightness. This Covenant with Abraham is ratified by two external Ceremonies. One of a firebrand p●ssing between the pieces of the Heifer and other Beasts with Abraham, according to custom in making of Leagues had divided in twain. Gen. 15. The other the Sacrament of Circumcision upon the flesh of Abraham and his posterity. Gen. 17. The third period is from the time of Moses until Christ. When (after the Church multiplied unto a Nation, and withal in process of time, and continuance among the Idolatrous Egyptians, grew extremely corrupt in Religion and Manners) God again revives his former Covenant made with Abraham. Putting the jews in remembrance of the Covenant of grace in Christ. 1 By adding unto the first Sacrament of circumcision another of the Passeover, setting forth unto the jews, the Author of their deliverance; as well from the spiritual slavery and punishment of sin; as from the bodily bondage and plagues of Egypt. 2 Afterwards by instituting diverse Rites & Ceremonies concerning Priests sacrifices, etc. all which were shadows of good things to come (viz.) of Christ, the Church's Redemption by his death. Which things were prefigured under those types, though somewhat darkly, yet plainly enough to the weak understanding of the jews. Who in that Minority of the Church stood in need of such Schoolmasters and Tutors to direct them unto Christ. The fourth period and last is from Christ's death, to the end of the world. Who in the fullness of time appearing in our flesh, accomplished all the Prophecies and promises that went before of him: and by the Sacrifice of himself, confirmed that Covenant a new: which so long before had been made with the Church. Withal having abolished whatsoever before was weak and imperfect, he hath now replenished the Church with abundance 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 salvation to man was ever one and the same: only the Revelation thereof, was with much variety of circumstances, as God saw it agreeable to every season. In the first 'twas called a Promise, in the second a Covenant, in the two last Periods, a Testament; the Old from Moses till Christ's death; the New from thence to the world's end, in both Remission of sins, and Salvation bequeathed as a Legacy unto the Church: and this bequeast ratified by the death of the Testator, typically slain in the Sacrifices, for confirmation of the Old: Really put to death in his own Person, for the Sanction of the New Testament. But notwithstanding this or any other diversity in circumstance, the substance of the Gospel, or covenant of Grace, is but one & the same, throughout all ages. Namely, jesus Christ yesterday, and to day, and the same for ever. In the next place. By the Covenant of Works, Covenant. 2 Works. we understand that we call in one word the Law: Namely, That means of bringing man to Salvation, which is by perfect obedience unto the will of God. Hereof there are also two several Administrations. 1 The first is with Adam before his fall. When Immortality and Happiness was promised to Man, and confirmed by an external Symbol of the Tree of Life: upon condition that he continued obedient to God, as well in all other things; as in that particular Commandment of not eating of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil. 2 The second Administration of this Covenant was the renewing thereof with the Israelites at Mount Sinai: where (after that the light of Nature began to grow darker, and corruption had in time worn out the Characters of Religion and Virtue, first graved in man's heart) God revived 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 entered into Covenant with the Israelites, promising to be their God; in bestowing upon them all blessings of Life and Happiness, upon 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 do. Exod. 19 24. and also submitting themselves to all punishment in case they disobeyed; saying Amen to the Curse of the Law. Cursed be every one that confirmeth not all the words of this Law to do them: and all the people shall say, Amen. Deut. 27. 26. We see in brief what these Covenants of Grace & Works are. In the second place we must inquire what opposition there is between these two; Grace and Works; the Gospel and the Law. The opposition is not in regard of the End whereat both do aim. They agree both in one common end, namely the Glory of God in Man's eternal Salvation. The disagreement is in the means, whereby this End may be attained; which are proposed to Men in one sort by the Law, in another by the Gospel. The diversity is this. The Law offers life unto Man upon Condition of perfect Obedience, cursing the Transgressor's thereof in the least point with eternal Death: The Gospel offers Life unto Man upon another condition, viz. Of Repentance, and Faith in Christ, promising Remission of sins to such as repent and believe. That this is the main Essential and proper difference between the Covenant of works and of Grace (that is) between the Law and the Gospel, we shall endeavour to make good against these of the Romish Apostasy who deny it. Consider we then the Law of Works, either as given to Adam before the promise: or as after the promise it remained in some force with Adam & all his posterity. For the time before Man's fall. It is apparent that perfect obedience was the condition required for the establishing of Adam in perpetual bliss. Other means there was not: nor needed any be proposed unto him. But when Man had failed in that Condition; and so broken the Covenant of Works: God to repair Man's ruined Estate, now desperate of ever attaning unto happiness by the first means: he appoints a second offering unto Adam a Saviour; that by Faith in him, and not by his own unspotted Obedience, he might recover justification, and Life which he had lost. So that what Adam should have obtained by works without Christ: now he shall receive by Faith in Christ without Works. Since the time of Man's fall we must consider, that the Law and Gospel though they go together, yet as they still differ in their use and office between themselves: so also the Law differs from itself, in that use which it had before, and which it hath since the Fall. To us now, it hath not the same use which it had in Man's innocency. It was given to Adam for this end, to bring himself to Life, and for that purpose it was sufficient both in itself, as an absolute Rule of Perfection: and in regard of Adam who had strength to have observed it. But unto Man fallen, although the Band of Obedience do remain: yet the End thereof (viz.) justification and Life by it, is now abolished by the promise, because the Law now is insufficient for that purpose, not of itself, but by reason of our sinful flesh, that cannot keep it. This is most manifest by the renewing of the first Covenant of Works with the jews, when God delivered unto them the Moral Law, from Sinai, at which time God did not intend that the jews should obtain Salvation, by Obedience to that Law. God promised Life if they could obey, and the jews, as their duty was promised they would obey; but God knew well enough they were never able to keep their promise, and ergo 'twas not God's intention in this Legal covenant with the jews, that any of them should ever attain justification, and Life by that means. As that first the Promise need not to have been made unto Adam, if the Law could have sufficed for the attaining of Life: so after the Promise was once made, the Law was not renewed with the jews; to that end that Righteousness and Life should be had by the observation of it. This is the plain doctrine of the Apostle. Gal. 3. in that his excellent dispute against justification by the Law. The doubt that troubled the Galatians was this. God had made an Evangelicall covenant with Abraham, a 〈◊〉. that in Christ he and his faithful seed should be blessed; that is, justified. Afterward 430 years, he made a Legal covenant with Abraham's posterity, that they should live, that is, be justified and saved, if they did fulfil all things written in the Law. The Quaestion now was, which of these two covenants should stand in force, or whether both could stand together. The Apostle answer, that the former covenant 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 covenant that was confirmed afore of God in respect of Christ, the Law which was 430 years after, cannot disannul that it should make the Promise of none effect. For if the inheritance (viz) of Righteousness and life, be by the Law; it is not by the Promise: but God gave it to Abraham by Promise, here now they might object, Wherefore then serveth the Law? If Men cannot be justified by keeping the Law, to what end was it given so long after the Promise was made? To this the Apostle answers. It was added (unto the Promise) because of the transgressions. Here's the true use of the Moral Law, since the fall of Man, not to justify him and give life: but to prove him to be unjust and worthy of death. It was added [because of transgressions.] that is. 1. To convince Man of Sin, 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 attain unto life by this old way of the Law. First appointed in Paradise, he might be humbled and driven to look after that new way, which God had since that time laid forth, more heedfully attending the Promise, and seeking unto Christ, who is the End of the Law unto every one that believes in him. Which use God pointed out unto the jews, figuring Christ unto them in the mercyseat, covering the Ark wherein the Tables of the Covenant were kept, and in the Sacrifices appointed for all sorts of Transgressions against this Covenant. To admonish the jews a further thing was aimed at in giving them the Law, namely the bringing of them— to Christ the promised seed, in whom Remission of Sins, and Life Eternal was to be had. 1. To restrain Man from Sinne. That the Law might be a perpetual rule of Holiness and Obedience whereby Man should walk and glorify God to the utmost of his power. That so those jews might not think that God by making a gracious Promise, had utterly nullified the Law, and that now Men might live as they list; but that they might know these bounds prescribed them of God, within which compass they were to keep themselves, that so the overflowing of Iniquity might be restrained. These most excellent, perpetual and necessary uses of the moral Law, God intended in renewing of the Legal covenant with the jews: & ergo the Apostle concludes, that God did not cross himself, when first he gave the Inheritance to Abraham by promise, and afterwards made a Legal covenant with the jews his posterity. Is the Law then against the Promises? (saith the Apostle) God forbid. For if there had been a Law given, which could have given Life, surely Righteousness should have been by the Law: But the Scripture hath concluded all under Sin, that the promise by the Faith of jesus Christ might be given to all that believe. ver. 21. 22. Whence it is most clear that the Law and the Gospel in some things are subordinate and uphold one another; in other absolute, and destroy one another: As the Law by the discovery of Sin and the punishment of it, humbles man and prepares him to receive the Gospel. 2. As the Law is a sacred direction for Holiness and Obedience to those that have embraced the Gospel and all others. 3. As the Law requires satisfaction for the Breach of it, and the Gospel promiseth such satisfaction: thus the Law and Gospel agree well together and establish one another. But as the Law gives life to them that perfectly obey it, and the Gospel gives Life to them that steadfastly believe it: thus the Law and Gospel are one against the other; and overthrow one another. And ergo if God had given such a Law to the jews, as could have brought Salvation to them through the perfect fulfilling of it: 'tis apparent that God had made void his former Covenant unto Abraham, because Righteousness should have been by the Law, and not by Christ. But now God gave no such Law, as could be kept by the jews, as the Apostle proves, because all were sinners against it; and therefore it follows that notwithstanding the giving of the Law, the Promise stands good for ever; and Righteousness is to be odtained only by the Faith of jesus Christ. From hence we conclude firmly. That the difference between the Law and the Gospel, assigned by our Divines is most certain and agreeable to the Scriptures. viz. That. The Law gives Life unto the Just upon Con●ition of perfect Obedience in all things: The Gospel gives Life unto Sinners upon Condition, they repent and believe in Christ jesus. Whence it is plain. That in the point of justification these two are incompatible, and that therefore our minor Proposition stands verified. That justification by the works of the Law, makes voide the Covenant of Grace. Which Proposition is the same with the Apostles assertion elsewhere. Gal. 2. 21. If Righteousne: be by the Law Christ died in vain. and Gal. 5. 4. Ye are abolished from Christ: whosoever are justified by the Law; ye are fallen from Grace. By somuch more iviurious are these of the Romish Church unto the Gospel of Christ, when, by denying this difference, they would confound the Law and Gospel: and bring us back from Christ to Moses, to seek for our justification in the fulfilling of the Moral Law. They would persuade us that the Gospel is nothing, but a more perfect Law, or the Law perfected by addition of the Spirit, enabling men to fulfil it; That the promises of the Gospel be upon this Condition, of fulfilling the Law▪ with such like stuff. Their Doctrine touching this point is declared unto us by Bellarmine. Lib 4. de justificat. cap. 3. 4. Where he comes many distinctions between the Law and Gospel: but will by no means admit of that which our Reformed Divines make to be the chief. The chief distinction which he conceives to be between them he frameth thus. The Gospel (sayeth he) is taken in a double sense. 1 Cor. ●. 1. For the Doctrine of Christ, and his Apostles by them preached and written; 2. For the Grace of the Holy Ghost given in 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 kill Letter, the Law of Works, the Spirit of bondage and fear. Upon this he proceeds to the difference between the Law and the Gospel. Thus. The Law teacheth us what is to be done, the Gospel (if it be taken for the Grace of the holy Ghost) so it differs from the Law; because it gains strength to do it: but if it be taken for the Doctrine delivered by Christ and his Apostles, john 1. 17. so it agrees with the Law, teaching us, as the Law doth, what things are to be done. This Argument the jesuit illustrates and proves in three particulars. 1. The Gospel contains, Doctrinam operum, or Leges. For Moral precepts, they be the same in the Gospel, that be in the Law; 〈◊〉. 20. even those precepts that seem most evangelical. (viz) of loving our Enemies, witness of this all the writings of the New Testament, wherein every where we find precepts, & 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 Gospel is but the Doctrine of the Law; newly (that is) most clearly and fully expounded. Nor is the Gospel in a more perfect substance: but in Circumstance a more perspicuous Doctrine. Which, though a Truth, yet is very ridiculously proved by the Cardinal out of. Mat. 5. Nisi abundaverit etc. Unless your Righteousness exceed. What? He sayeth not the righteousness of the Law and Prophets: but of the Scribes and Pharisees; ye shall not enter etc. A profound Gloss. (Christ would not add to the Burden of the Law: but take away from the false gloss of the Scribes and Pharisees.) Surely good cause had our Saviour to tax both the Doctrine of the Pharisees in interpreting, and their manners in their hypocritical practice of the Law in outward matters; without inward Obedience; But little Reason was there that Christ should require of man more perfection than God's Law required and 'tis a fancy to dream of any such meaning, in our Saviour's speech. 2 The Gospel contains Comminations, and threatenings as the Law doth. Witness the many woes from Christ's own mouth against the Scribes and Pharisees; together with those frequent denunciations of judgement and Damnation to such as are ungodly, that do not repent and obey the Gospel. 3 Thirdly the Gospel contains promises of Life and happiness: but these evangelical promises be not absolute but upon the same Condition, that the Legal are. (viz) Come conditione implendae Legis, Cum conditione justitiae actualis, & operosae, quae in perfecta Mandatorum obseruatione consistit. Cap. 2. This the jesuit would prove unto us. 1. From that. Math. 5. Unless your Righteousness about &c. (that is, in Bellarmine's Construction) so far as, unto the perfect keeping of the Law: you shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. 2. From Mat. 19 17. Mat. 10. 19 Where Christ speaks to the young man. Ask him what he should do to be saved. If thou wilt enter into Life keep the Commandments. And to the Lawyer. (10. 28.) who asked the like Question he answers. This do and thou shalt live. That is. Fulfil the Law, and thou shalt be saved. In which words they say; That Christ did preach the Gospel, and showed unto these men the very Evangelical way to Salvation. 3. From the many places of Scripture. Wherein Mortification of Sin, and the studious practice of Holiness. and Obedience is required of us. As. Rom. 8. If ye mortify the deed's of the flesh by the Spirit: ye shall live. So. Ezekiel 18. 21. If the wicked will return from all his Sins, that he hath committed; and keep all my statutes, and do, that which is lawful and Right: he shall surely live and not die. With a Number such like places. 4. From the very Tenor of the Gospel. john 13. 17. If ye know those things, etc. He that believeth shall be saved: but he that believeth not, shall be damned. john 15. 14. Ye are my friends ●ye do whatever I com●●d you. Where we see the Promise of Life is not absolute, but conditional. If we do such and such works. From hence the Romanist concludes: That seeing the precepts, threatenings, and promises of the Gospel, be for matter the same, that those of the Law are: the true difference between the Law and Gospel shall be this. That the Law nakedly proposeth what is to be done without giving grace to perform it: but the Gospel not only proposeth what is to be done, but withal giveth Grace and strength to do it: and therefore the Law given by Moses the Lawgiver cannot justify, because it was given without the grace of fulfilling it: but the Gospel given by Christ the Redeemer doth justify, because it is accompanied with the grace of the holy Ghost, making us able to keep the Law. For which cause also the Law of Moses is a yoke unsupportable, the Law of a ●om 8. 15. 〈◊〉 4. 24. 25. fear and bondage; because it gives not grace to keep it, but only convinceth our Sin, and threatens us punishment: but the Law of Christ, the Gospel is a light yoke, a Law of love and liberty; because it gives grace to keep it, and of love to God and man: and so by fulfilling frees a man from feared punishment. This is the sum of the Romish Doctrine touching the difference betwixt the moral Law and the Gospel in the point of justification, as it is delivered us by Bellarmine, the rotten pillar of the antichristian Synagogue. Wherein we have scarce a syllable of distinct Truth: but all perverted by equivocations and gross Ambiguities, as shall appear by a short surucy of the former discourse. Whereas then he distinguisheth the Gospel into the doctrine of Christ, and his Apostles, and into the Grace of the Holy Ghost: let us follow him in these two parts. First for Doctrine. We grant that the Gospel is often so taken: but in this matter about justification, this acception, on is too large; and not distinct enough. For although, by a Synecdoche 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 Gospel, and b Rom. 12. 16. At that day when God shall judge, the secrets of Men by jesus Christ according to my Gospel. the Ministry of the Gospel: yet all things which they preached or wrote, is not the Gospel properly so called. But as Moses chiefly delivered the Law unto the jews, though yet with all he wrote of Christ, and so in part revealed unto them the Gospel: so Christ and his Ministers, though chiefly they preach the Gospel, yet in its place they urge the law withal, as that which hath its singular use in furthering our Christian faith and practice. Wherefore when we speak of the Gospel as opposite to the Law, 'tis a jesuitical equivocation to take it in this large sense. For the whole doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, preached by them, and written for us in the Book of the New Testament, we follow the Apostle in his dispute of justification. Gal. 3. 4. 5. And according as he doth take the Gospel strictly for the promise of justification and life made unto man in Christ jesus. This is in proper terms the Gospel (viz.) that special Doctrine touching man's Redemption and reconciliation with God by the means of jesus Christ; the Revelation whereof was indeed [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] the gladdest tidings that were ever brought to the ear of mortal man. Which Gospel in strict teanrmes the Angels preached. Lue. 2. 10. 11. Behold, I bring you glad tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people, That unto you is borne this day in the City of David, a Saviour which is Christ the Lord. And afterward Christ and his Apostles fully explained the mysteries thereof unto the world. According to this necessary distinction, we answer. That if we take the Gospel in that large Acception; 'tis true which Bellarmine hath. That the Gospel contains in it the Doctrine of works (viz.) the Moral Law, even the very same precepts, prohibitions, threatenings, & promises which are delivered in the Law. All which as Christ and his Hpostles preached: so may all Ministers without blame, yea, they must, if they will avoid blame, press the same upon their hearers, seasonably and discreetly, that the Law may make way for the better receiving and entertainment of Grace in the Gospel. But hence it follows not, that the Gospel properly so taken, is to be confounded as one and the same thing with the Law; because the Law is conjoined with it in the preachings and writings of the Ministers of the New Testament. They still are divided in their Nature and Offices: nor hath the Gospel any affinity with the Law in precepts, threatenings, or promises. Wherefore when Bellarmine teacheth us. That evangelical promises be made with condition of perfect fulfilling the Law. 'tis a desperate error, and that in the very foundation. You heard his proofs before recited: see now a little how passing weak they be. 1 Mat. 5. Except your righteousness, etc. To this we answer. The plain meaning of the place is this. Our righteousness must abound more than that of the pharisees (that is,) It must not be outside only as theirs was: but inward Righteousness of the heart, in inward sanctity of the thoughts and affections, as well as of the outward Action: or else such our hypocrisy will keep us from entering into Heaven. But doth it hence follow, that because we must be more perfect than these Pharisees, we must be as perfect in all things as the Law requires: we must exceed them, ergo, equal the holiness of the Law in all points? Because we must be sincere without hypocrisy, ergo, we must be perfect in all things without blame? Such consequents as these, the jesuit hath concluded out of his own head, not out of the text. Touching that speech of Christ to the young man. Mat. 19 and the Lawyer. Matt. 10. That if they did fulfil the Law, they should live. We answer, that Christ in so speaking unto them did not preach the Gospel: but showed unto them the Legal way to Salvation. For these erring that grand error of the jew in seeking for righteousness not by faith but by the works of the Law, severing the Law, from Christ the end thereof; (as the Apostle shows. Rom. 9 31. 32. & 10. 3. and so supposing to be saved by doing some good thing. Christ answers them in their humour, as every one should be answered, that swells with high conceits of his own righteousness & works, That there was a Law to be kept: and if they could fully observe the righteousness of it, they should be saved, 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 unable to keep. Against which answer the a Calv. I●st. lib. ●. cap. 18. § 9 jesuit hath nothing to rely; but stands much in confuting of another answer made by some of our Divines. That Christ spoke these things Ironically. This Bellar. seeks to confute; nor do I labour to confirm it; though it might be justified for any thing he brings to the contrary. 3 Unto those those places of Scripture that every where almost promise life, blessedness, the favour of God, upon condition of [holiness in life and conversation, that we mortify the lusts of the flesh, walk in the Spirit, overcome the world, etc.] We answer, that, Obedience is one thing, perfect obedience is another. We say that the promises of the Gospel be all upon condition of obedience: but none upon condition of perobedience. 'tis an injury done unto us, when they say; we teach that evangelical promises be absolute and without condition, as if God did promise and give all unto us; and we do nothing for it on our parts. We defend no such dotage. The promises of the Gospel be conditional (viz.) Namely upon 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 faithfulness of endeavour, not perfection of obedience in the full performance of every jot and Tittle of the Law. Unto the last Argument, from the tenor of the New Covenant (viz.) That we must believe if we will be saved; ergo, the promise of the Gospel is with condition of fulfilling the Law. This is an Argument might make the Cardinal's cheek as red, as his Cap, were there any shame in him. Faith indeed is a work: and this work is required as a condition of the promise: but to do this work, To believe, though it be to obey God's Commandment; yet it is not perfectly to fulfil the whole Law; but perfectly to trust in him, who brings mercy and pardon for transgressions of the Law. CHAP. II. Of Bellarmine's erroneous distinction of the word Gospel. SO much of the first member of the jesuits distinction, wherein his sophistical fraud appears, taking the Gospel for the whole doctrine of the New Testament, published by Christ and his Apostles, and ergo, confounding the Law & Gospel as one: because he finds the Law as well as the Gospel delivered unto us, by our Saviour and his Ministers: I proceed to the second branch of it. The Gospel (saith he) is taken for the grace of the holy Ghost given us in the New Testament: whereby men are made able to keep the Law. 'tis so taken. But where is it so taken? The jesuit cannot tell you that: [Vt verum fatear (saith he) nomen Evangelij non videtur in Scriptures uspiam accipi, nisi pro doctrind,] No good reason for it, in as much as 'tis evident to all me, that there is great difference between the doctrine of Man's salvation by the Mercy of God through the Merits of Christ (which is properly the Gospel) and the graces of the Holy Ghost bestowed on man in his Regeneration, whereby he is made able in some measure, to do that which is good. But the fault is not so much in the name in calling the grace of God in us by the name of Gospel: as in the misinterpretation of the matter itself. Wherein two errors are committed by the jesuit. 1 In that he maketh the grace of the New Testament, to be such strength given to man: that thereby he may fulfil the Law. 2 In that he saith. The Law was given without grace to keep it. In both which assertions their is ambiguity and Error. For the first. We grant that grace to do any thing that is good, is given, by the Gospel, not by the Law. The Law commands: but it gives no strength to Obey, because it persupposeth that he, to whom the command is given, hath, or aught to have already in himself strength to Obey it. And Ergo, we confess it freely, that we [Receive th● Spirit not by the works of the Law: but by the hearing of Faith preached] as it is Gal. 3. 2. The Donation of the Spirit in any measure whatsoever of his sanctifying graces is from Christ as a Saviour, not as a Lawgiver. Thus when we agree. That all Graces to do well is given unto us by the Gospel; but next we differ. They teach that the Gospel's gies such grace unto man, that he may fulfil what the Law commands: and so be justified by it. we deny it, and say that Grace is given by the Gospel, to obey the Law sincerely without hyppocricy: but not to fulfil it perfectly without infirmities. In which point the jesuit fails in his proofs which he brings. 1 Out of those places where contrary Attributes are ascribed to the Law and Gospel. Unto the Law. That it is [the ministry a 2 Cor. 3. 7. of death and Condemnation] b 2 Cor. 3. 6. [Killing d Gal. 5. 1. Letter] that it (works wrath) that it is a [Yoke d Gal. 5. 1. of Bondage a [Testament c Rom. 4. 15. 1 Cor. 15. 56. bringing forth Childeren unto Bondage]. But unto the Gospel, e Gal. 4. 24. that it is [The ministry f 2 Cor. 3. 6. of Life] and [of Reconciliation] g 2 Cor 5. 19 the h 2 Cor 3. 6. 7. 17. Gal. 4. 16. (Spirit that quickeneth) the (Testament that bringeth forth Childerens to Liberty) which opposition Bellarmine will have to be, because The Law gives precepts without affording strength to keep them: but the Gospel gives grace to do what is Commanded. But the jesuit is here mistaken. These opposite attributes given 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 work wrath, to be not a dead, but a Killing Letter: in as much as being broken it leaves no hope to the Transgresser: but a fearful expectation of eternal Death and condemnation of the Law under the Terrors whereof it holds them in bondage. But on the Contrary the Gospel is the ministry of Life, of reconciliation of the quickening spirit and of Liberty, because it reveals unto us Christ in whom we are restored to Life; from the deserved Death and condemnation of the Law, unto God's favour, being delivered from the wrath to come, unto liberty; being freed from slavish fear of Punishment. This is the chief 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 Ministry of the Letter written in tabels of stone: but that of the Gospel is called the ministry 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 Virtue of the Spirit. But in the Gospel's grace is given from Christ, who by the Holy Ghost sanctifieth the heart of his Elect, that they may live to Righteousness in a sincere thought not every way exact conformity to the Law of God. The like answer we give unto another proof of his. 2 Out of that place (john 1. 17. The Law came by Moses: but Grace and truth by jesus Christ) that is (saith Bellarmine) The Law came by Moses without grace to fulfil it: but grace to keep it, by Christ. We answer. The true interpretation of these words is this: Moses delivered a twofold Law, moral and ceremonial. Opposite to these Christ hath brought a twofold privilege. Grace for the moral Law, whereby we understand not only power given to the regenerate in part to observe this Law, which strength could not come by the Law itself: but also, much, more Remission of sins committed against the Law and so our justification and freedom from the guilt of sin and course of the Moral Law. Secondly, Truth for the Ceremonial Law the substance being brought in and the shadows vanished. wherefore the jesuit errs greatly in this point, when he makes the grace of the New Testament to consist in this. That strength is thereby given us to fulfil the Law. The grace of God in the Gospel is chiefly our justification and Redemption from the curse of the Law: and in the next place strength afforded us to Obey the Law in some measure not perfectly as our Adversaries would have it. In the next point he errs as much in saying that the Law of Moses was giveu without grace to obey it. A false assertion. For although the Law of itself give not grace: yet 'tis certain that grace was given by Christ even then when Moses published the Law. Sufficient for the proof hereof are. 1 These excellent properties ascribed unto the Law of God, as in other places of the old Testament: so specially in the Book of the Psalms. And amongst them in the 19 and 119. Psalms. Where the Law of God is said to (give light to the eyes, to convert the Soul, to rejoice the Heart etc.) which it could not do of itself, had not the grace of the Holy Ghost being given in these times. without which the Law could work no such saving Effects. 2 Experienee of those times in the Faith, Patience, and obedience, and all sorts of graces shining in those ancient Saints (who lived before and after the Law was given. Which graces they received from the Holy Ghost, shed upon their hearts by virtue of Christ's mediation, whereby they received strength to live holily in Obedience unto the Law of God. The difference between these times, and those under the Law, is not. That we have grace and they had none: but only in the measure and extent of the same grace bestowed, both on us and them. In those times as the Doctrine of the Gospel was more obscurely revealed: so the grace which accompanies it was more sparingly distributed, being confined to to a Church collected of one nation, and bestowed upon that Church in a lesser measure, than now; though yet sufficiently in that measure. But in the times of the New Testament, the light shines more brightly, and grace is dispensed more liberally, being extended indifferently to all Nations and poured upon the Godly in a larger Abundance: according as was promised jeremiah 31. Though also this comparison must be restrained unto whole Churches, what generally is now done; for no doubt in many particulars some men under the Law exceed for abundance of Grace, many under the Gospel. Wherefore it is a notable injury unto the Bounty of God, and the honour of those Saints of old, to exclude them from partaking of the Gospel; to affirm that they were led only by the Spirit of Fear, Thou art our Father and not of love; that they received not the Spirit of adoption to cry Abba father as well as we (though not plentifully as we; and so b See Beca●●● Tom. 2. Tract. 4. cap. ● Quest. 1. 2. 3. that they were not Sons though under Tutors and governors, as we confess they were but very Servants held in Bondage and excluded from the inheritance of Grace, and glory till after Christ's Death. So that at best their adoption was but conditional with regard of Time to come: but, for the present, they were handled as slaves feared with temporal punishments alured by temporal rewards, like a heard of Swine fed with base achors and husks. These be absurd Errors bred out of Scripture misunderstood. Especially that of john 1. Grace came by Christ. Ergo, not before Christ's Incarnation. A silly Argument. Christ is as old as the World and his Grace as ancient, as the Name of Man upon Earth. grace always came by Crhist, & was in its measure given by him long before he appeared in the flesh. He was ever the head of his Church, and that his Body, which he always quickened by the blessed influence of his Spirit ministered thereunto. Whereby the Godly before as well as since his incarnation were made living members of that his mystical Body. Wherefore it is apparent, that grace is not to be tied to the Times of the Gospel and severed from the Law. Nay, as of old the Law was not always without grace: so now many times the Gospel itself is without grace Christ himself being a stumbling stone and rock of offence, the Gospel a Saviour of Death to those many upon whom Grace is not bestowed; to believe and embrace it. I conclude then. That this difference, with our Adversaries make between the Law and Gospel is false: and that their Error is pernicious in makind the Gospel to be nothing, but a Spirit added to the Law that man may fulfil it to his justification. That thus a man may be saved by Christ through the perfect fulfilling of the Law. Which is a monstrous and uncouth Doctrine laying an unsupportable burden upon the conscience of man and hazarding his soul to eternal destruction, whiles by this means he frustrates the Grace of God in Christ; and withal frustrats his own hopes of life expecting to obtain it by that Law which he is never able to fulfil. SECT. 5. CHAP. I. justification by fulfilling the law, overthrows Christian liberty, the parts of our Christian liberty. SO much of the Third Argument: The last follows drawn from the Nature of Christian Liberty. Which is this. 4. Arg. 4. Argument, That which overthrows our Christian Liberty purchased for us by the death of Christ: that's no Euangelical, but an Haereticall Doctrine. But justification by the works of the Law overthrows the spiritual Liberty of Man obtained for him by Christ. Ergò. 'Tis an Heresy against the Gospel. For the proof of the minor Proposition, let us in brief consider wherein stands that Liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, that so we may the better perceive what part thereof, this doctrine of justification by works doth nullify and deprive us of. The Liberty we have in Christ is either in regard of the Life to come, or of this present life. The first is the Liberty of Glory consisting in a fu●l deliverance from that state of vanity and misery, both sinful and painful, whereunto we are now subject. And not we only, but the whole Creation, which with us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, groaneth and travaileth in pain, till with us it also be delivered, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; From the bondage of Corruption, into the Glorious liberty of the Sons of God,) as the Apostle declares Rom. 8. 19 & seq. This Liberty we have in hope, not in possession. The next we actually enjoy in this life, and that is the Liberty of Grace. This we may divide not unfitly into 3 branches: 1 Freedom from Sinne. 2 Freedom from the Law: 3 Freedom from Men. 1 Our Freedom from Sin stands in 2 things; 1 In our deliverance from the Punishment of Sinne. For whereas every Sin of its own Nature brings with it guiltiness, and a sure obligation unto punishment, binding over the transgressor unto the pains of God's eternal wrath by a stronger chain than of Steel or Adamant: Christ by his meritorious satisfaction hath broken these bonds, and ransomed us from this fearful Bondage unto Hell and destruction. He being made a Curse for us, hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law. Gal. 3. 13. That is, By taking on himself the punishment of our Sins, in his own person suffering, and satisfying the wrath and justice of God, he hath once for ever set us free from the dreadful vengeance of God, which we deserve should fall upon us for our Iniquities. 2 In our deliverance from the Power of Sin, which though it abide in us in the Relics of our corrupted Nature: yet by the power of the Holy Ghost dwelling in the Hearts of the Regenerate, it is subdued and kept under, that it doth not reign nor exercise its commanding authority without Control. So that whereas the Unregenerate be the Servants of Sin, wholly at the command of Satan and wicked affections, the Regenerate are freed from this slavery being ruled and guided by the Spirit of the Lord, which wheresoever it is, there is liberty, as the Apostle speaks, 2 Cor. 3. 17. Liberty from that blindness 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 do the will of God. From which we are freed in part by the Spirit of Christ, enlightening our Minds, and changing our Hearts. This Liberty from Sin's dominion and damnation, S. Paul joins together, Rom. 8. 2. (The Law of the Spirit of Life, which is in Christ jesus, hath freed me from the Law of Sin and of Death.) And again, Rom. 6. 14. Sin shall not have Dominion over you, for ye are not under the Law, but under Grace. 2 Our freedom from the Law is eithr from the Ceremonial or Moral law. The Ceremonial Law contained in it divers Carnal Ordinances (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) to endure until the time of reformation. Heb. 9 10. From all which Christ hath freed the Church of the New Testament, as namely. 1. From the whole burden of Legal ceremonies whatsoever used in the worship of God. Those resemblances are of no use now, when the substance itself 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 jews were tied, but we are not bound. Such are the observations of days, of Meats and Drinks, of Garments, with the like. Wherein the jews were restrained: but our consciences are left free, being taught that every Creature of God is good being sanctified by Prayer and thanksgiving. 1. Tim. 4. 4. 5. And that to the b 1 Ti●. 1. 15. pure all things are pure. Only this being observed, that we abuse not this our Liberty, but that as we are informed by Faith that all things are lawful for us: so we should be taught by charity to see what are expedient in regard of others. 1 Cor. 10. 23. That a due regard be had of others infirmity, that nothing be done whereby the truly weak may be scandalised, as the Apostle commands, Rome 14. 21. By which ●eanes Knowledge on the one side still preserves us, that our consciences be not ensnared with superstition, and charity on the other side shall keep our Liberty from degenerating into Licentiousness, and unchristian contempt of our weak Brethren. 2 Our freedom from the Moral law stands in this, that whereas the Law requires of every Man, upon strictest terms of Necessity, full and complete Obedience to all things whatsoever contained in it, if he will avoid the punishment of Hell fire: Christ hath freed all that believe in him from this heavy and rigorous exaction of the Law, taking away from our Consciences this obligation unto a necessary fulfilling thereof, upon pain that we shall forfeit Heaven if we do it not. As we shall see more anon. 3 In the last place our Freedom is from Men: This Liberty from humane Constitutions binding the Conscience, is 〈…〉 namely from all power and authority they may claim over our consciences: they may hold our persons in subjection, but they cannot command over our consciences. We acknowledge no jurisdiction of Man or Angel over our Consciences; but only that of God that created us, and of Christ that hath redeemed us. Whosoever ergo shall impose upon Man any humane Traditions, Opinions, or Ordinations whatsoever to tie his conscience unto obedience by virtue of his own authority, such a one trenches upon God's high Prerogative, & usurps tyrannically over the souls of Men, according, as at this day, that Man of Sin doth. But here we must observe that Humane Constitutions be either Ecclesiastical or Political. Ecclesiastical concern 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 external order of God's worship in the determination of indifferent circumstances tending to decency and comeliness. For the former we renounce and reject all humane authority whatsoever, that shall without warrant from the Scriptures, prescribe unto the Church any doctrine to be received as a divine Truth or Custom, Ceremony or Practise whatsoever, to be observed as a proper part of God's most holy worship. According as our reformed Churches have happily recovered their Liberty by breaking asunder those cords, & casting away that Yoke of false doctrine of Superstitions, ceremonial will-worships, wherewith not Christ, but Antichrist had ensnared and oppressed the Church. And they have God's own warrant for so doing, Isay. 29. 13. ratified and explained by Christ, Mat. 15, 9 (In vain they worship me, teaching for doctrine men's precepts:) which was a thing contrary to God's express commandment, Ezech. 20. 18. ●●. (Walk ye not in the ordinances of your Fathers, neither observe their manners, nor defile yourselves with their Idols: I am the Lord your God, walk in my Statutes, and keep my judgements and do 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 Gospel: herein we must acknowledge the authority of the Church though not over our Consciences to bind them: yet over our practices to order & limit them. Accordingly as also we do in the other branch of humane Obediences. viz. Political or civil, comprising all Law, touching lawful things made for the governance of Kingdoms; or inferior states by the supreme Magistrate, that hath authority so to do. Whereunto we (must be subject, not because of wrath only, Rom. 13. 5. but also for conscience sake.) For Conscience sake, not because the highest Monarch on Earth hath power over the Conscience of his meanest subject; to bind it by virtue of his own authority: but because God hath established the Magistrate's authority and commanded subjects Obedience in lawful things, and therefore we cannot disobey them without breach of Conscience, in disobeying and violating also God's Commandment. But otherwise for any immediate power over the conscience, to restrain the inward liberty thereof, no man without presumption may arrogate its nor any without slavish baseness yield to another, 1 Cor. 〈…〉 as the Apostle commands (ye are bought with a price, be not ye servants of men.) This is in brief the Doctrine of Christian or spiritual liberty, which we call Christian: 1. from the cause of it, Christ, by whose purchase we enjoy it. 2. From the subject of it, Christians, in opposition to the jews, who had not this liberty in all parts of it as we have. Namely in freedom from the Ceremonial Law, and restraint in things indifferent. In all other parts they in their measure were freed by Christ as well as we. Again we call it spiritual in opposition to civil and bodily Liberty: because it stands in the freedom of So●le and Conscience, not in the freedom of the outward man; the bondage and subjection whereof is no impeachment to this spiritual freedom: As anabaptistical Libertines would persuade the world contrary to the Apostles decision. 1. Cor. 7. 22. (He that is called in the Lord being a servant, is the Lords Freeman. CHAP. II. justification by works subjects us to the rigour and curse of the Law WE are now in the next place to see which branch of our liberty is cut off by the doctrine of justification by works. Not to meddle with others whereat it gives a backblow, but to take that which it directly strikes at: we say, it destroys our Liberty from the moral Law, which stands herein, that we are not obliged unto the perfect fulfilling of that Law, upon pain of eternal Daemnation, if we do it not. This gracious liberty Christ hath enfranchised us withal, whosoever believe in him: and they that now teach we are justified by works of the Law, do rob our Consciences of this heavenly Freedom, bringing us again under that miserable bondage unto the Law, wherein all men are holden, which are in state of infidelity & unregeneration, from whom the Law in extremest rigour exacts perfect Obedience if they will be sau●d. For the clearing hereof, this in the first place is manifest. That he which will be justified by the works of the Law, is necessarily tied to fulfil the whole Law: seeing ti's impossible the Law should justify them that transgress it. In the next place than we must prove, that for a man's Conscience to be thus tied to the fulfilling of the Law for the obtaining of justification, is an unsupportable yoke of spiritual Bondage, contrary to that liberty, wherewith Christ hath made every believer free. This shall appear in confirming of this Proportion. A Man regenerate endued with true faith in Christ jesus, is not bound in Conscience unto the fulfilling of the whole Law for his justification. This Proposition seems very strange unto our adversaries and to be nothing else but a ground-plot wherein to build all licentiousness and Libertinisme, as if we did discharge men of all Allegiance to God & subjection to his Laws. But their Calumnies are not sufficient confutations of orthodox Doctrine: for the stopping of their mouths we throw them this distinction, whereon they may gnaw while they break their teeth, before they bite it in pieces. Man's conscience stands bound unto the Law of God in a two fold obligation. Either 1. Of Obedience, that according to the measure of Grace received he endeavour to the utmost of his power to live conformably to the Law of God in all things. 2. Of fulfilling the Law, that in every jot and tittle he observe all things whatsoever it commands upon pain of everlasting condemnation for the least transgression. We teach that no true Believer is freed from the Obligation unto Obedience, but so far as by grace given him he is enabled, he ought to strive to the utmost, to perform all duties towards God & man commanded in the Law, if he will justify his faith to be sound, without Hypocrisy. And ergò our Doctrine is no doctrine of Licentiousness. But on the other side we teach, That every true believer is freed from that obligation unto the fulfilling of the Law, for the attaining of life & justification by it. Which material difference for the clearing of our doctrine not observed or rather suppressed by a Lib. 4. de justif. cap. 5. Bellarmine, causeth the jesuit to labour much in a needless dispute, to prove against us, That a Christian man is tied to the observation of the moral Law. He tells us that Christ is a Lawgiver aswell as a Redeemer of his Church, praescribing orders for all in common, for each one in particular. That he is a judge that sentenceth according to Law. That he is a King that ruleth over subjects unto a Law. That Christ by his coming did not destroy, but fulfil the Law, expounded it & enjoined it to be observed by us. That his Apostles urge it in every Epistle. That a Christian man sinniug offends against the Law, & ergò is bound to keep the Law. In all which the jesuit encounters his own fantasy & not our doctrine which is not wounded by such misguided weapons. For we grant without striving, that every Christian is tied to observe the Moral Law, and we aver that it is a most unchristian & jesuitical slander to affirm, as he doth, that we teach (Christianum b Ibid 〈◊〉 nulli Legi obnoxium & subjectum esse in Conscientia coram Deo.) Nay we teach that he is bound to obey to the utmost of his power: and from this obligation no authority of Man or Angel, Pope or Devil, can discharge him. So much we grant the Arguments alleged by the Cardinal do enforce, and nothing else. They prove Obedience necessary to a believing Christian: but they can never prove perfect fulfilling of the Law, to be necessarily required of him. From this heavy burden Christ hath eased the shoulders of all such as are in him by a lively Faith, of whom God doth no longer exact perfect Obedience to his Law in those strict and rigorous terms. that they shall be accursed if they fulfil it not. This we prove by these Scriptures. 1. Gal, 1. 2. 3. (Stand fast (saith the Apostle) in the Liberty wherein Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.) But what is this Yoke of Bondage? Is it only the observation of the Ceremonial Law? No. That was indeed part of the yoke which the Apostles sought to lay on the Consciences of the Galatians. But 'twas the least and the lightest part, the weightiest burden was the fulfilling of the Moral Law, whereunto by the doctrine of the false Apostles, the Galatians stood obliged. This is plain by the Text in the words following. (Behold, I Paul say unto you that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man, which is circumcised, that he is bound to keep the whole Law) The Apostles dispute is here evident. The Galatians may not be circumcised, not observe the Ceremonial 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 Christ's death? The Apostle allegeth a good reason, because the observation of the Ceremonial Law, tied them also to the fulfilling of the whole Moral Law. The Argument is thus framed. They who are bound to keep the whole Law have no profit at all by Christ. But they who are circumcised, are bound to keep the whole Law. ergo, They that be circumcised have not profit at all in Christ. The minor in this Argument is the express words of the Text, and the proof of it is evident in Reason, because the retaining of Legal ceremonies did in effect abolish Christ's coming in the Flesh, who by his coming in the Flesh, had abolished them. And ergo, they who in reviving them, denied Christ's death, had no means at all to be saved: but only by the fulfilling of the Moral Law. Whereunto they were necessarily bound, if they meant not to perish. Which reason yet is of no force before Christ his coming, and ergo then circumcision and other legal ceremonies, did not lay upon the jews such a strict obligation to fulfil the whole Law. The Mayor 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, (Whosoever are bound to keep the whole Law, Christ profiteth them nothing at all.) This Argument, and the Reason thereof, will hardly pass with approbation in the Jesuits Schools, (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 canceled that straight obligation of fulfilling the Law: But every one that believes the promise of salvation in Christ, is yet notwithstanding obliged to fulfil the whole Moral law. For this is (say they) the very Condition whereupon he must have benefit by the promise, even ( a Lib. 4. cap. 2. Perfecta Mandatorum ●bservatio:) and therefore he is so far from being freed by Christ from this obligation unto the Law, that for a certain, except he fulfil it, he shall never be saved; as 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,) Bellarmine peremptorily and bloodily determines. These Men when they list are wondrous merciful toward Sinners, and can teach them tricks by very easy means, to merit Heaven and Remission of Sins. But their cruelty betrays their kindness in other matters; in as much as when all comes to the upshot, a Sinner is driven to this. If he willbe saved by Christ, he must as he is bound, perfectly keep the whole: law else there's no hope for him. This is cold comfort for the poor believer: but 'tis happy we have not Jesuits, Pharaoh's taskmasters, set over us, to exact the whole Tale of Brick: but a jesus, who hath freed our souls from this bitter thraldom and delivered us from the power of so rigorous and strict commands of the Law. We believe an Apostle of Christ against all the Sycophants of Rome, and tell them that they give the holy Ghost the lie, when they teach that in believers the obligation to keep the whole Law stands still in full force & virtue not discharged by the death of Christ; directly contrary to this Argument of the Apostle. (Ye are bound to keep the whole law, ergo, Christ shall not profit you.) Whence we argue thus. Whosoever are bound to keep the whole law, to such Christ is unprofitable. But unto true believers Christ is not unprofitable. Ergo True believers are not bound to keep the whole law. A conclusion most certain, as from these irrefutable praemisses: so from most evident Reason. For if such as believe in Christ, (Who through the Spirit wait for the hope of Righteousness through Faith) as the Apostle speaks here, v. 5; if such be yet bound to fulfil the whole Law for their justification, to what end is it to believe in Christ, unto Righteousness and justification? If when all is done we must be saved by doing, what profit comes there by believing? Can the conscience find any benefit and comfort at all in Christ, when we shall come to this woeful Conclusion; that notwithstanding there is in Scripture much talk of Faith, of Christ, of Promises, of Grace; yet all this will bring us no commodity, except this condition be performed on our parts, If the Law still rule over us as servants requiring the praescribed task: or else shaking the Whip, and threatening stripes, & not as over son commanding Obedience. that we perfectly keep the Law of God: If any thing in the World, this is to imprison the soul in reckless slavery, and to lay the conscience upon the rack of continual Terrors, if Heaven be not to be had but upon such hard terms. And this is most apparently to frustrate all benefit of Christ, of Promise, of Faith, of Grace, of the whole work of Redemption, seeing in fine 'tis the Law that we must live by, and not by Faith: the perfect fulfilling of the Law must make us righteous in God's sight: and not our believing in Christ, that we may be justified. For he that keeps the whole Law, is thereby righteous, and by nothing else. Here 'tis but a bare shift to say, Though we be bound to fulfil the Law; yet Christ profits us, because he gives us Grace to perform our Band in exact Obedience. This evasion might it stand good, Saint Paul were indeed finally confuted as a weak disputant. But the Error of this hath been touched before, and if nothing else were said, this Apostolical 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 use it lawfully; knowing this, that the Law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly, for Sinners, for unholy, and profane, etc.) The Law is not given to the Righteous. How must this be understood? Is it not given (quoad directionem) as a Rule prescribing what is to be done, what is not to be done? Yes, we all agree in that. How is it than not given? 'Tis answered, (quoad coactionem & maledictionem) as it compels to obedience, and curseth the Transgressor's. Thus is it not given to the Iust. This answer is full of ambiguity, and needs some explication, that we may know what is the coaction or compelling force of the Law, from which the Just are freed. In unfolding whereof our adversaries and we differ. Whether are in the right, we shall see by the proposal of both our Interpretations. They say, (The Law hath no coactive or compelling power over the Just, because the Justice do obey it, spout, libentèer, & alacritèr, & ex instinctu charitatis) that is, willingly, out of Love: but it hath a compulsive force over the unjust, because they recalcitrant & cogi quodammodò debent ad obsequium) that is, they obey unwillinglie, being forced to it by Terrors and threatenings, and therefore; The law rules not over the just, as servants who obey for fear: but sons who obey for Love.. We expound it otherwise. The Law hath not coactive power over the just, because the just (that is) true believers in Christ jesus, are freed from the necessity of perfectly fulfilling it, for the obtaining of salvation. But the Law hath a coactive power over the unjust & unbelievers, because they are obliged unto the perfect fulfilling thereof, or else to be certainly accursed. And ergo we say, the Law commands over the just as over Sons requiring of them a faithful and willing endeavour: but it commands over the unjust, as over Servants, of whom it exacts the uttermost farthing, and upon the legal default threatens eternal malediction. The difference then betwixt them & us, is this. They make the coaction of the Law to consist in the manner or quality of man's obedience to it. The Law compels when men obey unwillingly. We make the coaction of the Law to consist in the quality of the command, & condition, whereupon Obedience is required. The Law than compels, when it exacts full obedience upon poenalty praecisely threatened to the disobedient. Wherein the truth is manifestly on our side. For 'tis plain, that compulsion in a Law must be taken in opposition to direction, not persuasion, for Laws persuade not, but command. For if we speak properly a Law cannot be said to compel those, to whom 'tis given, as if by any real and physical operation it did enforce them to obedience. So a King in under the Direction: not the Compulsion of the law; because not tied to the Penalty. It proposeth what is to be done, it setteth before a man, the punishment for disobedience: but it works 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 soon know what Compulsion is. Direction (as all agree) is the bare praescription, of what is to be done, or left undone. Compulsion, that is, the exaction of obedience upon paenalty to be inflicted. What other coactive 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 understood thus, the just are not under the coactive power of God's Law, ●●cause it doth not exact of them full obedience upon paenalty of eternal death, to be otherwise inflicted on them. As it doth exact of the unjust. For otherwise there will be no difference between the just and the unjust in regard of this coactive power of the Law, if both the one and the other be obliged to yield, alike, perfect obedience upon the like paenalty. In this case the Law will be as coactine to one, as the other, exacting equal obedience, upon equal terms, both of the just and unjust. (viz) obey fully in all things: or you shall be cursed. The Son and Servant shall be all one, and the Law shall still command, over the children, with as much terror, as over the Bondslave. 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 saved. So that the Law of itself shall be as rigorous towards one; as the other. But we know the Scriptures offer unto us more mercy: and that Christ hath discharged us from this rigour of the Law, under which every one, that is out of him in the state of unbelief is holden in bondage. As to the difference they make (the just obey willingly, the unjust unwillingly, & ergo the Law compels these and not those) this is nothing to the purpose. For it altars not the nature of the Law, that it is obeyed with diverse affections. The Law is the same, for its command & authority; howsoever it be obeyed willingly or unwillingly; that matters not. The Law ceaseth not to be coactive, because ti's willingly obeyed: even as a slave ceaseth not to be under the coaction & compelling power of his Master, though he love his master; and out of a willing mind be content to abide in thraldom. And as Adam, though he obeyed the Law willingly; yet was under the coactive power of it; because he was tied 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 Law's compulsion, as it compels or enjoins them absolute obedience in all things, and for default thereof threatens the unavoidable malediction of God's eternal wrath. 3 Lastly for proof of this point we have those places formerly alleged, Rom. 6. 14. [We are not under the Law, but under Grace.] Gal. 5. 18. [If we be led by the spirit, we are not under the Law.] cum v. 11. 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 us from the Curse of the Law, being made acurse for us.] All which, with b Rom. 7. 1. 2. etc. other the like, do establish this orthodox Doctrine; That believers have ohtained freedom by Christ, from the rigour of the Moral Law, and are not any longer bound in conscience to the perfect fulfilling thereof upon this assured peril: that if they keep it not, they shall not be saved. We might stand longer upon each Testimony: but let that which we have said, suffice for the vindicating of our conscience from that Torture and Bondage wherewith these ●●opish Doctors would ensnare us. The knowledge of which our Liberty, is not to give us occasion of security or licentiousness, as these Men calumniate: but to restore peace & spiritual rest unto our souls, knowing that we are now delivered from the necessity of obeying, or of perishing, which before we were in Christ, lay more heavy upon our souls then a mountain of Lead. That so being freed from this thraldom, we might serve him who hath freed us, thankfully, and cheerfully, obeying him in all duty, by whom we have obtained this glorious privilege; that whereas perfect obedience was sometimes strictly exacted of us: now our sincere, though imperfect endeavours, shallbe mercifully accepted at our hands. SECT. 6. CHAP. I. The reconciliation of that seeming opposition, between S. Paul, and S. james in this point of justification. THus much of this Argument and of the first Branch of man's Righteousness, whereby if it were possible he should be justified. viz. His Obedience to the Law of God. By which means we have showed, no flesh shall be justified in God's sight. We are to proceed unto the text branch hereof. 2 Conclusion. viz. Man's satisfaction for his transgression of the Law. Wherein we have also to prove, that a Sinner cannot be acquitted before god's judgement seat, by pleading any satisfaction, that himself can make for his offences. But in our passing unto that point we are to give you warning of that stumbling stone which St. james, (as it may seem) hath laid in our way: lest any should dash his Faith upon it; and fall, as our adnersaries have done into that Error of justification by works. That blessed Apostle, in the second Chapter of his Epistle, seems not only to give occasion: but directly to teach this doctrine of justification by works. For in the 21. ver. etc. He sayeth expressly, that Abraham was justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar; and also that Rahab was in like manner justified by works, when she entertained the spies. Whence also he sets down ver. 22. a general Conclusion. That a Man is justified by works and not by faith alone. Now in show, nothing can be spoken more contrary to St. Paul his Doctrine in his Epistle to the Romans and elsewhere. For in the fourth chap. speaking of the same example of Abraham, he sayeth clean contrary, that Abraham was not justified by works, for than he might have boasted. ver. 2. And in the 3 chap. treating generally of man's justification, by faith; after a strong dispute he draws forth this conclusion. That a man is justified by Faith without the works of the Law. v. 28. Which Conclusion is in appearance contradictory to that of St. james. This harsh discord between these Apostles seems unto some not possible to be sweetened by any qualification, who knowing that the Holy Ghost never forgets himself have concluded that if the spirit of truth spoke by St. Paul it was doubtless the spirit of error, that spoke by the author of this Epistle of james. For this cause most likely it was doubted of in ancient times, as a Hist. Eccl. 2. cap. 22. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eusebius and Hier●me witness. But yet then also publicly allowed (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) in many Churches, and ever since received in all: Out of which for the same cause Luther and others of his followers, since him would again throw it forth, accounting the author of it to have built not gold and silver; but straw and stubble upon the foundation. Erasmus assents to Luther. And Musculus agrees with them both, who in his Commentaries upon the fourth to the Romans, speaks his mind simply, that he sees not how james and Paul can agree together, and therefore he turns out St. james for the wrangler, supposing that this james was one of the Desciples of james the Apostle, the brother of Christ, who under 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 invalescente mendacio proculcari caeperit.) That is. When error by degrees praevailed against the truth. But this medicine is worse than the disease, and is rather violence, than skill, thus to cut the knot where it cannot be readily untied. A safer and milder course may be holden; and some means found out for the according of this grand difference without robbing the Church of somuch precious Treasure, of divine knowledge, as is stored up in this Epistle. Wherefore both they of the Romish and we of the reformed Churches, admitting this Epistle for canonical do each of us search after, a fit reconciliation between the Apostles. But they and we between ourselves are irreconcilable in our several reconcileations of them. They reconcile them thus. By distinguishing. 1. of justification. 2 of Works. justification (say they) of two sorts. 1. The first when a man of unjust is made just and holy, by the Infusion of Grace, or the Habit of Charity. 2. The 2. When a man of just is made more just by the augmentation of the Habit of Grace first given unto him. Again they divide works into two sorts. 1. Some go before Faith, being performed by the mere strength of nature, and freewill without the help of grace; and such works as these are not meritorious. 2. Some follow Faith, being performed by the aid and assistance of grace given unto man: and such works as these be meritorious. These distinctions praepared, the work is now ready for the soddering, which they finish artificially glewing together the proposition of the two Apostles in this sort. St. Paul sayeth that Abraham, and all men are justified by Faith without works. This (say they) is to be understood of the first justification, and of works 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 works is this. Neither Abraham, nor any other can deserve the Grace of Sanctification, whereby of unjust and unholy they be made just and holy, by any works done by them, when they are Natural Men, destitute of Grace, but only by Faith in Christ jesus, or thus. No Man merits Grace to make him a good Man of a Bad, by any thing he doth before he believe in Christ; but by believing he obtaineth this. On the other side S. james saith, that (Abraham and all others are justified by Works, not by Faith only.) This (say the Romanists) is meant of the second justification, and of such works as are done after Faith, by the aid of Grace: So the meaning of the Proposition shallbe this. Abraham and other Men being once made good and just, deserve to be made better, and more just by such good works as they perform through the help of Grace given unto them; & not by faith only. Being once sanctified, they deserve the increase of Sanctification through that merit of their Faith, and good works out of Faith and Charity. Is not this difference between these Apostles finely accorded think you? They will now walk together being in this sort made friends through the mediation of the Schoolmen. But it is otherwise. They are so far from reconciling them, that they have abused them both, and set them farther asunder making them speak what they never meant. Neither in S. Paul nor S. james 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 brain, that hath no footing at all in the text. Which we do upon these Reasons. 1. That distinction of justification (that is of Sanctification) into the first giving of it, and the after increase of it, (howsoever tolerable in other matters) is utterly to no purpose, as it is applied unto the doctrine of these Apostles. Who when they speak of justification of a sinner in God's sight do understand thereby the Remission of Sins through the imputation of Christ's Righteousness, and not the infusion, or increase of inherent Sanctity in the soul of man. This confusion of justification with sanctification is a prime error of our adversaries in this article, as hath been showed, in clearing the acceptions of the word justification: and shall be showed more at large in handling the form of our justification, 2. The distinction of justification taken in their own sense, is falsely applied to St. james as if he spoke of the 2. justification, and to St. Paul as if he spoke of the first. For first a Lib. 4 dé Iust. cap. 18. Lorin 〈◊〉 jac. Bellarmine himself being judge St. james in the example of Rahab speaks of the first justification, because (as he sayeth) she was then, at the first made a believer of an infidel a righteous woman of an harlot. And again Paul, he speaks of the 2. justification in the example of Abraham, which is alleged by both the Apostles. here's then a confusion instead of a distiction. Paul speaks of the first, james speaks of the 2. and yet both do speak of both justifications. Again when they say james speaks of the second justification, whereby of just a man becomes more just, ti's a groundless imagination for as much as it was to no purpose for the Apostle james to treat of the second justification, whereby men grow better: when those Hypocrites, with whom he had to do, had erred from their first justification, whereby they were not, as yet, made good, as the learned b jackson of lust. Faith. S. 2. cap. 6. jackson observes. Nay there is not in all St. james his dispute, any s●llable, that may give any just suspicion that by justification, he means the increase of inhaerent justice. c Leeo supra ●●tat. Bellarmine catcheth at the clause. v. 22. (By works Faith was made perfect) which is, in the Jesuits construction, Abraham's inhaerent justice, begun by faith, received increase and perfection by his works) But this is only the jesuits' frenzy. Abraham his faith and his Righteousness, whereof his Faith is but a part, was not made but declared to be perfect, by so perfect a work) which it brought forth, as even Lorinus another of that sect expounds it orthodoxly. 3 Thirdly, that distinction of works done before Faith, without grace, and after Faith by grace, is to as little purpose, as the former; in this matter of our justification. Heretofore we have touched upon that distinction and showed the vanity thereof, in limiting St. Paul to works done without grace, when simply he concludes all works from our justification. And St. james though he require works of grace to be joined with that Faith which must justify us: yet he gives them not that place and office in our justification, from which Paul doth exclude them, and wherein our adversaries would establish them, as it shall appear anon. Leaving then this sophistical reconcilement coined by our adversaries I come to those reconciliations which are made by our divines; wherein we shall have better satisfaction upon better grounds. Two ways there are whereby this seeming difference is by our Men reconciled. 1. The 1. by distinguishing the word (● justification) which may be taken either 1, For the absolution of a Sinner in God's judgement. 2, For the declaration of a man's Righteousness before men. This distinction is certain and hath its ground in Scripture which useth the word justify in both acceptions, for the quitting of us in God's sight, and for the manifestation of our innocency before man against accusation or suspicion of faultiness. They apply this distinction for the reconciling of the two Apostles. Thus. St. Paul speaks of justification, (in foro Dei) S. james speaks of justification (in foro hominis) A man is justified by faith without works sayeth S. Paul: that is in God's sight, a man obtains remission of Sins and is reputed just only for his Faith in Christ, not for his works sake. A man is justified by works; and not by Faith only sayeth S. james that is, in man's sight we are declared to be just by our good works, not by our Faith only: which with other inward and invisible Graces, are made visible unto man only in the good works, which they see us perform. That this application is not unfit for to reconcile this difference, may be showed by the parts. 1. For S. Paul, ti's agreed on all sides that he speaks of man's justification in God's sight. Rom. 3. v. 20. 2. For S. james we are to show that with just probability he may be understood of the declaration of our justification and righteousness before men. For proof whereof the Text affords us these reasons. 1. Verse. 18. Show me thy Faith without thy Works and I will show thee my Faith by my works. Where the true Christian speaking to the Hypocritical boaster of his Faith, requires of him a declaration of his faith and justification thereby, by a real proof, not a verbal profession, promising for his part to manifest and approve the truth of his own Faith by his good works. Whence it appears, that before man, none can justify the soundness of his Faith: but by his works thene proceeding. 2. V. 21. Abraham is said to be justified when he offered up his son Isaak upon the Altar. Now ti's manifest that Abraham was justified in God's sight long before; even. 25. years Gen. 15. 6. Therefore by that admirable work of his in offering his Son he was declared before all the world to be a just man and a true Believer. And for this purpose did God tempt Abraham in that trial of his Faith: that thereby all believers, might behold a rare pattern of a lively and justifying Faith, and that Abraham was not without good cause called the Father of the Faithful. 3. V. 22. It is said that Abraham's faith wrought with his work and by works was his faith made perfect. Which in the judgement of popish a Lor●● in lacob. Expositors themselves, is to be understood of the manifestation of Abraham's faith by his works. His Faith directed his works: his works manifested the power and perfection of his Faith. It is not then without good probability of Reason, that Calvin and other Expositors on our side, have given this solution unto this doubt. b Lib. 4 cap. 18. Bellarmine labours against it and would fain prove that justification cannot be taken here pro declaratione justitiae. 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 truth is, that although this may be defended against any thing that our adversaries objected to the contrary: yet many and those very learned divines chose rather to tread in another path and more nearly to press 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, Gal. 5. 6. which is true and living (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Faith which worketh through love) and is fruitful in all manner of Obedience. 2. Secondly for that Faith which is false and dead, being only a bare acknowledgement of the truth, 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 certain by the Scriptures, as hath heretofore been showed in handling of that Grace. Our Men now apply it thus. S. Paul when he affirms that we are justified by Faith only, speaks of that Faith which is true and living working by Charity. S. james 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 works. So that the Apostles speak no contradictions, where Paul teacheth we are justified by a true Faith, and S. james affirms we are not justified by a false Faith. Again S. Paul saith we are not justified by works. S. james saith we are justified by Works. Neither is here any contradiction at all. For S. james understands by Works, a (working Faith) in opposition to the idle and dead Faith before-spoken of (by a Metonymy of the Effect.) Whence it is plain that these two Propositions (We are not justified by Works) which is Paul's, and (We are justified by a working Faith) which is james, do sweetly consort together. Paul severs Works from our justification, but not from our Faith. james joined Works to our Faith, but not to our justification. To make this a little plainer by a similitude or twain: There is great difference between these two sayings, (A Man lives by a Reasonable soul) and (A Man lives by Reason.) The former is true, and shows us what qualities and power are essential unto that soul, whereby a Man lives. But the later is false, because we live not by the quality, or power of Reason, though we live by that soul which hath that quality necessarily belonging to it, without which it is no humane soul. 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 Vegetative soul whereby Plants live, there be necessarily required to the (Being) of it, those 3 faculties of Nourishment, Growth, and Procreation: yet it is not the faculty of growing that gives life unto Plants, for they live when they grow not. In like manner. These two Propositions (we are justified by a working Faith) & (We are justified by Works) differ much. The first is true, and shows unto us what qualities are necessarily required unto the (Being) of that Faith, whereby the Just shall live. Namely, that beside the power of believing in the Promise, there be also an Habitual proneness and Resolution unto the doing of all good Works, joined with it. But the later Proposition is false. For although true Faith be equally as apt to work in bringing forth Universal Obedience to God's will; as it is apt to believe and trust perfectly unto God's promises: yet nevertheless we are not justified by it as it brings forth good Works; but as it embraceth the promises of the Gospel. Now than james affirms that which is true, that (We are justified by a working Faith,) and S. Paul denies that which is false: viz. (That we are justified by works. CHAP. II. The confirmation of the Orthodox reconciliation of S. Paul and S. james, by a Logical Analysis of S. james his disputation in his second Chapter. THis Reconciliation is the fairest, and hath the most certain grounds in the text. It will, I doubt not, appear so unto you, when it shall be cleared from these Cavils that can be made against it. There are but only two things in it that may occasion our Adversaries to quarrel. The first is touching the word (Faith) we say that S. james speaks of a false and counterfeit Faith. They say he speaks of that which is true, though Dead without Works. This is one point. a Bell. lib. 1. de ●ust. cap 15. The second is touching the interpretation of the word (Works) used by S. james when he saith, (We are justified by Works.) This we interpret by a Metonymy of the Effect for the Cause, We are justified by a working Faith, by that Faith which is apt to declare and show itself in all good Works. This interpretation may happily prove distasteful to their nicer Palates, who are very ready when it fits their humour, to grate sore upon the bare words and letter of a Text. These cavil removed, this reconciliation will appear to be sure and good. For the accomplishment of this I suppose nothing will be more commodious, then to present unto you a brief resolution of the whole dispute of S. james touching Faith, that by a plain and true exposition thereof we may more easily discover the cavils and sophistical forgeries wherewith our Adversaries have pestered this place of Scripture. The disputation of S. james begins at the 14. v. of the second Chapt. to the end thereof. The scope and sum whereof is. A sharp reprehens●ion of hypocritical Faith of vain Men as they are called (v. 20) Which in the Apostles time under pretence of Religion thought they might live as they list. Two extremes there were, whereunto these jews, to whom the Apostle writes, were misled by false teachers and their own corruptions. The 1. That notwithstanding Faith in Christ; they were bound to fulfil 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 believed the Gospel, acknowledging the Articles of Religion for true, & made an outward profession all should be well, albeit in the mean Time Sanctity and sincere Obedience were quite neglected. The former Error brought them in Bondage: this made them licentious pleasing heresy if any other, whereof there were and will be always store of sectaries who content themselves to have a form of Godliness, but deny the power thereof. Against such hypocrites & vain Boasters of false Faith and false Religion, S. james disputes in this place, showing plainly that such men leaned on a staff of Reed, deceiving their own selves with a counterfeit & shadow of true Christian Faith instead of the substance. The reproof with the main Reason is expressed by way of interrogation in the (14. v.) What doth it profit my Brethren, though a Man say he have (as many than did, and always will say, boasting falsely of that which they have not in truth,) And have not works; that is, Obedience to God's Will, whereby to approve that Faith he boasts of? Can that Faith save him? so that Faith without Works a saving Faith, that will bring a Man to Heaven? These sharp Interrogations must be resolved into their strong Negations. And so we have these two Propositions. 1 Containing the main sum of the Apostle's dispute: The other a general Reason of it. The 1 Arg. of S. james. is this. Faith without Obedience is unprofitable. The second proving the first, is this. Faith without Obedience will not save a Man. The whole Argument is. That Faith which will not save a man is unprofitable, of no use. But the Faith which is without Obedience will not save: Ergo Faith without Obedience is unprofitable. The Mayor of this Argument will easily be granted. Th●t it is an unprofitable Faith which will not bring a Man to life and Happiness. But how doth S. james prove the Minor. That a Faith without works will not do that? though it scarce need any proof▪ yet because hypocrisy is ever armed with sophistry, for a plainer Conviction, the Apostle proves it by this manner of Argumentation. That Faith which saves a Man is a true Faith. But a Faith without works is not a true Faith. Ergo A Faith without works will not save a Man. The Maier is evident to all that have Reason. The Minor S. james proves by divers Arguments. 1. drawnet pari, from comparison with another like virtue. Namely Charity towards the poor. The Argument is thus. If Charity towards the poor professed in Words, but without works be counterfeit, than Faith in God professed in like manner without Obedience is also counterfeit not true. But Charity towards the poor 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 mayor Proposition is evident, from the similitude that is between all Virtues and Graces. There is no virtue, but men may counterfeit and falsely arrogate it to themselves; as they may boast of a false Faith, so also (as Solomon and experience speaks) of a false Liberality, false Valour, false Prudence, etc. Now there is but one way to discover this counterfeiting in any kind, and that is to go from words to works, from praesumptions and boastings to actions. This way all count most certain, nor will any man believe words against works, or be persuaded by fair speeches, that the habits of virtues and graces be truly seated in his mind, whose tongue tells us they be so: but his do confute his sayings. Wherefore the Apostle in his comparison proceeds on an undeniable ground. Now for the minor (that the Charity which is rich in good words, and poor in almesdeeds, is not true but counterfeit pity) the Apostle shows by an ordinary instance (If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food) that is. If a believing Christian want food and raiment or other necessaries (and one of you say unto them, depart in peace, and be ye warmed and filled) If he give him kind words, Alas poor soul I pity thee and wish thee well, I Would I had to give thee, go in God's name where thou mayest be relieved, and so let him pass with a few pitiful Compliments, notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful for the body: what doth it profit. Is the poor man's back ever the warmer? or his belly the ●●ller, with a few windy compliments? Can such a man persuade any that he hath in him indeed the bowels of mercy and compassion towards the needy, when they find such cold entertainment at his Gates: 'Tis manifest that this is but a mere mockery, and that such pitiful words come not from a heart that's truly merciful. The Apostle now applies this touching Charity, unto Faith. v. 17. Even so Faith if it have not works is dead being alone. As that Charity, so also that Faith which men profess without Obedience is false and feigned, and therefore unprofitable to save a man. It is dead: How must this be understood? Faith is a quality of the soul, and qualities are then said 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. james sayeth that Faith is dead being alone: his meaning should be that Faith severed from works, is no Faith at all: but quite extinguished. Now this is not so. For there's a Faith severed from works in Hypocrites, Haeretiques, Reprobates and Devils. Which Faith is a general assent to all divine truths: and this Faith in them hath a true being, but no saving use. Wherefore. it is called ● dead faith in regard of the effect: because 'tis nothing available to bring them in whom it is, to Life and Salvation as a true and liu●ng Faith is. here our Adversaries have much strange Contemplation, telling us that Faith without works though it be a dead Faith, yet 'tis a true Faith. Even as an Instrument is a true Instrument, though it be not used. So that in their Philosophy ti's one and the same true Faith which is dead without, and living with works. Even as 'tis one and the same Body which lives with the Soul and is dead without it: or as water is the same whether it stand still in a Cistern or run in a River. Whence they proceed to discourse that Charity is the form of Faith: and conclude that it is not the inward and Essential form of it, as the Soul is the form of a man (for that works are not essential to Faith) nor the accidental form as whiteness is of Paper; because Faith according to their Schools, is in the understanding, and Charity in the will▪ But it is the external Form of it, because it gives to Faith a merit and worthiness for the deserving of Heaven. These fond speculations of the Form and merit of Faith I pass by now, having touched upon them heretofore. To that which they say. That a living Faith, and a dead Faith is one and the same true Faith: 'tis utterly false, they differ as much as Light and Darkness. 1. In their subject. a dead Faith is in the Reprobate Men and Devils. A living Faith only in the Elect. 2. In their Object. A dead Faith assents to divine Revelations as barely true or good only in the general: a living Faith assents to them, as truer and better in themselves; 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 devil; of ordinary illumination as in Reprobate Men. A living Faith is a sanctifying Grace, a part of inhaerent holiness wrought in the heart by the special power of the Holy Ghost. All which have been heretofore cleared in handling the Nature of Faith. Wherefore unto those arguments or Sophisms rather, which a Lib. 1. de Iust. cap. 15. Bellarmine brings to prove that james speaks of a true divine, infused, Catholic, Christian Faith, though it be dead faith; I answer briefly. 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 devils, in whom it is, and ti's directed toward true objects: But it is not that true Faith which is Catholic Christian & saving. This is of another kind, and in comparison of this, that other is but a mere shadow and counterfeit resemblance of true Faith. Wherefore when those Hypocrites accounted themselves to have that faith which is truly Christian and saving, S. james shows them, that this their faith which was alone naked of Obedience, was nothing so: but a Faith of another kind, a dead faith, having only a false show of a true and living faith. This of the first Argument. 2 The 2 2d Arg. of S. james. Argument is contained. v. 18. being drawn from an impossibility, in proving the truth of it. The Argument stands thus. That Faith, which is truly Christian may be shown and proved so to be. But a Faith without works cannot be demonstrated to be a true faith. Ergo. A Faith without works is no true Faith. The major is omitted as most evident of itself. Because there is no moral virtue, or grace of the Holy Ghost truly planted in the heart: but it may be known by some external Actions, which it is apt to bring forth. Even as life is known by breathing, or beating of the Pulse. The truth of an invisible Grace hath its demonstration in visible works. But now for the Minor, S. james proves that Faith without Obedience cannot appear by any proof to be true faith. Which he doth in a Dialogue between a true believer and a Hypocrite. Yea a man may say, thou hast Faith, and I have Works show me thy faith without works, and I will show thee my faith by my works. That is. Thou sayest thou hast a true Faith, though thou hast no works: I say I have true faith because I have works. Come we now to the trial, and let it appear who sayeth true, thou or I. If thou sayest true; prove thy Faith by something or other to be true. Show me thy Faith 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 give no good reason of this she is so doing. The change was easy from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. without thy wotkes. Works thou hast none, whereby to show thy faith, make it then appear by something else. But that's impossible. Where works are wanring, there's no demonstration else whereby to justify the truth of faith. And therefore thou art driven to confess that thou vainly boastest of that which thou hast not. But on the otherside (sayeth the true Believer) I can make good, that which I say, proving that my faith is true by my works. I will show thee my faith by my works. My sincere Obedience is a real demonstration: that my belief is no verbal ostentation and vain brag. This proof of S. james is very convincing, and gripes the Consciences of Hypocrites, smiting them with shame and confusion when they come to this trial; and so have their false and fraudulent hearts laid open. But here it will be asked what works do demonstrate the truth of faith, and also how they do prove it. Whereto we answer Works are of two sorts. 1. Ordinary, such works of Sanctity & Obedience, as are required to a holy Conversation. 2. Extraordinary. viz, Miracles. We say S. james understands the former, and those only: our adversaries conclude both. But erroneously, for as much as S. james speaks not of the doctrine of faith, but of the Grace of faith. The Grace requires good works of Piety and Charity as perpetually necessary for the conmirmation of its Truth. So doth not the doctrine of Faith always require Miraculous works for the confirmation of its divinity: But oney at the first publication thereof. Wherefore Lorinus is very ridiculous, who upon this place tells us, that they may justly demand of us Haeretiques (For so they bedust us) Miracles for the confirmation of our new and false Doctrine. Indeed were it new and false their request were not unreasonable, that we should make our doctrine credible by doing of Miracles. But sure the jesuit judgeth of our doctrine by his own, which did he not suspect for a new Error, we see no reason they should still require Miracles for confirmation of an old Truth For ourselves we seek not the aid of a lying Wonder to uphold a true doctrine: nor do 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 jesuit out of a De lib. arbi● Erasmus scoffs at us. Now surely if such a beast as Bellarmine's devout Mare, want help to set her on all four, we cannot be yet so well persuaded of that virtue of Romish Faith, as to think that a Friar will do more good at such a jadish miracle, than a Farrier. But whereas the jesuit goes forward to require of us the other sort of good works, of Piety and Charity for the demonstration of our Faith he hath reason so to do, though not so much as he imagines, when he chargeth us with neglect of good Works and unbridled licentiousness. Would to God we could clear our practice from such neglect, as well as we can our doctrine from teaching it. But yet, by their favour, if we come to comparisons, we know no Reason why we should run behind the door, as more ashamed of our practices, than they may justly be of theirs, in which case we boldly bid him amongst them; that is without sin to cast the first stone at us. To proceed. Seeing Works of Obedience are the proofs of a true Faith, it must be considered in what sort they prove it. For may not good Works be counterfeited as well as Faith? I answer. That in this trial the judgement of verity & infallibility belongeth unto God, who only knows the heart and conscience, being able to discern every secret working of the Soul, and so to judge exactly whether or no all outward appearances come from inward sincerity. But for the judgement of Charity that belongs to us. If we behold in any man the Works 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 far as humane frailty will give leave, judge also not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgement. men's practices must be examined: if hypocrisy bewray itself, (as 'tis hard for a Sergeant not to forget himself at some one time or other, if he be duly observed) there Charity must not be blind: it must see and censure it. 'Tis not a charitable, but a perverse judgement to call evil good: nor is it any offence to call that a barren or bad Tree, that bears either no fruit at all, or none but bad; And thus of this second Argument of the Apostle, that these Hypocrites Faith was vain, because, when it comes to the proof, it cannot be justified to be found and good. 3 The 3 Arg of ●. james. Argument is v. 19 from the example of the devils themselves, in whom there is a Faith without Works, as well in hypocrites: and ergo it is in neither of them a true Faith. The Argument is brought in to confute a Cavil with the hypocrite might make against the former reason. True might he say, I cannot show my Faith by my Works: yet for all that I have a true Faith. And why? Because I believe the Articles of Religion, that there is one God, with the rest. Hereto the Apostle replies. That such a belief is not a true Christian Faith, because it is to be found even in the devils. The Argument runs thus. That faith which is in the devils is no true Christian faith. But a bare assent to the Articles of Religion without Obedience is in the Devils. Ergo A bare assent without Obedience is no true Christian faith. The Mayor of this Argument will easily be granted. That the devils have not that true Faith which is required of a Christian Man to his salvation. The Minor is also evident. That the devils do believe the Articles of Christian Religion. S. james instances in one for the rest, namely the Article of the Godhead, whereto the Devil's assent aswell as Hypocritical Men. Thou believest that there is one God, saith the true believer to the hypocrite, pleading that he believed the Articles of Faith, Thou dost well. 'Tis a laudable and good thing to acknowledge the Truth of Religion. But withal thou must know that the devils deserve as much commendation for this belief, as thou dost. The devils also believe. Even they confess the Truth of that and the other Articles of Religion. An evident proof whereof is this, that they tremble at the power, wrath, and justice of God, and the remembrance of the last judgement, which did they not believe, they would not fear: but now they expect it with Horror, because they know it will come upon them. Whence 'tis plain that the Faith of Hypocrites and devils is all one, neither better than other, both unfruitful to bring forth Obedience, both unprofitable to bring unto salvation, and therefore neither of them that true Faith, which is Christian and saving. This Argument of the Apostles, pincheth our Adversary's sore, who stiffly maintain that S. james speaks of a True, though of a dead Faith. For they can not for shame say that there is a true Faith in the devils and damned Spirits. But yet S. james hath concluded that they have that dead Faith which hypocrites boast of. What then? Then a dead Faith is no true faith, as our a Bell. lib. 1. d● justif. cap. 15. Adversaries affirm it is. Wherefore to help themselves, they deny that it is one and the same dead Faith, which is in hypocrites and evil Spirits. Indeed ex parte obiecti, they grant that the Faith of devils is as true and catholic as that of wicked Men, because they both believe the the same things. And also in regard of the effects, they grant their Faith to be alike, because both be unfruitful. But not ex parte subiecti, so they say there's much difference. The Faith of devils is of one sort, and the Faith of hypocrites of another. But here they make a little to bold with the blessed Apostle, overturning the force of his argument, to uphold their own fancy. The Apostle proves against Hypocrites that their idle Faith without Obedience is not true saving Faith. Why? Because the devil's idle Faith destitute of Obedience is no true saving Faith. But now. Is the Faith of devils & hypocrites of the same kind and Nature. Yea, or no? No, they be not, they be of a divers nature, say the Adversaries. Let it be then considered, what force there is in the Apostle's Argument. Faith without works in Devils saves them not. Ergo Faith without works in wicked Men, saves them not. Might not one prompted by a jesuit, reply upon the Apostle. Nay by your leave, your Argument is inconsequent, because you do not dispute, ad idem. Faith in the devils is of one kind, Faith in Hypocrites is of another: & therefore though Faith without works cannot save devils; yet Faith without works may save Men. Thus were the Apostle's Argument laid in the dust, if these men's Opinions may stand for good. But would you know what distinction these Men make between the faith of devils and wicked Men, which St james takes for the same. 'Tis thus. First the Faith of Evil Men is free, the Faith of devils is compelled and extorted from them by a kind 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. Daemons credunt, & contremiscunt. Nos enim non credimus contremiscentes, id est, inviti & coacti, sed spontè & libentèr. Wicked Men believe freely and willingly. Why? Because their pious and godly Will captivates their understanding to the Obedience of Christ, so causing it to assent unto the Truth. The devils believe upon compulsion, being forced to it by the Evidence of the things themselves. Which Saint james intimates, They believe and tremble: that is, they believe against their Wills. Is not this a shameless jesuit that will say any thing to patch up a broken cause? For be not these absurd Contradictions to say, that wicked Men have godly Wills, that by a pious Motion of the Will, their understanding is captivated to the Obedience of Christ, and yet they be hypocrites and wicked Men still. No Man can relish such assertions, who knows 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 affirm that wicked Men believe willingly, and 'tis against all experience, which shows that ungodly Men are utterly as unwilling to believe any truth that makes against them in any kind whatsoever; as a bear is to be brought to the stake. Indeed in matters that like them, or such as be of an indifferent Nature, neither favouring nor crossing their Corruptions, they'll be apt to believe, though not out of a pious affection, as the jesuit dreams: but out of self-love and other selfe-considerations. But take them in any other point of Religion, that doth any way grate upon their wicked affections, all the persuasion and instruction in the World, cannot work them to a belief of it, till the Conscience (spite of their hearts) be convicted by some notable Evidence of the Truth. Now what else can be said of the devils; who will as willingly believe what makes for them, (if any thing did) or what makes not against them; as any wicked man can do? And they are as unwilling to believe any thing, that makes against them, as any wicked Man is. Nor would they believe it, did not the clearness of divine Revelations convince them of the certain Truth thereof. So that there is no difference at all in this respect, as the one, so the other believe unwillingly; as devils, so wicked Men believe with trembling. The devils indeed with greater horror, as their belief and knowledge is always more distinct than Man's: but yet Men with horror too, when their Consciences by fits are awakened to behold the woes, that are coming upon them. Unto this difference of c Becanus. Bell. others add two more. Namely: 1 That the Faith of devils is natural; that of wicked Men supernatural and infused. 2 That the Faith of Devils 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 devils is not supernatural except it be in regard of the object. The faculties which they received in their creation are not so far corrupted in them: but that they are able to assent unto, and apprehend divine Revelations without further help, then of their own natural Abilities. Man in his fall sustained greater loss in the spiritual powers of his soul, & therefore stan●s in need of help. Which help is afforded even unto the ungodly; but this is by ordinary illumination, not by special infusion of any sanctifying Grace. Enlightened they are above the ordinary pitch of natural blindness: but not above that whereto a mere natural understanding may be advanced. Yea were Man's Understanding raised up to that perfection which is in devils: this were more than Nature, yet less than Grace. This common gift of Illumination bestowed on wicked Men, but not on devils, is no proof that their Faith is of a divers kind. As to the last difference we are not so far studied in Moralities, as to conceive wherein the dishonesty of the devil's Faith, and the honesty of Hypocrites Faith doth lie. To ordinary understanding it seems every way as honest & commendable a matter, for a wicked fiend, as for a wicked Man, to believe what God reveals unto him. If not, we must expect to be further informed by these Jesuits Men that are better read in that part of Ethics, whether diabolical or hypocritical. 4. 4 〈◊〉 of S. james. 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 repeats his main Conclusion. That Faith without Obedience is a false and dead Faith. But wilt thou know O a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as an empty Vessel without liquor vain Man (or hypocrite) that Faith without works is dead? v. 20. For the convincing of him further, he proceeds to a new Argument to prove it unto him. The Argument is this. That Faith which will not justify a Man is a false and dead Faith. But the Faith which is without works will not justify. a Man. Ergo 'Tis a dead and a false Faith. The Mayor the Apostle omits as most evident of itself. The Minor he proves by an induction of two Examples. Thus. If Abraham and Rahab were justified by a working faith, thou that Faith which is alone without works will not justify. But A●raham and Rahab were so justified, viz. by a working Faith. Ergo Faith without works will not justify a man. The Reason of the Consequence is manifest. Because as Abraham and Rahab: so all other must be justified. The means of justification and Life, were ever one and the same for all men. Which also the Apostle intimates in that clause v. 21. Was not our Father Abraham etc. implying that as the Father, so also the children, the whole stock and generation of the Faithful, were and are still justified by one uniform means. The two instances the Apostle urges, that of Abraham. v. 21. 22. 23. that of Rahab. v. 25. The conclusion with equally issues from them both, he interserts in the midst, after the allegation of Abraham's Example. v. 24. I shall go over them as they lie in the Text. In the example of Abraham, the Apostle v. 21. sets down this proposition. That Abraham was justified by a working Faith. For this interrogatives Was not our Father Abraham justified by works? must be resolved into an affirmative Abraham our Father was justified by works. That is a working Faith. Which proposition the Apostle confirmeth by its parts. 1. Showing that Abraham's Faith was an operative faith declared and approved by his works. Secondly, proving that by such a working Faith Abraham was justified in God's sight. That the faith of Abraham was operative, full of life and power to bring forth Obedience unto God, the Apostle allegeth one instance instead of all the ●est to prove it. And that is that singular work of Obedience unto God's command. When he offered up his son Isaak upon the Altar. Many other works there were performed by Abraham abundantly justifying the truth of his Faith: But the Apostle chooseth this above all other, as that work which was of purpose enjoined him by God for a trial of his faith. Wherein Abraham mightily overcoming all those strong temptations to disobedience and infidelity, made it appear, that his faith was not an idle, dead and empty Speculation, but an active and working Grace. Wherefore the Apostle adds ver. 22. Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? That is as in other works of that holy Patriarch, so specially in that sacrificing his son, all that can see, may plainly behold, the strength and life of his faith. Faith wrought with his works. That is. His faith directed and supported him in the doing of that work, as the Apostle Paul expounds it. Heb. 11. 17 By faith Abraham offered up Isaac: that work had not been done, if faith had not wrought it. In every circumstance thereof faith did all in all from the beginning of the work to the end. This interpretation is most simple and generally received. Faith wrought with: That is. In or by his works, unto 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 works wrought. What? his justification. But this construction seems somewhat hard and not necessary for this place. The other sense is much plainer, showing us by or with what virtue Abraham's works were wrought. viz. By the virtue of his faith, which in most powerful manner incited and enabled him to obey. The Apostle goes forward, And by works was faith made perfect. That is declared to be perfect. b 〈…〉 For works did not perfect Abraham's Faith essentially, in as much as long before this time, it was perfect, as is plain in that Abraham was justified by it 25 years before the oblation of his son Isaac, and also by the strength of his Faith had done many excellent works and obtained great blessings at the hand of God. So that the offering up of Isaac was not the cause but a fruit of the perfection of Abraham's Faith, the great difficulty of that work showed the singular petfection of that Grace which was able so to encounter and conquer it. The goodness of the fruit doth not work, but declare the goodness that is in the tree; the qualities of the fruits always depending upon the nature of the Tree: but not on the contrary. Thus than the first part of the Proposition is plainly proved by the Apostle. That Abraham's Faith was a lively and working Faith declaring and approving its own truth by the works 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 believed God, and it was imputed unto him for Righteousness. The application of this testimony is very heedfully to be observed, because it serves excellently for the clearing of the Apostles meaning, when he sayeth we are justified by works. And the Scripture was fulfilled sayeth S. james. When? At the time, that Isaac was offered. But was it not fulfilled before that time? Yes. Many years, when the promise of the blessed seed was made unto him, as appears Gen. 15. 6. Whence this testimony is taken. How was it then fulfilled at the oblation of Isaac? Thus. The Truth of that which was verified before, was then again confirmed by a new and evident experiment. Well. Thus much is plain enough. But here now the difficulty is, how this Scripture is applied unto the Apostles former dispute. In the 21. v. He sayeth that Abraham was justified by Works when he offered Isaac. How proves he, that he was so justified? why by this testimony. Because the Scripture was fulfilled at that time, which sayeth, Abraham believed God etc. Mark then the Apostle's Argument. When Abraham offered Isaac the Scripture was fulfilled which sayeth Abraham was justified by faith. For that's the mea●ing of that Scripture. Ergo, Abraham when he offered Isaac● was justified by works. This at first sight seems far set, and not only beside, but quite contrary to the Apostles purpose to prove he was then justified by works, because the Scripture sayeth, he was then justified by Faith. But upon due consideration, in●erence appears to be evident, and the agreement easy. The Apostle and the Scripture alleged, have one and the same meaning: the Scripture sayeth. He was justified by Faith, meaning, as all confess, a working Faith fruitful in Obedience. S. james affirms the very same, saying, that he was justified by works, that is. Metonymically by a working Faith▪ And therefore the Apostle rightly allegeth the Scripture for confirmation of his assertion: the Scripture witnessing. That by Faith he was justified; the Apostle expounding what manner of Faith it means. Namely a Faith with works or a working Faith. So that the application of this Testimony unto that time of offering up of Isaac is most excellent: because than it appeared manifestly what manner of Faith it was, wherefore God had accounted him just in former times. Without this Metonymy it appears 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 Works. What consequence is there in this Argument except we expound S. james by that metonymy, Works, that is a working Faith? And so the Argument holds firm. Take it otherwise, as our adversaries would have it, or, to speak truth, according to the former interpretation of our divines; it breeds an absurd construction either way. Abraham in offering Isaac was justified by works, that is, secundâ justificatione of good he was made better. How is that proved? By Scripture. Because the Scripture sayeth. That at that time he was justified by faith. That is, primâ justificatione of bad he became good. Is not this most apparent Nonsense. Again according to the Interpretations of our divines, Abraham at the offering up of Isaac was justified by works (that is, say they) declared just before men. How is that proved? by Scripture. Because the Scripture sayeth. That at that time, he was justified by Faith. that is, accounted just in God's sight. In which kind of arguing I must confess I apprehend not how there is any tolerable consequence. Wherefore we expound S. james metonymically, putting the effect for the cause; works, for a working Faith, as the necessary connexion of the text enforced us. Nor is there any harshness at all, nor violent straining in this figure, when two things of necessary and near dependence one upon the other, (as works, and a working Faith) are put one for another. Neither have our adversaries more cause to complain of us for this figurative interpretation of works, than we have of them for their figurative interpretation of faith. For when we are said to be justified by faith, they understand it dispositiuè & meritoriè not formaliterè Faith in itself is not our sanctification, nor yet the cause of it. But it merits the bestowing of it, and disposeth us to receive it. Let reason judge now, which is the harsher exposition. Theirs? faith justifies (that is) Faith is a disposition in us deserving that God should sanctify us by infusion of the habit of Charity. Or ours? Works justify, that is, the Faith whereby we are acquitted in God's sight, is a working Faith. Thus much of this Testimony of Scripture proving that Abraham was justified by a true and working faith, In the next place the Apostle shows it by a visible effect or Consequent that followed upon his justification expressed in the next words: And he was called the friend of God. A high prerogative, for God the Creator to reckon of a poor mortal Man as his familiar friend; but so entire and true was the faith of Abraham, so upright was his heart, that God not only graciously accounted it to him for Righteousness: but also in token of that gracious acceptance entered into a league with Abraham taking him for his especial friend and confederate; A League offensive and defensive. God would be a Friend to Abraham [Thou shalt be a blessing] and a friend of Abraham's Friends. I will bless them that bless thee; 〈…〉 and an Enemy of Abraham's enemies: I will curse them that u●se thee. Which League of friendship with Abraham before the offering up of Isaac was thereupon by solemn protestation and oath renewed, as we have it Gen. 22. v. 16. etc. Thus we have this first example of Abraham. From thence the Apostle proceeds to a general conclusion in the next verse (24) Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by Faith only. That is. Therefore it is evident. That a man is justified by a working faith: not by a faith without works. Which metonymical interpretation is again confirmed by the inference of this conclusion upon the former verse. The Scripture sayeth, That Abraham believed God and it was imputed unto him for Righteousness. Ergo (sayeth ● james) Ye see how a man is justified by works and not by Faith only. A man might here say. Nay rather. We see the contrary. That a man is justified by faith only and not by works. For in that place of Scripture there is no mention at all made of Works. Wherefore of necessity we must understand them both in the same sense. And so the conclusion follows directly. That every man is justified by an active not an idle Faith, because the Scripture witnesseth, that Abraham was justified by the like Faith. Our Adversary's collection then from this place. (That Faith and Works be compartners in justification, we are 〈◊〉 partly by faith, partly by works) is vain & inconsequent. For when the Apostle says, A Man is justified by works and not by faith only: his meaning is not, that works and faith are two Coordinate causes by their joint-force-working our justification; but the Apostle utterly excludes Faith only from justification, and attributes it wholly unto works. For by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Faith only, he understands faith alone, that faith which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 17. alone, solitary, by itself, without works. And such a dead faith whereof these hypocrites boasted. S. james excludes wholly from justifying of a man. I say then that he is not justified by faith only: but that he is justified by works. That is a working faith that is fruitful in Obedience. The Apostle goes forward from the Example of Abraham unto that of Rahab verse. 2 Example, 25. Likewise was not Rahab the Harlot justified by works? That is in the same manner as Abraham: so also Rahab was justified by a working saith. Which appeared to be so by that which she did when she received the messengers, entertained the two spies which were sent to search the land, lodged them in her house without discovering them. And when by accident they were made known, hid them secretly upon the roof, and afterwards sent them out another way, conveied them away privily, not by the usual, but by another way (that is) through the window letting them down over the wall by a Cord as the story hath it. jos. 2. In this dangerous enterprise, wherein this weak woman ventured her life in succouring the Enemies of her King and Country: it appears plainly that she had a strong and lively 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 Heaven above and in the Earth beneath. josh. 2. 11.) proceeded from a truly believing heart, insomuch as her words were made good by works, that followed them. Wherefore the Apostle justly parallels these 2 examples of Abraham offering his son; and Rahab in the kind usage of the Spies, because both those facts were singular trials of a lively faith which was able in that sort to overcome what was hardest to be conquered. viz. Natural affection. In Abraham both fatherly affection to the life of a dear and only son: and in Rahab the Natural love to ones Country and a man's own Life did all stoop and give way, when once true Faith commands Obedience. Here again our adversaries trouble themselves, and the Text with needless speculations telling us, that now the Apostle hath altered his cliff, and gone from the second justification in Abraham's example, to the first justification in this of Rahab. That Rahab was converted at this time of receiving the spies being made a believer of an infidel, a good woman of a bad. That she by this good work did expiate her former sins and merited the grace and favour of God, notwithstanding that she committed a venial sin in handling of the business, telling a downright lie, which though she should not have done; yet it hindered not the meritoriousnes of the work, with such other fond imaginations perverting the simplicity of the Truth. But first they are not agreed among themselves whether the Apostle do in that sort shift from one justification to another. Bellarmine affirms it and many more. But others deny it, as may be seen in Lorinus his exposition of the. 21. v. of this Chapter. And were they agreed upon 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 sayeth he, was Rahab justified: viz. as Abraham was. Again when they say Rahab became a true believer at that time of receiving the spies, not before, 'tis more than they can prove. By the circumstances of the story it appears plainly, that she believed before they came, by the relation of the great works which God had done for his people, and the promises that were made unto them, that they should possess Rahabs' country. This bred fear in others: but faith in her, by the secret working of the holy Ghost: See joshua 2. 9 etc. And certainly; (had she not had Faith, before the spies came, who can think she would have given entertainment to such dangerous persons? But she knew them to be the Servants of the God of Israel in whom she believed; and therefore by this a Heb. 11. 31. Faith she received them peaceably; though Enemies of her Country. Lastly to that of the Merit●riousnes of the work of Rahab, to deserve Grace and Life eternal; we reject it, not only as a vain but an impious conceit, which never entered into the humble hearts of the S●. of old: but hath been set on foot in the last corrupt ages of the world by men drunken with self-love, and admiration of their own Righteousness. Thus we have these 2 Examples whereby the Apostle hath proved sufficiently, that the Faith which is separated from Obedience, will not justify a Man, & therefore that it is a dead Faith, and not a true living Faith according as was proposed. v. 20. Now for a close of this whole dispute he again repeats 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 works is dead, that is, As the Body without the Spirit, i. e. the Souls, or the Breath and other Motion (is dead) unable to perform any living action whatsoever: So Faith without works is dead; that is, utterly unable to perform these living actions, which belong unto it. What are those? Two. 1. To repose it steadfastly upon the promise of life in Christ, which is the proper immediate living Action of Faith. 2. To justify a Man in the sight of God, which by a special privilege is the consequent of the former. These living actions cannot be performed by that Faith which is dead, being destitute of good works. That Faith which hath not power to bring forth Obedience, is thereby declared to be a dead Faith, devoid of all power to embrace the promise with confidence and reliance as also to justify. A Man would think this were plain enough, and needed not to be troubled with any further Cavillations. But 'tis strange what a coil our Adversaries make with this similitude, writhing and straining it to such Conclusions as the Apostle never intende●▪ Hence they gather. 1. That as the Soul gives life to the Body, as the ●●rme of the Body: so Works give life to Faith as the form of it 2 That as the Body is the same true Body without the Soul & with it: so Faith is one and the same true Faith without works and with them, which are nothing but sophistical speculations besides the purpose of the Text. The Apostle intends nothing but to show the Necessity of the Copulation of a living Faith and Obedience together: by the similitude of the like Necessity of the union of a living Body, and the Soul. But his purpose is not to show, that the manner of their Connection is the same, that just in every point as the Soul is to the Body, or the Body to the Soul: so Works are unto Faith, and Faith unto Works. It sufficeth to his intent, that as in the absence of the Soul, the Body: so in the absence of Obedience, Faith is dead. But thence it follows not, that works by their presence do the same thing to Faith; as the Soul to the Body by its presence; or that Faith in the absence of Works remains the same; as the Body doth in the absence of the Soul. If we must needs be tied to the strict terms of the Similitude: let us a little examine the comparison, and we shall see our Adversaries all fly off first from it. Let the comparison be first thus. Between the Body and the Soul, Faith and Works as the terms be in the Text. As the Body without the Soul is dead because the Soul gives life, i. e sense, breathing, and all other Motion to the Body. So Faith without Works is dead, because Works give life unto Faith. But now this Comparison will not run on all four. For Works are not unto Faith as the Soul is to the Body; but as sense and motion is to the Body. Seeing Works are external acts, not internal habits: and so are proportionable not to the Soul, but to the living actions thence issuing. Wherefore 'tis as absurd to say, that Works give life unto Faith, as 'tis ridiculous to affirm, that Sense & Motion give life to the Body, which are not Causes; but Effects & signs of Life. Therefore when Faith without Works is dead, 'tis not spoken in that sense, because Works give life to Faith, as the Soul doth to the Body. L●● then the Comparison be thus. Between the Body and the Soul. Faith and Charity. As the Body without the Soul is dead, because the Soul is the form of the body, and gives life to it. So Faith without Charity is dead, because Charity is the Form of Faith, and gives life to it. But neither will the Comparison hold upon these terms. For 1. our Adversaries here put in Charity the habit, for Works the act: which is more than themselves ought to do, seeing they will tie us at short Bits, to the very letter of the Text. For though we can be content to admit that interpretation, would they admit of the Apostle's plain meaning, & not strain for quirks: yet seeing they argue so precisely from the Words of the Comparison, they must not now have liberty from us to go from them, but be content to take the Words as they lie in the Text, and make their best of them. Yet seeing 'tis most senseless to make Works (that is) external Actions the Form of Faith an internal habit: let them take Charity instead of them, an internal habit likewise, Will it be any better now? belike so. Then 'tis thus. As the Soul is the Form of the Body: so Charity is the form of Faith. and as the Soul gives life and action to the Body, so Charity unto Faith. Will they stand to this? No. Here again they fly off in both Comparisons. Charity is one habit, Faith another distinct between themselves, and therefore they deny, as there's good reason, that Charity is either the Essential form of Faith, as the Soul of the living Body: or the accidental Form, as whiteness of Paper. They say 'tis only an external Form. But this now is not to keep close to the Apostle's comparison, but to run from it at their pleasure, when they fall upon an absurdity in pressing of it so strictly. The Soul is no external, but an internal essential Form, & therefore Charity must be so, if all run round. Again doth Charity give life or living actions unto Faith as the Soul doth unto the Body? Neither dare they hold close to this Comparison. For the proper work or action of Faith is to assent unto the Truth of divine revelations, because of God's authority, as themselves teach. Whence now comes this assent? From the Habit of Faith, or of Charity? They grant that it comes immediately from the Habit of Faith, which produceth this action, even when it's severed from Charity. Then 'tis plain that it is not Charity that gives life to Faith, which can perform the proper action that belongs to it, without its help. How then doth Charity give life unto Faith? For this, they have a silly conceit. Charity gives Life, that is Merit unto Faith. The belief, or assent unto divine Truth is meritorious if it be with Charity. If without, then 'tis not meritorious, This is a fine toy, wherein again they run quite from the Comparison of the Apostle. For the Soul gives living Actions to the Body, not only the Qualifications of the Actions: and so Charity is not like the Soul, because it gives only the qualification of Merit unto the Action of Faith, & not the action itself. Beside. A most vain interpretation it is, without any ground from Scripture, to say a living Faith, (that is) a meritorious Faith: when even in common sense, the life of any habit consists only in a power to produce those actions, that naturally and immediately depend upon 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 than Faith make Charity meritorious, seeing in this life there is no such praeeminency of Charity above Faith? Wherefore we despise these speculative Sophisms, which with much fair glozing, our Adversaries draw from the Text: but yet when all comes to the Trial, themselves will not stand to the strict application of the similitude, because it breeds absurdities, which even themselves abhor. Now if they take liberty to qualify and interpret, they must give us leave to do so too, or if they will not we shall take it. To shut up all. Their other Collection is as weak 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 material things which have a divers being from different Causes, it may hold. But 'tis not so in Virtues and Graces. Truth and Life are both essential to such qualities. True Charity is a living Charity (i. e.) active, as the Apostle himself proves. v. 15. True Valerio- Valour. And so of every virtuous quality, if it be true, 'tis living and stirring in Action: if it be otherwise, 'tis counterfeit, some other thing that hath only a shadow of it. All these Tricks are pin upon the Apostle to pervert his plain meaning; viz: That as it is necessary to the being of a living body that it be coupled with the ●oule, so 'tis necessary to the being of a living true Christian Faith, that it bring forth Works of Obedience. SECT. 7. CHAP. I. None can be justified by their own satisfaction for the transgression of the Law. A brief sum of Popish doctrine, concerning humane satisfactions for sin. THus we have the resolution of the dispute of S. james, together with such Cavils, as our Adversaries make upon the several passages thereof. By the whole order whereof it appears sufficiently that Saint james disputing against Faith, means thereby that false and bastard Faith which hypocrites pleased themselves withal instead of a true Faith: and that disputing for works, he means nothing but a working Faith. And it appears also that the drift of the Apostle is not in this place to dispute directly of Man's justification: but only to bring that in, as an argument to prove his principal Conclusion. That Faith without works is dead, because it will not justify. In sum it's evident, that neither these Apostles do disagree between themselves, nor ye● either of them do agree with our Adversaries in teaching justification by the the Works of the Moral Law. Of the impossibility of Man's justification by which means, Hitherto. The●r ex● Proposition is, 2 Conclu●●●● proved. that [None can be justified by their own safisfaction for the transgression of the Law] For this is this is the only way 〈◊〉 for an Offender to obtain justification and Absolution: vi●: to allege 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 debtor unto him, but deserves his absolution and his favour, as if he had not offended at all. Now than the Question is. Whether a Sinner may, by any thing done, or endured by himself, satisfy the justice of God, & so obtain absolution at the Bar of God's judgement. We defend the Negative. That it is impossible for a Sinner, by any Action or Passion of his own to do so much as shall be equivalent unto the wrong which he hath done unto the glorious justice of God: that there with he may rest satisfied and exact no further paenalty. Which point is so evident unto the Conscience of every one that knows himself to be, either a Creature, or a Man, or a Sinner: that it needs not any confirmation. If we be considered as Creatures, there's nothing that a finite strength in a finite time can perform, which can hold proportion with the offence of an infinite goodness and justice, Phil. 4. ●. and the eternal punishment thereby deserved. Consider us as Men, Deut. 5. 6. so we are bound to fulfil the Law of God in all perfection, nor is there any thing so true, so honest, so just, so pure, so worthy love and good report: but the Law one way or other obliges us unto the thought and practise of it. So that besides our due debt of Obedience, we have nothing to spare over and above, whereby to satisfy God for those Trespasses that we have committed upon his honour and justice.. Lastly consider us as Sinners, so we are tied in a double Obligation, 1. of punishment to be suffered for Sin committed. 2. Another of Obedience to be perpetually performed. Both these debts of punishment and Obedience, are equally exacted of sinful Men, and ergo 'tis as absurd in Divinity to say, the Obedience of the Law or good works, will satisfy for the Transgression of the Law: as 'tis in civil dealing to account the payment of one Band the discharge also of another. Wherefore every one that is not blind and proud in heart will here be soon persuaded to relinquish all claim of Heaven by his own satisfaction, running unto him only, who alone without the help of Man or Angel hath trodden the Winepress of the fierceness of God's wrath, bearing our Sins in his Body on the Tree, suffering the utmost, whatsoever was due to the punishment of them. Our Adversaries in this business are at a stand, mistrusting their own, yet not daring wholly to trust to Christ's satisfactions. They will give him leave to have his part: but, by his leave, they will have one share too in satisfying for Sins. For they are a generation of Men that are resolved to be as little beholding to God, as may be, for grace, or for glory. And if there be any article of Religion wherein Scripture and Reason would give the honour of all unto God, they look at it with an Evil Eye, and cast about which way to thrust in themselves for copartners. 'Tis strange to see to what pass Pride and Covetousness have 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 upon the surer and more steadfast anchor: we that trust only to Christ's satisfactions; or they that join their own together with his. The sum of their doctrine, as it is delivered unto us by the Council of Trent. Sess. 6. cap. 14, 16. & Sess 14 cap. 8. 9 with the Romish Catechism. part. 2. cap. 5. quaest. 52. & seq. and explained at large by Bellarmine in his two books De Purgatorio in his 4th Book De Poenitentia, and his Books De Indulgentijs: is this. Sins are of two sorts. 1. Sin committed before Baptism: as Original Sin in all that are baptised Infants: and actual sins in those that are baptised at years of discretion. 2. Sin committed after Baptism, when after the Grace of the holy Ghost received in Baptism; men fall into Sin, polluting the Temple of God, and grieving his Spirit. Touching the former sort of Sins, 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 Sins after Baptism, in obtaining of Remission of them, Christ and we part stakes. Which copartnership is declared unto us in this manner. In 〈◊〉 Sins (we must know) there are three things considerable. 1. The fault in the offence of God's Majesty, and violation of our friendship with him. Here they grant also, That Man can not satisfy for the fault, doing any thing that may appease God's displeasure; and procure his love. Christ only hath done this for us, for whose only satisfaction. God of his mercy freely returns into favour and friendship with us. But this must be understood in a catholic sense, viz: for fault of Mortal Sins; as for Venial Sins God is but slightly angry with them, and so we may satisfy him for the fault thereof, both in this life, and in Purgatory 2. The stain or corruption of Sin, called the Relics of Sin abiding in the Soul. For the purging out of which, there is great force in such satisfactions, as are made by Prayers, Fast, Almesdeed●s, and other laborious works, although the Heretics say otherwise. That the abolishing of inhaerent corruption is by the gift of grace freely bestowed on us by degrees, in the use of all godly means. 3. The punishment of Sin, which after the fault is pardoned, remains yet to be suffered. For although it be true that God in some causes doth pardon both fault and punishment wholly, as in cause of Martyrdom, which sweeps all clean, and makes a● l reckonings even; and although God might, if it had so pleased him, always for Christ's sake have pardoned the whole debt: yet Holy Mother Church hath determined, that he doth not so use to do. But after that in mercy he hath forgiven the faul●● yet there's an after reckoning, and we must come to Coram for the punishment, by which his justice is to receive satisfaction. But (ye must know) the punishment of Sin is two fold. ●. Eternal▪ in the destruction of Soul and body in Hell-fire to endure for ever. here now Christ's satisfaction comes in again. By whose merits alone they grant, we are delivered from the eternity of the punishment of Sinne. Which must be noted, that Christ's satisfaction hath not eased us of the substance of the punishment itself: but only in the continuance of it. 2. Temporal; to endure only for a time, whereof there are also two degrees. 1. One in this life, as namely all calamities and afflictions upon the Body, Soul, Name, Goods, etc. together with death the last and greatest of evils. All which are inflicted upon m●n; as punishments of ●inne. Of these some come upon us invisibly as death upon all men, or as death in the wilderness on the Children of Israel, with the like punishments, certainly and irrevocably denounced. Now here's no remedy but patience, and that's an excellent remedy too. For (as the ghostly Fathers of Tre●t inform us) If they be borne willingly with patience, they be satisfactions for Sins: but if unwillingly they be God's just revenge upon us. Other some come, Euitably. And here such a course may be taken, that we need not suffer the punishment itself: but we may buy it out and make satisfaction for it unto God by other means. Which means are principally four. 1. By the vehemency of Contrition, or inward sorrow. Which may be so intensive as to satisfy for all punishments, both in this life and also in Purgatory. 2. By other outward laborious works. Whereby we may buy out the obligation to temporal punishments. Such Works are these. 1. Prayer with Confession, Thanksgiving. etc. For, if we believe the Catholic Doctors 'tis a very good satisfaction to a Creditor, if the debtor pray unto him for the forgiveness of his dept. According to that text. Psal. 50. 15. Call upon me in the day of trouble and I will deliver thee. Ergo, Prayer is a satisfaction for the punishment of sin. 2. Fasting, under which is comprehended the sprinkling of Ashes, wearing of hair cloth, whip, going barefoot and such other paenall works. These also satisfy for sins as 'tis written 2. Sam. 12. David fasted, lay upon the ground and wept all night. Therefore he satisfied for his Sins of Murder and Adultery. And again. Paul sayeth 1. Cor. 9 27. I beat down my body. That is, I whip and cudgel myself to satisfy for my sins. And again. Luk. 18. 13. The Publican smote upon his breast. Ergo. Corporal chastisement is a good satisfactions for sins. 3. almsdeeds: comprehending all kind whatsoever works of mercy. These also buy out the punishments of sin according to the text Dan. 4. 24. Break off thy sin by Righteousness: and thine iniquity by mercy towards the poor. that is. By almesdeeds satisfy for the temporal punishmen of thy Sins. And again. Luk. 11. 41. Give alms of that which you have and behold all things shall be clean unto you. That is to say (in the language of Babel.) The temporal punishment of sin shall be taken away. Now all such works as these are either. 1. Voluntarily undertaken of our own accord, as voluntary Pilgrimage, Scourge, Fasts, Sackcloth, Weep, and Prayers of such a number and measure, with the like rough punishments, which we take upon ourselves to pacify God. All which being done with an intent to satisfy for the punishment of our Sins; must needs be accepted of God almighty for good payment: because in so doing, we do more than he hath required of our hands. Now 'tis very pleasing to God to do what he bids us not: or what he bids us, to do to another end of our devising. He therefore that voluntarily undertakes such needless pains, gives God high satisfaction. According to the Text. 1. Cor. 11. 31. If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 2 Enjoined by the Priest. Who by virtue of the Keys committed unto him might judicially absolve the penitent from the whole debt, were it not thought fit upon special considerations to keep back a part. Wherefore when he hath absolved him from the fault and eternal punishment, he binds him unto satisfaction for the temporal punishment, and therefore he enjoins him what he shall do to buy it out. Let him go visit the shrine of such and such a Saint, say so many Aves & Pater-nosters before such an Image, whip himself so many times, fast so many days, give so much alms with such like paenalties. And when he in humble obedience hath done these things commanded by the Priest: then 'tis certain his sins be satisfied for. For 'tis to be noted that in enjoining this Canonical satisfaction, as 'tis called, the Priest and God almighty be just of the same mind. Look how much the Priest enjoins 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 Priest's injunction. But it is to be supposed, that as the Pope, so every Priest in his Chair of confession hath an infallible spirit, whereby he is able exactly to calculate the just proportion between the sin and the punishment, and the price of the punishment, that so he may enjoin just somuch penance, as will buy it out; neither more lest the penitent be wronged: nor less, lest God be not satisfied. All which is trimly founded upon that text which sayeth. Whatsoever ye bind on Earth shallbe bound in Heaven, and whatsoever ye lose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven. Mat: 16, 19 & 18. 18. That is. Priest's may forgive the fault and retain the punishment, and what satisfaction they enjoin on Earth to expiate the punishment, that will God accept in Heaven: Or else they be deceived. This is the second means to satisfy for temporal punishments. The 3. Means is by Pardons and Indulgences. Wherein the superabundant merits of Christ and the Saints are out of the treasury of the Church granted by special grace of the B●. of Rome unto such as are liable to suffer the temporal punishment of their Sins. So that they having got by his grant a sufficient portion of satisfactory works, out of the common stock, they are fre●d thereby from satisfying God's justice, by their own works. Which is a rare privilege no doubt. 4. The fourth means is by another living man's satisfaction for them. For not only the superabundant works of Christ and Saints departed: but the good works of just men alive will satisfy for another, being done with that intent. So great is God's clemency towards good Catholics, that, though one man cannot confess, nor be contrite for another; yet satisfy he may the justice of God for his sins. Both these means are grounded upon pregnant places of Scripture. Gal. 6. 2. Bea●e ye one another's burden, that is, satisfy one for another. Again 2 Cor. 12. 15. I will most gladly bestow and be bestowed for your sakes: that is, to satisfy for your sins. Again 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 rejoice in my sufferings for you and fulfil the rest of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh, for his body's sake, which is the Church. That is. My sufferings with Christ's sufferings make up a Treasury for the Church, that such as want of their own, may make use of his satisfaction and mine. Again Rom. 12. 15. We being many are one another's Members Ergo, We may impart satisfactory works one to another, as one member doth heat to another. To conclude. 'Tis in our Creed, I believe a communion of Saints. Ergo, There is a communion of satisfactions. And so the point is very fitly proved. Whereby it appears that the Children of the Romish Church are reasonable well provided of Means to recompense God's, justice, and redeem the Temporal punishment of their sins in this life. The other degree of the temporal punishment is in the life to come, namely, in purgatory, whereinto all they drop who die in Venial Sins, the fault whereof was not forgiven in this Life; or in Mortal Sins, the fault whereof was forgiven 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 Sins are more or less heinous; or as men's hearts on Earth be more or less pitiful towards them. But however there they must be till the Temporal Punishment of their Sins be fully suffered: or bought out by something else that may satisfy God's justice. This Punishment of Sin inflicted in Purgatory, is twofold. 1. Poena Damni. of Loss (viz.) of the beautiful vision of God, and joys of Heaven. 2. Poena sensus. of sense or smart. viz. The bitter pains of God's wrath sensibly tormenting the Powers of the Soul, inflicted upon them either immediately by God himself, or by the ministry of the devils as his Instruments. For 'tis a doubt not yet resolved among the Patrons of Purgatory, whether the Devils have not to do there also as well as in hell. But whether their Tormentors be Devils or not, this is agreed upon, that the Torment and Punishment which the Souls 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 temporal, these of Hell eternal. Well now, such as have not bestirred themselves then, well in this Life to make all even by full satisfactions, such must be arrested in the mid way to Heaven, and cast into this Prison. Out of which two Means there be to be delivered. 1. By suffering all this temporal punishment for so many years and days as 'tis to continue. How many that is, you must inquire of St Michael, the Church knows not that. But yet sure she is, that many Souls shall continue in Purgatory till the day of judgement, so there shallbe the same period of the World, and of their Torments. These have a hard time of it; 'tis easier haply with others. But be it as 'twill be, such as these pay the utmost farthing, where they endure in the flames of Purgatory, so long till the time of their whole punishment be run out. Then God is satisfied, and they delivered. 2. By buying out this punishment by some other satisfactory price. For although God could so have ordered it, that every Soul being once in Purgatory, should suffer all the Temporal punishments due: yet he is content to be entreated to commute penance, and take some other valueable consideration by way of satisfaction for this punishment. But this satisfactory payment cannot be made by the Souls themselves: it must be made by some on Earth for them. which is done. 1. Either by laborious works of any one just and godly Catholic, whether he be a friend of the deceased, or other touched with a charitable pity toward a poor soul. Who by store of devout prayers, Alms, Masses, Pilgrimages, founding of Coue●ts and Hospitals, etc. may procure a gaoledelivery for that soul for which he intends those good works. 2. Or by the Pope who is purse-bearer to the Church, and hath the Treasury thereof under Lock and Key. He now, though he cannot directly absolve the Souls in Purgatory from their punishment, as he can Men living on the Earth, yet he may help them another way by bestowing on them so much of the superfluous sufferings of Christ and of the Saints, that thereby God's justice may be satisfied, for the whole punishment, which otherwise they should have endured. Yea such is the power of his Indulgences to infuse a virtue into such and such Alt●●▪ Shrines, 〈◊〉 etc. that whosoever shall frequent such places, or use such prayers, all Compliments duly observed: he may at his pleasure free one, two, three, or more souls our of Purgatory. Nay did not Covetousness cool the hear of his Apostolical Charity, he might so bountifully pour out the Treasures of the Church upon these prisoners in Purgatory, that they should all have enough to weigh down the feales, & deserve a passport for Heaven. Such efficacy there is in that spiritual Pick lock which the Pope hath in keeping. All which is very properly proved by the former places of Scripture, and others also, were it needful now to allege them. But thus we see the Catholics are every way furnished for satisfactions, that what Christ hath not done for them, they can do for themselves, either to suffer and overcome the Temporal punishments of their Sins, or else, which is the easier course, to buy out that punishment at a valuable price of other satisfactionary works, wherewith God's justice shallbe abundantly contented. Now whereas those whom they term Heretics, cry out aloud that such satisfactions to God's justice be indeed no Satisfactions at all, because they are no ways equal unto the offence committed: and so no full recompense of wrong offered unto God: for the assoiling of this doubt, they give us this distinction very necessary to be observed. Satisfaction is double. 1. justitiae: ex rigore justitiae, ad absolutam & perfectam Aequalitatem Quantitatis. That is. There is a Satisfaction of justice consisting in a perfect equality between the offence and wrong, and the recompense made, when so much is done, or suffered, as the offended party can in justice exact. Now they grant that Man cannot satisfy God in this sort in rigour of justice.. Only Christ hath satisfied so; for unto such a satisfaction it is required that it be done. 1. Ex proprijs. By that which is our own. 2. Ex indebitis. By that which is not debt of itself. 3. Ad aequalitatem. By that which is of equal worth and value. Now none of these ways can our satisfaction pass in strict justice Because whatsoever we have, 'tis God's free gift: whatsoever we can do, 'tis our due Obedience, & when we have done all, yet we cannot by any finite act do such honour to God, as shallbe equal to that injury we have offered to his infinite Majesty. Even the right of Nature teacheth. as Bellarmine grants, That Man cannot parca reddere Deo, give him quid pro'quo. 2. Acceptationis facti ex Gratiâ donante ad imperfectam Aequalitatem Proportionis & ex Condigno. i, e. There is a satisfaction of favourable acceptance, wherein there is a kind of imperfect Proportion between the offence and the recompense, when so much is done or suffered, as God is content in gentleness to take for good satisfaction. Thus than a man may satisfy God's justice, because God gives him grace to do so much as he will accept for satisfaction. Which Grace is threefold. 1. The Grace of justification, whereby the Holy Ghost dwells in us and we are made Members of Christ, and Christ is become our Head. By means of which union with Christ, and inhabitation of the Spirit, it comes to pass that our works have a singular virtue. For Christ communicates unto us his satisfaction▪ and by merits of them, makes our Works meritorious and satisfactory unto God. So that whereas all things whatsoever we could have done, where of no worth at all in the sight of God: now Christ hath deserved such a Grace for us that the spotted rags of our righteousness and good works being tincta Christi sanguine (i. e.) died in the blood of Christ receive such a colour, that they will pass for reasonable good cloth. In a word, our money is now good silver which before was but brass. Again, because the holy Ghost dwells in the just, Ergo (as Bellar: profoundly argues) their Works proceeding from the Holy Ghost have [quandam infinitatem] a kind of infiniteness in them, and thereby, quandam aequalitatem, a kind of equality with the injury which by sinning we offered unto God. Even as a man may say, that a fly or a spider is a kind of infinite Creature because 'tis of God's making: and God you know is infinite. This is the first Grace of justification. The 2 ye may call. 2 The Grace of evangelical Counsels. For although God might of right challenge all our works as due unto him: yet so it is that he commands not all, but only persuades and exhortes unto some▪ By which bounty of God, it comes to pass that we have certain works Propria & indebita, of our own which we owe him not; and by these we only make satisfaction. Yea such is the bounty of God that he suffers us to merit by those things which be of his free gift, and is willingly content that what we receive at his hand, we give it him back again for a satisfactory payment to his justice.. Which is very strange I tell you. 3 Lastly one Grace more God gives us. Namely. When he pardons the fault he removes the eternity of the Punishment, and makes it Temporal that so it may be more easily satisfied for. All which particulars and Privileges are sure and certain, because the Catholic Doctors have firmly proved them out of their own heads without the help of the Scripture. So then they are agreed. That our works are not satisfactory in Rigour of justice: but only in favourable acceptance, by grace given to do them, and God's clemency in accepting them being done. CHAP. II. All sin is remitted unto us wholly in the fault and punishment. For the only satisfaction of jesus Christ. THus I have somewhat largely set forth unto you the popish Doctrine of humane satisfaction for sin: wherein it is plain to all that can see any thing, that their aim hath been to lay a plot to delude men's Souls and pi●ke their Purses. It would require a large discourse to prosecute their Arguments, whereby they seek to cover their Fraud. But they are not of that Moment as to spend time about them, being too hasten to other matters. The sum of them all comes unto this. 1. That those afflictions and Temporal chastisements which God hath laid upon his Children (for the Trial of their Faith and patience, for their humiliation for sins passed by hearty Repentance, for their admonition for the time to come, for the example of others. etc.) they must needs be, in these men's Imaginations, true satisfactions to God's justice to expiate their sins past. 2. That such good works as the godly have performed for declaration of their piety; testification of their thankfulness unto God; for to express the sorrow of Heart; for to bring themselves to a greater measure of true humiliation by much Prayer, fasting, etc. for to obtain victory over some Corruption, and temptation; for to get some grace which they wanted; for to prevent or fit themselves for some judgement feared; etc. All this now must be conceived presently to be meritorious and satisfactory to God's justice for Sinne. 3. That such Penance, as in the Primitive Church was enjoined unto those that after their Conversion and Baptism, relapsed again to Heathenism; or otherwise for such as for scandalous offences were excommunicated: I say that such Penance enjoined to these for testification of their hearty sorrow for their offence, and for satisfaction to the Congregation, before they might be again admitted into it: must now be turned into a direct and proper satisfaction for the sin itself. 4. That such indulgence or favour as was then sometimes used toward such relapsed and excommunicate persons (in remitting unto them some part of their enjoined Penance upon evident tokens of their unfeigned repentance) this is now by these men turned quite to another use. Namely, to the freeing of men from further satisfaction to God's justice by applying unto them certain fantastical supererogations treasured up in the Pope's Cabinet. These are the main Issues and Errors of their disputes, wherein I will proceed no farther: but only lay down one general Conclusion opposite unto their Doctrine, and so end this point with a few Reasons, for the confirmation of the Truth and confutation of this Error. The Position is this. All Sin whatsoever; Original or Actual is remitted unto us wholly in the Fault and Punishment, aswell Temporal as Eternal for the only satisfaction of jesus Christ: and not any satisfaction made by us unto the justice of God. For confirmation of this sacred Truth delivered unto us in the word and generally embraced by the Reformed Churches (yea by our Adversaries themselves when the Agonies of Consciences; the apprehension of Death and of God's judgement do clear up their eyes, a little to behold the vanity of their poor satisfactions.) observe we these Reasons. First the innumerable Testimonies of Scripture ascribing the Remission of Sin, only to the mercy of God in Christ crucified. That Christ hath borne a 1 Pet. 2. 24. our Sins; His blood hath purged b Heb. 13. us of all Sin; His death c Tit. 2. 14. redeemed us from all iniquity; His d Isa: 53: 5. 1 Pet 2 24. Stripes healed us; That he hath e 1 Tim. 2. 6. paid the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or price of our Ransom; That God for his f Coll. 2. 13. sake hath for given us our trespasses; Blotted out g Ibid v. 14. our sins; Cast them h Isa 38. 17. behind his back; Forgotten i jer. 31. 34. them; with store of the like sayings, ascribing the doing away of all Sins to the Grace of God through the Satisfaction of Christ without limiting it to any Sin, or mentioning any satisfactory works of ours. Now what say our Adversaries to this? By a shift they turn of all Scriptures tending to this purpose. Thus Christ hath satisfied for the fault of our Sins; and so reconciled us unto God, and for the eternity of the Punishment: but he satisfied not for temporal punishment: We must endure Torment's though but for a while. This is a mere Cavil without any apparent ground from such Texts of Scripture; or necessary deduction from other. We deny it therefore as they affirm it. And that it may appear to be but a forged devise. Let us invert 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 go contrary and say, Christ satisfied for the punishment: but not for the fault. We by our own satisfaction must procure God's favour. Now let them object what they can against this: if we list to ca●ill as they do: it may be shifted off with as fair probability; as they do our Arguments on the other part. Let them name all the places that say, Christ hath k Coll. 1. 10. reconciled us to God his Father. This is easily put off. Christ hath reconciled us. that is, Christ deserved such Grace for us: that we by our works may reconcile ourselves. Just as they say. Christ hath satisfied. that is. procured Grace for us: that we by our works might satisfy. Let them object, Our works can be of no worth to appease God's anger. We will say. True. Of themselves they are not: but Christ hath merited that they should be of sufficient worth. Just as themselves say unto us objecting, that our works be not of value to satisfy Gods justice.. True, say they. Of themselves they be not: but Christ hath deserved for them to make them satisfactorious. Thus if every idle distinction not fortified by necessary deduction from Scripture might pass for a good answer, the certainty of divine Doctrine were soon 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 forgiven and the punishment required, is most false and absurd; even in common sense. To pardon a fault and be friends and yet require full satisfaction; to forgive the debt, yet to exact the payment, be not these trim kindnesses? a Bell. de poen. lib. 4. cap. 1. Bellarmine tells us, there be some offences of so grievous Nature: that satisfaction cannot be made, but in a long time. Now in this case the party wronged may pardon the other, and be reconciled to him: yet the offender remain still bound to make entire satisfaction for the wrong. But now the jesuit doth not name any such case: neither indeed can do. For suppose a subject hath offended his Prince and the fault deserved 7. years close imprisonment for satisfaction. If the Prince should say unto him I pardon your offence, you have my love; but yet you shall lie by it to the last day: were it not a mockery, would any man thank him for such a kindness? It is to be thought the Jesuits, the incendiaries of Christendom would not thank Christian Princes for such a courtesy, if they should pardon them their fault, and hang them up. The like absurdity there is in this, when they say; That after the fault pardoned; yet in this Life and in Purgatory, the temporal punishment must be suffered. For wherefore must it be suffered? For satisfaction say they, To what? To God's justice.. For what now? Is it for the fault and offence committed? No, That's pardoned. For what then? For just nothing. Again, this Assertion is contrary to good reason. For God's Friendship, and his justice may not be divided in this sort, as if he were reconciled and well pleased with that Creature, which hath violated his justice, and not made satisfaction for it. God's friendship with Man follows satisfaction to his justice: even as his Enmity with Man is a consequent of the breach of his justice.. His righteous will is transgressed, therefore he is offended. His righteous will must be satisfied before he be pleased. So that it is a vain speculation to think. Christ hath appeased God's anger, but not satisfied his justice, for as much as his favour is purchased only by satisfaction to his justice offended. 3. This doctrine of humane satisfactions, obscures the dignity, and overthrows the Force of Christ's satisfactions. If we have a share, he hath not all the glory. Nay, he hath scarce any at all. For ask we. For what hath Christ satisfied? They say, to procure God's Love to us. But that cannot be, unless he hath satisfied his justice.. Hath he done this, or no? Yes, he hath satisfied for the Eternity of the punishment. Yea. But how know they that? What if we upon their grounds say, That he hath not satisfied for the Eternity of it: but only merited, that our sufferings and satisfactions should be equivalent to the eternity of the Punishment? Especially considering that our Works according to Bellarmine, have a certain kind of infinite value in them. Again, Eternity is but an Accident of punishment of Sin: the Essentials of it are the Loss of joy, and the sense of Pain: if therefore Christ have satisfied only for that, he hath done but the least part. Nevertheless our Adversaries will needs persuade us, that humane satisfactions do 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 us able also to satisfy. A great matter doubtless. But where saith the Scripture any such matter, that Christ hath merited that we might merit and satisfy. And moreover by this Trick, whilst Christ makes us able to merit and satisfy: his own satisfaction is plainly excluded. For come to the point, and ask. Who is it satisfies God's justice for Sin? Christ, or we? here b Bel. Lib 1. de Purga●: cap. 14. §. quarta Ratio. Bellarmine stumbles like a blind horse, and of three answers takes the very worst. Some say 'tis Christ, and he only satisfies Properly: but we Improperly. Our works being only a Condition without which Christ's satisfaction is not applied unto us. But such smell of the faggot. For 'tis a perilous Heresy to say, Christ only satisfies for Sins. Well others say, That both Christ and we ourselves do satisfy, & also there's two satisfactions for the same offence. But this mettle clinketh not well neither. Wherefore others are of opinion, and Bellarmine likes it. That We only satisfy, 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 us only satisfy while he stands by and holds the Candle. Yet the jesuit will not do jesus so much wrong: for mark, to mend the matter he adds. [Neque tamen excludit●r Christus, vel satisfactio eius. Nam per eius satisfactionem habemu● gratiam, unde 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 words they may understand that can; For I cannot. The jesuit. walks in the dark: seeking to hide this shameful Injury to the Merits of Christ, but it will not be. 'Tis too apparent that Christ is to them of no account. Only for a fashion they make use of his Name, when they have reckoned up a bedrol of their own Merits, & Sts Merits, and such other trash, then to conclude all with a [Per jesum Christum Dominum nostrum.] That's the burden of the Song, and the oil that seasons all the Salet: as a Tabula de differentia 4 part. Tom. 2. cap. 15. 16. Marnix merrily. 4. That distinction of Satisfaction in Strict justice, and satisfaction in favourable acceptance is vain in this business. We grant indeed that our good works done out of Faith, are pleasing to God, and graciously accepted of him: but can it appear, that God accepts them as satisfactions to his justice? No Scripture intimates any such thing, That God's favour doth thus dispense with his justice, and make that satisfaction acceptable, which is in itself no full satisfaction of his justice.. Shall we think that God in this case is put upon those terms of Necessity, and compliment which fall out in humane satisfactions, between Man and Man? It may so fall out that a Creditor (to whom 1000 Crowns are owing) may be content if the debtor will yield up his whole Estate, though not worth 50. Because no more can be had. So in case of offence, Bell. lib. 4. de Paenit. cap. 1. sometime, a little formality, or a word or two of confession of the wrong may be accepted for satisfaction. But God wants no means to receive full satisfaction of us, either upon our own persons, or upon Christ for us. And therefore 'tis without ground to imagine such a facility and partiality of his justice, as to be satisfied with a few poor complemental Formalities. Satisfactions to God's justice we acknowledge none; but such as are in justice sufficient. Such are Christ's satisfactions. But as for us, we have nothing to do with satisfactions, but with free Pardons. 5. This Doctrine of humane satisfactions taught in the Church of Rome is altogether full of uncertainty, and ergo, brings no rest and peace unto men's Consciences, at all. God pardons the fault: but requires the punishment say they. But when is this? Is it always? No, sometimes he pardons both. But can they tell certainly when he doth? when not? At Martyrdom 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 us the i●st azure of that Contrition which is satisfactory? It may be the party is contrite enough: yet the Pre●st enjoins Penance when 'tis needless. It may be he is not co●●●ite enough: yet no penance enjoined. Where's the certainty, what's to be done in such a case? Christ (say they) hath satisfied for the Eternity of Hell punishments. Well. But can they tell how many years or days are left unsatisfied for; that so all things may be fitted according to the Race of time? Laborious works, of Prayers, Fast, Almsdeeds, satisfy for temporal Punishments in this life (say they) Suppose it be so. Are they sure they can also satisfy the pains of Purgatory? The Priest enjoins satisfactory penance. But is he sure he enjoins just so much as will do the Feat? Is he certain that God will take that for payment, which he decrees to be paid? What if there be not Aue-maries' enough & c? Again suppose there were Evangelicall Counsels, as Vows of Chastity, Poverty etc. and that to do these things were pleasing unto God. Are they sure they shall pass for satisfactions presently? thou sayest I give this Alms, I vow Poverty, I do this and that to satisfy God's justice for such or such a sin. What? Is it a Match presently, that God must do as thou desirest: and take what thou offerest for payment? Soft there, a while. Where's the warrant for that? Those that are in Purgatory, when have they satisfied enough? who brings word, when they are delivered? How knows the Pope when he hath bestowed upon them sufficient supererogative Money to pay the Fees of the Prison? Or doth S. Michael that holds, the Scales send him word, when their satisfactions weigh down their Sins? Not to reckon more up; there is in all this Doctrine no firm ground whereon a distressed Soul may cast anchor: But when it hath once let slip that main Cable, whereupon it might rid it out in all storms (the satisfaction of Christ) afterwards it is carried a drift upon all hazards of Winds and Seas. 6. The-●rpractise betrays their Opinion. Did they indeed think that there were any severity in God's justice, any necessity or sufficiency in such their satisfactions, 'tis not possible, they would prostitute such thing's in so base a manner, as they do. But when an Aue Maria, a Pater noster before such or such an Altar; a wax-Candle to such a Saint; a kiss of such a cold stone; a pilgriamage to Compostella for cockleshells; a lash or twain upon the Bare; two or three meal's meat forborn; a pardon purchased at a few Deniers; yea when the roughness and meanness of adam's figgleave breeches shall be accounted a worthy matter to satisfy for his sin, as a De po●nit. lib 4. cap. 9 sect. 5. Irenaeus. Bellarmine most ridiculously dotes; I say, when such base trifles shallbe reckoned to be valuable satisfactions to God's justice: they must pardon us if we guess at their meaning. They may dispute and talk while they will in big words and fair glosses of Bridles against Sins, and I know not what: but in fine all proves but Gins to catch money: But such as serve themselves thus, upon God; and play with his justice, as the fly with the Candle; let them take heed, lest in the end, they be consumed by it. To leave then these vain Inventions. Let us give to God the glory that's due to his name: and so we shall well provide for the peace of our Souls. Trusting entirely and only unto that Name of b Acts Apost, cap, 4. v. 1●. jesus Christ. besides which, there is not in Heaven, or in Earth (in Man or Angel) any name, Merit, Power, Satisfaction, or whatsoever else, whereby we may be saved. And thus much touching the first main branch of the matter of our justification, namely Our own Righteousness, Whereby, it appears sufficiently, that we shall never be justified in God's Sight. Μόνῳ τῷ Θεῷ δόξα. FINIS. THE CONTENTS OF EVERY Section and Chapter in this Book. SECTION 1. CHAP. I. The explication of these terms. First, justice, or righteousness. Secondly, justification. CHAP. II. In what sense the word justification ought to be taken in the present controversy, and of the difference between us and our Adversaries therein. CHAP, III. The confutation of our Adversaries cavil against our acception of the word justification. SECT. 2. CHAP. I. The orthodox opinion concerning the manner of justification by Faith, and the confutation of Popish errors in this point. CHAP. II. The confutation of the Arminian error, showing that Faith doth not justify, sensu proprio, as it is an act of ours. CHAP. III. The confutation of Popish doctrines, that other graces do justify us, and not Faith alone. SECT. 3. CHAP. I. Of the righteousness whereby a man is justified before God; that is not his own inhaerent in himself: that in this life no man hath perfection of holiness inhaerent in him. CHAP. II. No man can perfectly fulfil the Law in performing all such works, both inward and outward, as each commandment requires, against which truth, Popish objections are answered. CHAP. III. No man in this life can perform any particular good work, so exactly that in every point it shall answer the rigour of the Law, proved by conscience, Scriptures, reason, and Popish objections answered. CHAP. FOUR Three several exceptions against the truths delivered in this 3 Section. SECT. 4. CHAP. I. justification by works makes voide the covenant of grace. Of the difference between the Law and the Gospel. Of the use of the Law. Of the erronecus conceit of our Adversaries in this point. CHAP. II. Of Bellarmine's erroneous distinction of the word Gospel. SECT. 5. CHAP. I. justification by fulfilling the Law, overthrows Christian liberty. The parts of our Christian liberty. CHAP. II. justification by works, subjects us to the rigour and curse of the Law. SECT. 6. CHAP. I. The reconciliation of that seeming opposition, between S. Paul, and S. james in this point of justification. CHAP. II. The confirmation of the orthodox reconciliation of S. Paul, and S. james, by a Logical Analysis of S. james his disputation in his second Chapter. SECT. 7. CHAP. I. None can be justified by their own satisfaction for the transgression of the Law. A brief s●mme of Popish doctrine, concerning humane satisfactions for sin. CHAP. II. All sin is remitted unto us wholly in the fault and punishment. For the only satisfaction of jesus Christ.