Of Justification By Faith, Treatise · Section 2 – Section 3

Of Justification By Faith · Treatise · Section 2 – Section 3

p. 21SECT. 2.

CHAP. I.

The Orthodoxe opinion concerning the manner of Iustification by Faith, and the confutation of Popish errours in this point.

HAuing thus cleared the meaning of this word [Iustification] and shewed that the Scriptures,Sect. 2. …. …. when they speake of the Iustification of a sinner before God, doe thereby vnderstand the absolution of him in Iudgement from sinne and punishment. p. 22Wee are now vponupon this ground to proceede vntounto the further explication of this point, to enquire by what Meanes and in what Manner, this Iustification of a sinner is accomplished. That we may goe on more distinctly: I will reduce all our ensuing discourse of this point into three heads.

First,… Gen. Head…. touching the condition required in them 1that shall be iustified.

Secondly, the matter of our Iustification.… Cap. 7. (viz.) What righteousnesse is it wherefore a sinner is Iustified.

3Thirdly; touching the forme of Iustification, in what the quality of this iudiciall Act of God, iustifying a sinner, consisteth.

1Concerning the first at this time. The condition required in such as shall be partakers of this grace of Iustification is true faith,Generall head. wherunto God hath ordinarily annexed this great priuiledge; That by faith and faith onelyonly, a sinner shall bee iustified: This the Scriptures witnesse in tearmes as direct and expresse, as any can be. [Rom 3. 28. We conclude a man is iustified by faith without the workes of the Law.] and Rom. 4. 9. [For we say that faith was imputed vntounto Abraham for righteousnesse.] and Rom. 5. 1. [Then being iustified by faith we hauehave peace towards God through Iesus Christ our Lord.] With other the like places. Whence it is agreed vponupon on all sides, that a sinner is iustified by faith: but touching the manner, how he is said to be iustified by faith, there is much controuersie and brawle, betweene the Orthodoxe of the reformed Churches, and their Aduersaries of Rome and Holland; the Arminians, and the Papists. The sentence of the reformed Churches touching this point, consisteth of two Branches.

First, that a sinner is iustified by faith, not properly as it is a quality or action; which by it's owne dignity and merit, deserues at Gods hands Remission of sinnes; or is by Gods fauourable acceptance p. 23taken for the whole and perfect righteousnesse of the Law, which is otherwise required of a sinner: but onelyonly in relation vntounto the obiect of it, the righteousnesse of Christ; which it imbraceth and resteth vponupon.

Secondly, that a sinner is iustified by faith in opposition 2vntounto the Righteousnesse of workes in the fulfilling of the Law. Whereby now no man can be iustified.

In this relatiue and inclusiue sense doe the Reformed Churches take this proposition [A man is iustified by faith.] They explaine themselues thus: There are two Couenants that God hath made with man; By one of which and by no other meanes in the world, saluation is to be obtained. The one is the Couenant of workes, The tenor whereof is [Doe this and thou shalt liue.] This Couenant is now vtterly void, in regard of vsus; who through the weaknes of our sinfull flesh cannot possibly fulfill the condition of Obedience required therby: and therfore we cannot expect Iustification & Life by this means. The other is the Couenant of grace the Tenor whereof is, Beleeue in the Lord Iesus and thou shalt be saued. The condition of this couenant is Faith: the performance whereof differs from the performance of the condition of that other Couenant. Doe this and Liue is a compact of pure Iustice wherein wages is giuen by debt, so that he which doth the worke obeying the Law, may in strict Iustice for the worke sake claime the wages, eternall life, vponupon iust desert. Beleeue this and liue is a compact of freest and purest Mercy: wherein the reward of eternall life is giuen vsus in fauour for that which beares not the least proportion of worth with it: so that he which personnes the condition cannot yet demand the wages, as due vntounto him in seuerity of Iustice; but onelyonly by the grace of a freer promise, the fulfilling of which hee may humbly sue for. By which grand difference betweene these two Couenants clearely expressed in Scriptures, it appeares manifestly that these p. 24two Propositions. [A man is iustified by workes,] [A man is iustified by Faith,] carry meanings vtterly opposite one to the other. The one is proper and formall: the other Metonymicall and Relatiue. In this Proposition (A Man is iustified by workes) we vnderstand all in proper and precise termes: That a righteous man who hath kept the law exactly in all points, is by and for the dignity and worth of that his obedience iustified in Gods sight from all blame and punishment whatsoeuer; because perfect obedience to the morall Law in it selfe, for it owne sake deserues the approbation of Gods seuere Iustice and the reward of Heauen. But in that other Proposition (A man is iustified by Faith.) We must vnderstand all things relatiuely thus. A sinner is iustified in the sight of God from all sinne and punishment by faith (that is) by the obedience of Iesus Christ beleeued on; and embraced by a true faith. Which Act of Iustification of a sinner, although it be properly the onelyonly worke of God, for the onelyonly merit of Christ: yet is it rightly ascribed vntounto faith, and it alone, for as much as faith is that mayne condition of that new Couenant, which as we must perform if we will be iustified: so by the performance thereof we are said to obtaine iustification and life. For when God by grace hath enabled vsus to performe the condition of beleeuing; then doe we beginne to enioy the benefit of the Couenant; then is the sentence of absolution pronounced in our consciences; which shall be after confirmed in our death; and published in the last iudgement. Secondly, our faith and no other grace directly respects the promises of the Gospell; accepting what God offers, sealing vntounto the truth thereof by assenting thereto, and imbracing the benefit and fruit of it vntounto it selfe, by relying wholly vponupon it. This interpretation of that proposition the Reformed Churches do admit, & none other: reiecting as erronious and contrary to the Scriptures such glosses as ascribe any thing to the dignity of faith; or make any combination betweene Faith and Workes, in the point of our Iustification. Amongst which p. 25there are three erronious assertions touching mans Iustification by Faith; which we are briefly to examine and refute.

1 That faith iustifieth vsus [Per modum Causae efficientis & meritoriae] as a proper efficient and meritorious cause. Which by it's owne worth and dignity deserues to obtaine Iustification, Remission of sinnes, and the grace of well-doing.

This is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, which Bellarmine labours to proue▪ in his 17. Chap. lib. pr. de Iustificatione, where disputing against Iustification by faith alone, hee tels vsus. If we could be perswaded that faith doth Iustifie [impetrando, promerendo, & suo modo inchoando Iustificationem,] then we would neuer deny that louelove, feare, hope, and other vertues did iustifie vsus as well as faith. Whereupon he sets himselfe to prooue that there is in faith it selfe some efficacy and merit to obtaine and deserue Iustification. His Arguments are chiely two.

1From those places of Scripture, wherein a man is said to be iustified,aaGal. 2. 16.Gal 2:16 foreign.bbRom. 5. 1.Rom 5:1 foreign,ccRom. 28. foreign. or absolutely without Article or Preposition. foreign per fidem, ex fide (or) fide. Wherein these Prepositions, signifie, saith he, the true cause of our Iustification. Which he proues 1 By the contrary, when a man is said to be iustified [foreign, ddRom. 4. 2. & 3. 20. Gal 2. 16. Iam. 2.Rom 4:2Rom 3:20Gal 2:16Jas 2foreign.] This notes the true efficient deseruing cause of his Iustification. Secondly, By the like in other places where we are said to be redeemed, saued, sanctified, Per Christum, per sanguinem, per mortem, per vulnera; and in the whole 11. to the Heb. The Saints are said to doe such and such things (foreign) by faith. All signifying the proper cause.

From those places of Scripture which (sayth he) plainly 2shew: Faith doth impetrare remissionem, & suo quidem modo mereri. Such are those [Thy Faith… hath saued thee] or made thee whole. A speech that Christ vsed often; as to theaaLuke 7. 5….Luke 7:5 woman that washed his feet; To herbbMat. 9. 22.Matt 9:22 that had an issue p. 26of Blood; To theccMa…. 10. 52. blind man recovered of his sight. And that to the Cananitish woman [O woman ddMat. 15. 21.Matt 15:21great is thy Faith] now see what the merit of this Faith was, (For this eeMat. 7. 29.Matt 7:29saying go thy way the Diuel is gone out of thy Daughter) Thus Abraham, being ffRom. 4. 20.Rom 4:20strenghened in Faith glorified God.) who therefore iustified him for the Merit of his Faith. And againe in the eleuenth to the Heb. by many examples we are taught that (byggHeb. 21. 5▪ 6. Faith (that is) by the merit and price of Faith Enoch and other men pleased God.

For answeare here vntounto.

1 VntoUnto the Argument from the Proposition we reply; That if foreign & foreignmust be needs strictly taken in the same kind of Causality: then the Iesuits should doe well to stand to that and make the similitude betweene Faith and workes runne thus. A Man is iustified (by) workes that is for the proper and only Merits of his obedience; so a Man is iustified (by) Faith that is for the only merit of his Beleeving in Christ: aud by that meanes both shallbe true and effectuall causes of Iustification. But if Bellarmine dare not thus presse the similitude for feare of being found guilty of despising the blood of the New Couenant, attributing that to the Merit of Faith which belongs only to the Merit of Christ; he must then giuegive vsus that leaue to distinguish which he takes to himselfe; and if he fall to his Qualifications and quodammodo's: he must pardon if we also seeke out such an Interpretation of those places; as may not crosse other Scriptures. Which for asmuch as they testifie that (We iiRom. 3. 24.Rom 3:24are Iustified by his grace through the Redemption that is in Christ) that (All kkHeb. 1. 3.Heb 1:3sinne is purged by the blood of Christ) that (By the sacrifice of himselfe he hath put away Sinne) and (With offering hath consecrated for ouer them that are sanctified.): we dare not without horrible sacrilege ascribe the grace of our Iustification vntounto the worke and worth of any thing whatsoeuer in our selues; but wholy and only to the Righteousnesse of Christ. And therefore when the Scriptures p. 27say we are iustified (by) Faith; we take not the word (By) in this formall and legall sense; we are iustified by the efficacy of our Faith, or for the worth of our Faith, according as 'tis vnderstood in Iustification by workes: but we take it Relatiuely & Instrumentally: We are Iustified by Faith (that is) by the Righteousnesse of Christ, the benefit whereof vntounto our Iustification, we are made partakers of by Faith, as the only grace which accepts of the promise, and giues vsus assurance of the performance. He that looked to the Brasen serpent and was cured, might truly be sayd to be healed (by) his looking on, though this Action was no proper cause working the cure by any efficacy or dignity of it selfe; but was only a necessary condition required of them that would be healed, vponupon the obedient observance whereof, God would shew them favor: so he that looketh on Christ beleeuing in him, may truly be sayed to be saued and Iustified by Faith, not as for the worth, and by the …fficacy of that act of his; but as it is the Condition of the promise of grace, that must necessarily go before the performance of it to vsus: vponupon our Obedience where vntounto God is pleased of his free grace to iustifie, Nor is this Trope, any way harsh, or vnusuall to put Oppositum pro opposito, Relatum pro Correlato, Habitum pro Obiecto. In Sacramentall locutions 'tis a generall Custome, to put the signe for the thing signified: and the like is vsed in other passages [foreign. And the nnAct. 6. 7. & 6. 5.Acts 6:7Acts 6:5word of God grew, &c. and foreign, the oo1 Tim. 3. 9. & 4. 6.1 Tim 3:91 Tim 4:6mystery of faith,) and foreign, in the words of Faith) and Rom. 8. 24. [foreign. Spe seruati sumus (id est) Christo in quem speramus. Hope that is seene is not hope, that is, res visa non sperata est. That of Ignatius, [foreign] Like to that (Christ our Ioy) Anni spem credere Terrae) Georg. 1.Virg. Georg. 1. And if we list not to be contentious, 'tis plaine enough, that in those places, where the Apostle treats of Iustification by faith (viz) the grace of God in Christ; opposing workes and faith, that is the Law and the Gospell, the Righteousnesse of the Law, to the righteousnesse p. 28of the Gospell, which is no other but the Righteousnesse of Christ. Thus faith is taken, Gal. 3. 23. Where he expresly treats of Iustification. But before Faith came, we were kept vnderunder the Law, shut vp vntounto the Faith, which should afterward be reuealed.]ppGal. 3. 23.Gal 3:23 That is, Before Christ came, and the cleare exhibition of the Gospell, and the Righteousnesse thereof: the Church was kept vnderunder the Ceremoniall Law, as vnderunder a Schoole-master, Act. 13. 38.Acts 13:38directing her vntounto Christ, that so [Wee might be iustified by Faith.] that is, not by the Lesson of the Law, but by Christ, typified and figured vntounto vsus therein.

2 VntoUnto the other Argument prooving the merit of faith, we reply; That in those places is no ground, at all for such a conceit. [Thy Faith hath saued thee,] saith Christ to some whō he cured both in Body & Soule. But what? was it by the efficacy and for the word of their faith that this was done? No: As 'twas vertue went out of Christ that cured their bodily diseases; and his compassion that mooued him to it: so 'twas his grace and merits and free louelove that healed their soules, and brought them pardon of their sinnes in the sight of GOD: Yet he saith; Their faith saued them, because by beleeuing in the Sonne of God, they receiued this fauour, though for their beleeuing they did not deserue it. God bestowes mercy where he findes faith, not because faith merits such fauour at his hands: but because he is pleased to disperse his fauours in such an order, as himselfe hath appointed; and vponupon such conditions as hee thinkes good. To that of the Canaanitish woman: Her great faith could not claime by desert, that fauour which Christ shewed vntounto her daughter: onelyonly Christ was pleased to honour her faith by his testimony of it; and to helpe the daughter at the Mothers entreaty. Christ did it vponupon that request of hers so instant and full of faith; But yet who can say she merited ought at CHRISTS hands by that her faithfull and instant petition? Her selfe yet liuing would deny it; and shee doth deny it there, counting her selfe a dogge vnworthy of the childrens bread, when yet shee beleeued p. 29strongly, and was a child of Abraham according to the faith▪ To that of Abraham who gaue glory to God, and of Henoch and others, who pleased God by their faith: Wee answere: That it is one thing for a man to glorifie and please God by his Obedience; 'Tis another, by so doing to deserue ought at his hands. If God in much grace and fauour accept of the honour and contentment wee are able to doe him by our Faith and Obedience: It followes not that therefore we must in iustice merit at his hands. Other Arguments for them there are: but so weakely knit; they fall in sunder of themselues. Against them we hauehave to obiect the Scriptures, that so often say, [We are iustified] gratiâ and gratis; and the Councell of Trent which they respect more then the Scriptures, which hath defined thus: Nihil eorum quae Iustificationem praecedunt, siue fides, siue opera, ipsam Iustificationis gratiam promeretur, Sess. 6. Cap. 8. How then can they say Faith merits Iustification.

Heere our Aduersaries hauehave two shifts to runne vntounto, whereby they would avoide the absurdity of this Assertion.

1 That this merit is not from vsus: but of God. Because Faith is the gift of Gods grace; and therefore though we be iustified by merit: yet we are iustified by grace, because merit is of grace. 'Tis of grace that our faith merits.

This you may be sure, is some of that smoake of the bottomelesse pit, wherein hell vented out the Iesuites, and they their darke Imaginations; all to confound whatsoeuer is cleare and lightsome in Scripture. Scripture opposeth these paires; Grace, Rom. 11. 6.Rom 11:6and Nature, Grace and Merit. As the Pelagians of old confounded Nature & Grace, teaching that we were saued by Grace: yet affirming that we are also saued by Nature, and the naturall strength of free-will. Which they salued thus. To be saued by Nature, is to be saued by Grace: for Nature is of Gods grace and giuing. So these confound Grace and Merit, making a thing Meritorious, because its of Grace. Faith merits because its Gods p. 30gracious gift. Nothing more contradictory. If it be his gift, how doth it merit, or of whom? Of man it may, of God it cannot: vnlesse we will senslesly affirme, that the gift deserues something of the giuer. That he that giues an hundred pound freely, is thereby bound to giuegive an hundred more. Had they sayed that faith is good, because of Gods giuing; that were true, and we may grant them that God is honoured and pleased with his owne gifts: but that eueryevery good thing merits, and that we can deserue of God by his owne gifts, is affirmed without all Reason, or Scriptures; and will neuer be proued by either.

But there is yet another shift.

22 Faith merits Iustification [Non de condigno] of the worthinesse of it: but [de Congruo] of the fitnesse:… that is, God in Iustice is not bound to bestow Iustification where there is faith: but yet in fitnesse he ought to doe it. So that if he doe not iustifie him that beleeues: he is likely to omit a thing very fit and agreeable. This distinction is a meere Imposture and collusion. Bellarmine in dealing with it seemes to hauehave a dog by the eares, he is loath to loose him: yet knowes not well how to hold him. If he be vrged where Scriptures make any the least Intimation of such a distinction: hee referres you to Divines, that is, Popish Schoole-men, who out of their owne imagination hauehave forged it, and in time made it Authenticall. But he stickes in the mire, when he is to shew what merit of Condignity and merit of Congruity is. Merits of Condignity are workes, to which wages is due of Iustice. What then are merits of Congruity? Such workes whereto wages is not due by any Iustice. As for example: He that labours the whole day in the Vineyard, merits a penny of Condignity: because in Iustice his labour is worth his hire. But he that for an houres worke, receiues a penny, he deserues it of Congruity: because though his labour be not worth it, yet he was promised a penny by him that set him on worke: Then which fond imagination nothing can be more ridiculous, p. 31and contrary to common sense. For the merit of any worke is the proportionablenesse 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 worke it selfe; or in the compact made betweene him that worketh and him that rewardeth? It is apparant that the worke is deseruing or not-deseruing according to 'its owne Nature, not according to a compact made. He that promiseth vntounto one more for a little worke, then to another for a great deale in the same kinde: doth not by such a compact make the little labour of the one more deserving then the others great pains. We must look to the worke, what it is in its own Nature: & as it is of some worth or no worth, so account it deseruing or not deseruing▪ Wherfore whē in the distinction they make some merits of Condignity or worthinesse, some of Congruity, or of fitnesse without worthinesse, they offend two wayes, grosly against two rules of Reason. First in opposing termes not opposite: Worthinesse and fitnesse: being the same, if you take them in regard of the worke. For that which deserues a reward worthily, deserues it fitly: (how else is it worthy of the reward, if the reward be not fit for it?) and that which deserues it fitly (if it deserues) it deserues it worthily.

2 In distinguishing vponupon tearmes that doe not convenire t…ti. For Worthinesse agrees to merit onelyonly: but fitnesse belongs to Compact. So that in plainer English, the distinction runnes thus. Merits or deserts, are of two sorts. Some, that are merits and doe deserue because they are worthy of a reward: others that are no merits and doe not deserue because they are not worthy of the Reward: but onelyonly obtaine it, ex Congruo, in regard of Compact and Promise. For this Rule is most certaine, That a worke which deserues nothing by its owne worthinesse: can neuer deserue any thing by compact or promise. The Iesuites are senselesse in defending the contrary.

If (saith Bellarmine) a King promise a Beggar 1000▪ p. 32pounds a yeare, vponupon no condition, then indeed the Begger doth not deserue it. But if vponupon condition he shall do some small matter, as that he shall come to the Court and fetch it, or bring a Pos…e of flowers with him, now the Begger deserues it: and he may come to the King, and tell him, hee hath merited his 1000 pounds a yeare. EueryEvery man, but a Iesuite, would say 'twere extreame impudency in a Begger to make such a demaund, so derogatorily to the Kings gracious bounty. Now can it helpe them to say, That a Promise bindes vntounto performance, so that God should be vniust and vntrue, if he should not bestow the reward promised, although the workes bee not equall to the reward. For Gods Iustice and Truth in performing his promise, doe not imply our merit in performing the Condition. We doe not deserue by our well-doing; because God is iust in his rewarding. And the reason is manifest; Because God in making the promise, respected meerly the freenesse and bounty of his owne grace, not the worthinesse of our workes. And therefore that obligation whereby he hath tyed himselfe to performance, is founded meerely in his owne Truth: not a …ot in our merit. Wherefore when they tell vsus, that faith merits Iustification [de Congruo] they intrappe themselues in a grosse Contradiction; seeing to deserue [de Congruo] is not to deserue at all; but onelyonly to receiue the reward by meere promise: God hauing promised to iustifie beleeuers. Thus much touching the first Assertion, that Faith is the proper Cause of Iustification, working it by it owne efficacy and merits.

p. 33CHAP II▪

The Confutation of the Arminian errour, shewing that faith doth not iustifie, sensu proprio, as it is an act of ours.

The second Error about this point is of the Arminians, with whom also the Papists agree: Tis this.

2 That we are Iustified by Faith sensu proprio, that is, the Act of beleeving, in that foreign credere, is imputed to vsus for righteousnesse, being accepted of God and accounted vntounto vsus for that whole Righteousnesse of the Law which we were bound to performe. So that our very Faith is that Righteousnesse, for which we are iustified in the sight of God; no… quidem merito suo: sed propter gratuitam acceptilationem Dei.

The authors of this opinion are Faustus Socinus that vnhappy Haereticke in his most Blasphemous Booke [de Christo servatore:] & Michael Servetus a Spanyard in his second Booke [de lege & Evangelio] which Errors are confuted by Calvin in his opuscula. A stiffe de…ender of this opinion was Christophorus Ostorodius a Polonian in his disputations contra Georgium Tradelij, who for this and other pestilent errors about the Article of Mans Redemption, was wi…h his companion Andreas Vaidonitus banished the Low Countreys where he had seated himselfe and published his opinions; Arminius, and his followers hauehave bin cheefe promoters of it. Arminius himselfe, as in other his opinions: so in the publishing of this vsed much closenesse and cunning conveyance. In his private disputations [Tit. de Iustificatione] he seemes plainly to condemne it, saying that it is an abuse to say that Fides est causa formalis Iustificationis, and an error to affirme [That Christ hath deserued, vt fidei dignitate et merito iustificemur.] In his publique disputations he opens himselfe somewhat plainly:Thes. 48. 2. 3. yet darkely enough [Thes. 19. de Iustificat. p. 34cat. Thes. 7. These are his words. [Fidei vero Iustificatio tribuitur, non quod illa sit Iustitia ipsa quae rigido & seuero De… iudicio oppont possit; quanquam Deo grata: sed quod in iudicio mis…ri…ordiae triumphans supra iudicium absolutionem a peccatis obtineat & gratiose in Iustitiam imputetur. Cuius rei causaest tum Deus iustus & misericors, tum Christus obedient… oblatione et intercessione suâ secundum Deum in beneplacito et mandato ipsius.] Here Faith it selfe is imputed for Righteousnesse. But tis not in Gods seuere Iudgment, but in his Iudgment of Mercy. Faith in it selfe is not worthy: but yet Christ by his merits hath deserued that God will gratiously accept of it. This opinion published was quickly contradicted: wherevpon Arminius makes knowne his mind in playner Termes, In declaratioue sententiae ad ordines Holland: & Westfrisiae he confesseth that in the forenamed Thesis his meaning was,pag 6…. that [ipsa fides tanquam actus iuxta Evangelij mandatum praestitus imputatur coram Deo in siue ad iustitiam, idque in gratiâ, cum non sit ipsamet iustitia Legis. And in his Responsione ad 31. Artic. art. 4. hee brancheth cut his opinion in three distinct propositions.

1 Iustitia Christi imputatur nobis.

2 Iustitia Christi imputatur in iustitiam.

3 foreign credere imputatur in iustitiam.

The first of these Propositions, he grants: That Christs Righteousnesse is imputed to vsus. The second hee denies, That Christs Righteousnesse is imputed for Righteousnesse. The third …e grants, That the Act of beleeuing is imputed for Righteousnesse. Here by Mysteries in these Propositions, hereafter to bee vnfolded. Wee now meddle with the last which yet is more roundly expressed by Arminius in his Epistle ad Hyppolitum. [Lege princip. Pa.] [Ipsum Fidei actum foreign credere, dico imputari in iustitiam, idque sensu proprio non metonymice] The same is the opinion of his fellowes the Remonstrants, ofccA…tibell. pag. 106. Vorstius, ofddCollat. cu… Sib. Lubber. Peter Bertius, of eeThesibu, de …ustific.Episcopius, and theffR…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 vponupon that Rom: 4. p. 35(His faith is imputed for righteousnesse.] he saith thus. [Vbiipsa fides censetur esse Iustitia, ac per hoc non apprehendit fides iustitiam Christi: sed ipsa fides in Christum est iustitia.] In summe, their opinion runnes thus. God in the Legall Couenant required the exact obedience of his Commandement: but now in the Couenant of grace, he requires faith, which in his gracious estimation stands in stead of that obedience to the Morall Law, which wee ought to performe. Which comes to passe by the Merit of Christ; for whose sake God accounts our imperfect saith to be perfect obedience. This Assertion we reiect as erronious, and in place thereof we defend this Proposition. God doth not iustifie a man by Faith properly, impuring vntounto him faith in Christ for his perfect obedience to the Law, and therefore accounting him iust and innocent in his sight. Which we proue by these Reasons.

1 We are not Iustified by any worke of our owne. But 1beleeving is an Act of our owne: Therefore by the Act of beleeving we are not Iustified.

The Maior is most manifest by the Scriptures, which teach that we are saued by grace Ephes. 2. 5. [and therefore not by the workes of Righteousnesse which we had wrought.] Tit. 3. 6. [For if it be of Works, then were grace no more grace] Ro. 11. 6.

The Minor is likewise evident. [That Faith is a worke of ours.] For though Iohn 6. 29. it bee said, [This is the worke of God that ye beleeue in him whom hee hath sent] yet will not our adversaries conclude thence, that Faith is Gods worke within vsus, and not our worke by his helpe. For so should they runne into that absurdity which they would fasten vponupon vsus. (viz.) That when a Man beleeues, tis not man beleeues: but God beleeues in him. To beleeue, though it be done by Gods aide: yet 'tis we that doe it; and the Act is properly ours. And being so, we conclude, that by it we are not iustified in Gods sight.

Here two Exceptions may be made.

1 First that we are not iustified by any worke of our 1owne (viz▪ ) which we our selues doe by our owne strength p. 36without the help of grace: But yet we may be iustified by some worke which we doe (viz) by the aide of Grace; and such a worke is Faith. Wee answere. This Distinction of workes done without Grace and workes done by Grace, was devised by one that had neither Wit nor Grace; being a T…icke to elude the force of such Scriptures as exclude indefinitely all workes from our Iustification, without distinguishing either of Time when they are done, before or after; or of the ayde & helpe whereby they are done, whether by Nature or by Grace. Wherefore it is without all ground in Scripture thus to interpret these Propositions: A man is not iustified by workes (that is) by workes done by worth of Nature before and without Grace. A Man is iustified by Grace (that is) by workes done by aide of Grace. These Interpretations are meere forged inventions of froward Minds, affirmed but not proved: as we shall more hereafter declare,

22 That we are not Iustified by any workes of our own, (that is) by any works of the Law: but by a worke of the Gospell such as faith is we may be iustified. Male res agitur vbi opus est tot Remedijs (saith Erasmus in another case.) Tis a certaine signe of an vntrue opinion when it must be bolstered vp with so many distinctions. Nor yet hath this distinction any ground in Scripture, or in Reason: for both tell vsus that the workes commamded in the Law, and workes commanded in the Gospell are one and the same for the substance of thē, What worke can be named, that is enioyned vsus in the New Testament, which is not also cōmanded vsus in that summary precept of the Morall Law [Thou shalt louelove the L…rd thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soule and with all they strength, and with all thy mind: and thy neighbour as thy selfe.] Luc. 5. 27. Deut. 6. 5 What sinne is there against the Gospell, that is not a transgression of the Law? If the Gospel cōmand Charity, is it any other then that which the Law commands: If the Gospell cōmand Faith, doth not the Law enioine the same? you will say No. It doth not command p. 37Faith in Christ. I answere, yea, it doth: For that which commands vsus in generall to Beleeue what euer God shall propose vntounto vsus: commands vsus also to beleeue in Christ, assoone as God shall make knowne that tis his will we should beleeue in him. The Gospell discouers vntounto vsus the Obiect; the Law commands vsus the obedience of beleeuing it. Wherefore Faith, for the Substance of the Grace and works done by vsus, is a worke of the Law; and so to be Iustified by the Action of beleeuing, is to be Iustified by workes and by our owne Righteousnesse, contrary to the Scriptures; and that Phil: 5. 9. (That I may be found not, &c. This of the first Reason.

2 God accounts that only for perfect Righteousn…sse 2of the Law, which is so in deed and truth. But Faith is not the perfect fulfilling of the Law. Therefore God doth not account it …or such.

The Minor is granted by our adversaries; That Faith is not the exact Iustice of the Law; such as can stand before the severity of Gods Iudgments. The Maior must be proued: That God accounts not that for perf…ct Iustice which is not perfect indeed. This appeares by that Rom. 2. 2. [The iudgement of God is according to trueth.] Where therefore any thing is not truly good and perfect: there God esteemes it not so. Here also twilbe excepted.

That God some time Iudgeth Iudicio iustitiae, according to exact Iustice; and then he …udgeth nothing perfectly iust, but that whi…h hath true perfection of Iustice in it. Sometimes he iudgeth iudicio misericord…ae; according to mercy: and so he may esteeme a Man perfectly righteous for that which is not perfect righteousnesse in it selfe; namely for his Faith.

Surely, this is a trimme distinction thus applyed, that sets Gods Mercy and Truth together by the Eares. As who would say, When God iudgeth out of Mercy: hee then doth not iudge according to truth. The Scriptures doe not acquaint vsus with any such mercifull iudgement of p. 38God. This they doe acquaint vsus with, That God iudgeth according to mercy, not when he doth pronounce and cleare a Sinner to be perfectly righteous for that righteousnesse which is truely imperfect: but when he iudgeth a Sinner to be righteous for that righteousnesse which is perfect; but is not his owne. In this Iudgement there is both Truth and Mercy. Truth, in that he esteemes me perfectly righteous, for that righteousnesse sake which is eueryevery way perfect: and mercy, that he accepteth for sinne, that righteousnesse which is performed for me by Christ my surety; but is not mine owne. Other mercifull Iudgement of God besides this, we acknowledge none.

33 We are not iustified by two righteousnesses existing in two diuers subiects. But if wee be iustified by the worke of Faith: we shall be iustified partly by that righteousnesse which is in vsus, (viz.) of Faith: partly by the righteousnesse of Christ without vsus.

Ergo we are not iustified by Faith properly.

The Minor is apparant. The Righteousnesse of Faith is …nherent in vsus. and by it we are iustified (say our Aduersaries.) The righteousnesse of Christ is inherent in him: and by it are we iustified, say the Scriptures. [Being now iustified by his blood, we shall be saued from wrath through him.] Ro. 5 9. & v. 19. [By the obedience of one, many shall be made iust.] Wherefore either we are properly iustified by both, or there is an errour, and one part must stand out▪ We cannot be properly iustified by both, for our own faith and Christs obedience too: for if we be perfectly iust in Gods sight for our own Faith, what need the Imputation of Christs obedience to make vsus iust? If for Christs righteousnes we be perfectly iustified: how can God accoūt vsus perfectly iust for our faith? Arminius and his friends, seeing these things cannot stand together; hauehave (according to the good will which they beare toward the righteousnesse of Christ) kept in our faith, and thrust out Christs obedience, denying vtterly that p. 39it is imputed vntounto vsus for righteousnesse. But my Brethren (which I hope make a better choice) seeing it cannot part with ours: part with our owne righteousnesse, leaning wholy vponupon the righteousnesse of Christ; and seeking for the comfort of our Iustification in his perfect obedience, and not in our weake and imperfect saith. These Reasons may suffice to shew the errour of that Assertion. We are iustified by Fa…h, sensu prop…rio, God accepting the Act of beleeuing for the perfect obedience of the Law. And therefore that in those places,We are saued by grace thorough faith. Ephes. 2. 8.Eph 2:8 where 'tis said, [Faith is imputed for righteousnesse,] the Phrase is to be expounded metonymice, (that is) Christs righteousnesse beleeued on by Faith, is imputed to the beleeuer for righteousnesse.

Whereas our Aduersaries say that faith of its owne dignity and desert, doth not obtaine this fauour of God, to be esteemed for the perfect righteousnesse of the Morall Law: but this comes to passe onelyonly by the Merits of Christ, who hath procured this grace vntounto vsus, that God should thus accept of our Faith: wee answere, that this is affirmed, but 'tis not prooued. They speake a little more fauourably then the Romanists, who make faith of it selfe to merit Iustification: these will hauehave it not to merit it; but to be graciously accepted for righteousnesse. But wee find not in Scripture any such Doctrine as this, [Christ hath merited that wee should bee iustified for our faith,] or [Christ hath merited for our faith, that faith should be esteemed by God for that perfect Iustice of the Law; whereby we are iustified in Gods sight.] These things the Scriptures teach not: they teach, that Christ is our righteousnesse, and that we are iustified by his blood and obedience. But that he hath merited by his obedience, that we should be iustified by our owne obedience and righteousnesse, is a peruerse assertion of men that louelove to runne about the bush, and leauing the streight, to runne in crooked and froward wayes. And it differs little from the like shift of the Disciples of Rome, who to maintaine Merit of our workes and of Christ p. 40too; salue it with this tricke. Christ hath merited that wee might merit. But we acknowledge, as no other merit, but that of Christ; so no other righteousnesse to Iustification, but his alone. Thus much of the second Assertion.

CHAP. III.

The confutation of Popish Doctrine, that other graces doe iustifie vsus, and not faith alone.

THe third and last followes, wherein the Controuersie is betweene vsus and those of Rome; whose Assertion is: that

3 A sinner is not iustified by faith alone, but also by other vertues and graces; as Hope, LoueLove, Repentance, Feare of God, &c.

This we also reject as an error, contrary to the Scriptures, wherby we are taught, That a man is iustified by faith alone. For opening the truth of which point: you must call to minde the different acception of the word Iustifie: wherein it is taken by vsus, and by our Aduersaries. With them to Iustifie is all one, as to Sanctifie: of vnjust and vnholy, to make inherently iust and holy. With vsus to Iustifie is to absolue an offender, quitting him from blame and punishment. According to these different Acceptions, this proposition [A man is iustified by faith alone] hath a double meaning; one thus [A man by faith alone is inherently sanctified] another thus: [A man by faith alone obtaines absolution in Gods Iudgement, from all faultinesse and punishment. This latter meaning onelyonly is true, and tis that onelyonly which is defended by vsus of the Reformed Churches; Namely, that faith onelyonly is the grace of God whereby a sinner beleeuing the promise, and resting himselfe vponupon the righteousnesse of Christ, receiues mercy from God in absoluing him from the fault and punishment of all his Transgressions: and to be accounted Righteous for Christs sake. Which p. 41gracious priuiledge God hath annexed vntounto faith, as vntounto the Condition of the New Covenant, and not vntounto LoueLove, Hope, Feare, Repentance, or any other grace; For not these, but Faith onelyonly, respecteth the promise of the Gospell. The former sense of that Proposition, is false and absurde, viz. [A Man by faith alone is inherently sanctified] nor doe any of the Reformed deteine such a Construction thereof. Wherefore when Bellarmine and his Complices dispute eagerly against Iustification by faith alone, those Arguments wherewith they suppose to smite through the Truth of our Assertion, are let flye at a wrong Marke; being all aymed at this Butte, (viz) to proue; That a man is sanctified by other inherent Graces as well as faith. Which point we easily yeeld them, confessing that inherent righteousnesse, consists not of one, but of theaaforeign. manifold graces of Gods Spirit, wrought in the heart of such as are Regenerate. Neuerthelesse for the shewing of some points which may be doubted of; Let vsus briefely take a view of the chiefe passages of Bellarmines long discourse; which he maintaines from the twelfth Chapter of his first booke de Iustificatione, to the end. For to proue that a Man is iustified not by faith alone. Of his Arguments which are few, I shall name three onelyonly, which are materiall.

1 If other vertues Iustifie as well as Faith,1 Arg. Bell. then not faith alone.

But other vertues doe Iustifie—Therefore, &c.

The Minor he prooues out of the Councell of Trent, Sess. 6. cap. 6. where seauen preparatory, graces to Iustification, are reckoned vp.

1 Faith. 2 The Feare of God, 3 Hope in his mercy. 4 LoueLove of God, as the Fountaine of Iustice (& ad benefactoris, saith Bellarmine) 5 Repentance, a sorrow and detestation of sinne. 6 A desire of receiuing the Sacrament of Baptisme. 7 A purpose to leade a new life, and keepe Gods Commandements. All these (saith Bellarmine) doe iustifie a Man, Praeparatoriè, p. 42antecedentèr, dispositiuè. Faith, thats the roote and beginning of our Iustification, the rest follow in order; all must goe before as needfull preparations: and Iustification followes, as the effect of all in common, &c. Ergo, Not of Faith alone. The bbLib. 1. cap. 13.Iesuite goes ouer eueryevery particular, to shew by Scriptures what force each of those graces hauehave to Iustifie. But tis not worth-while to repeate his proofes. VntoUnto the Argument, wee answere two things.

11 That it is framed vponupon the errour which puts out of frame the whole dispute of our Aduersaries, about this Article of Iustification; namely, that Regeneration and Sanctification is all one thing with Iustification; and that to Iustifie a sinner is nothing but to doe away inherent corruption, by infusion of inherent righteousnesse. This we hauehave heretofore by the Scriptures cleared to be false; and therefore this Argument proouing our Sanctification to be wrought by other graces as well as by faith, toucheth not the point of Iustification in the Remission of sinnes, which faith alone obtaineth through the promise.

22 Touching these graces which they make preparatory vntounto Iustification, that is to Sanctification: Wee answere, that tis a Philosophicall dreame of such as measure out the workes of Gods Spirit in mans conuersion, according to Aristotles Physickes; and those disputes touching praeuious, or fore-going dispositions, that qualifie the matter for receiuing of the Forme. We acknowledge, that in mans Regeneration all graces of the Spirit are not perfected at once. But as the ioynts and sinewes in the bodily: so the graces of Sanctification in the spirituall New-birth, are at first weake and feeble: Which in continuance of time gather more strength, according to our growth in Christ. But yet these are true for the substance: though imperfect in their degrees and measure. There is now true Spirituall life in such a one which was before dead in sinne: although p. 43there be not the free and able exercise of all the vitall powers. Health there is, but not entire from all degrees o… sicknesse, and eueryevery kinde of disease. Wherefore we aff…me that these vertues which are by our Aduersarics reckoned onelyonly as dispositions vntounto Regeneration: are, if they be true and not counterfeit Mettall, the maine parts and fruits of Regeneration.

Hence we beleeue that these are foule errors (viz.) To teach that a man without grace by the power of his free-wil may dispose himselfe to his Regeneration, by beleeving in Christ, fearing and louing of God, hoping of his Mercy, repenting of his sinnes, resoluing vponupon amendment, and all this with true and sincere affection: or to teach if a man cannot do these things of his owne meere strength and free-will; yet by the Spetiall aide of God inciting and helping him; … may doe them whilst he is vtterly vns…nctified in statu peccati. That true Faith, and Feare, and Hope, and LoueLove, and Repentance, and purpose of Reformation, are Vertues and Graces in a Man that is yet gracelesse and without Vertue, because destitute of Sanctification. That these Graces consisting in the inward motion of the soule, and change of the Affections, are wrought in Man, not by any sanctifying Grace of the Holy Ghost, inwardly touching the heart: but by some other kind of Vertue and aid (they know not what) aaLib. 1. cap. 2…. Nectamen est a Deo intus inhabitante, per gra…am Sanctificari: sidextrins…cus ad… vante, & exitonte.externall,aaEt Cap: 13. pag. 311. H. exciting and helping forward the strength of Nature.aaFeare. All these are monstrous and mis-shapen imaginations, bred in proud hearts that would faine share the glory of their Conversion, betweene Gods grace and their owne free-will, and maintained by curious heads, whom Philosophicall speculations hauehave transported beyond the simplicity of diuine Truth. The Scripture speaks otherwise of these Graces, as of those that belong to such as are not in the way to be made good, but are made so already. [Ye are al the Children of God by Faith in Iesus Christ] saith the Apostle Paul Gal. 3. 28. Whosoeuer shall confesse that Iesus is the sonne of God: God dwelleth in him and he in God.] saith Iohn 1. p. 441. Ioh. 4. 15. and Chap. 5. 1. [Whosoeuer beleeueth that Iesus is that Christ; is borne of God.] Doe we by true Faith become the Children of God, borne of him, in whom hee dwelleth and we in him, when as yet in the meane time we are yet vnsanctified, vnholy, vncleane, & not in the state of Grace? Bellarmine will proue that a man may hauehave Faith; yet not the Child of God: ou… of Iohn 1. 12. [As many as receiued him, to them he gaue power to become the Sonnes of God: euen to them th…t beleeue on his name.] See (s…th he) they that beleeue are not yet, but hauehave power if they list, to become the Sonnes of God, (viz.) by going on further from Faith to Hope and LoueLove, and the rest of the Tridenti…e dispositions. For tis LoueLove properly and not Faith, that makes vsus the Sons of God; as he would proue (contrary to that expresse place of the Galat.) out of the 1 Ep. of Iohn, where the Apostle hath much excellent matter, but nothing to that purpose. To the place of Iohn, wee answere, that the Iesuite playeth with the ambiguity of the word foreign, which is not here a liberty to doe what we list; as if we could at our pleasure become Gods adopted sonnes: but tis a right and priuiledge which Christ the naturall Sonne bestowes on true beleeuers, to be made Gods adopted sonnes, and so coheires with him of the heauenly inheritance. When is this priuiledge of Adoption bestowed? Then when they beleeue, and assoone as they beleeue, before they be Regenerate? No, Saint Iohn denies it. [He giues power to be the Sonnes of God, euen to those that beleeue in him.] Who be they? Hee answeres, vers. 15. [Which were borne not of bloud, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.] Faith then is not a Preparatiue to Iustification, but a part of it.

And is not Feare of GOD too?Feare. No, saith Bellarmine. That is thebbPsal …11. 10. Pro. …. 7. Faith is radix: a part of the tree.Ps 11:10 beginning of wisedome (that is) of a perfect Iustification. A bad interpretation, but a worse Argument. Tis the beginning, therefore not part. Nay; If the feare of God be the Alpha of Christian graces, certainely it selfe makes one Letter of that Alphabet. Tis such a beginning p. 45of wisdome: as its selfe is wisdome too. Else God himselfe deceaues vsus: who, as it is, Iob 28. 28. [Sayd vntounto man: Behold the feare of the Lord that is wisdome, and to depart from euill is vnderstanding.] And therefore to take it in the Iesuits glosse, Feare of God is Iustification as well as the beginning of it.

For Hope;Hope. If it be true, (viz.) That ccRom. 5. 5.Rom 5:5which makes not ashamed,] Which is the ddHeb. 6. 18.Heb 6:18Anchor of the Soule, sure and stedfast, that entereth within the Vaile.] It would bee knowne what difference the Iesuite will put betweene that Hope which is in a man before: and that which is in him after his Sanctification. If he say, It differs onelyonly in degree: then hee grants, tis the same in substance: whence wee hauehave a faire position; That man sanctified and vnsanctified, is alike capable of the sauing graces of Gods Spirit.

The like we say for LoueLove of God, if it be sincere and without dissimulation bred in the heart:LoueLove. VponUpon those spirituall considerations not onelyonly of Gods Mercy in Christ: but also of his Iustice and infinite Righteousnesse; (For so the Trent Fathers will hauehave this LoueLove to respect God, vt fontem Iustitiae) then we affirme this spirituall LoueLove is not to bee found but onelyonly in those Hearts, that are in some measure Regenerate and made spirituall. In (whom eeRom. 5. 5.Rom 5:5this LoueLove of God is shed abroad by the Holy Ghost that is giuen to them.] as theaaRom. 5. 5.Rom 5:5 Apostle speaketh. This Bellarmine is so…ne forced to grant: yet he puts it off with a distinction [No man can louelove God perfectly with all his heart, without the Holy Ghost: but louelove him he may imperfectly without the Holy Ghost dwelling in him, though not without the speciall aide of God.] Whereto we answere; 'tis one thing to louelove God perfectly, and another to louelove him truely. To louelove him perfectly, is to louelove him with all the heart, all the soule, all the minde, & all the strength: which we grant no man can doe without the Holy Ghost: but we also affirme, that no man did or shall euer doe it in this life, so long as there is lustfull corruption in him causing any the least auersion of his soule from God in any motion thereof. So that if none hauehave the Holy Ghost abiding p. 46in them; but such in whom LoueLove is thus perfected; he must be confined with the Saints in heauen, and not hauehave his dwelling with the faithfull on earth. But if imperfect LoueLove of God be also from the Holy Ghost, dwelling in the hearts of the Godly, who louelove God truely in vnfeigned vprightnesse of heart; though in much imperfection by reason of sinne, which diuerts the heart vntounto other pleasures: then it must be knowne of the Iesuite, what he meanes by imperfect LoueLove. Is it false LoueLove, such a meere naturall Man may conceiue vponupon generall grounds: That God is good, the chiefest good, iust, holy, and full of all excellency? He will not say for shame, this is a true preparatiue vntounto Iustification. Is it true louelove, but in its degree imperfect, not so vigorous, so vehement, so hot as coales of Iuniper: yet such as hath some strength and warmth of spirituall affection? Then we require that these men will draw vsus out a line by the Rule of the Scriptures, and to tell vsus how farre the true LoueLove of God may come, without the grace of the Holy Ghost sanctifying the heart: But after tis past such a degree, then there is required the sanctifying grace of the Holy Ghost for it. Twill trouble their Mathematickes to describe vntounto vsus in what degree of Perfection that Womans louelove was situated, whose example they alleadge for a proofe of this point out of Luke 7. 47. [Her sinnes which were many, are forgiuen her, for she loued much.] Can Bellarmine tell vsus how much this was? that so by that patterne we may know how farre men goe in the true LoueLove of God before they bee at all sanctified by inherent Grace? For such wonders they would make vsus beleeue concerning this penitent Sinner; that when her soule was full of Faith and LoueLove to Christ, her heart full of sorrow, her eyes full of teares for her sinnes; yet for all that she was a gracelesse, vnholy person, whose LoueLove, and Faith, and Sorrow, came not from the sanctifying grace of the Holy Ghost, but onelyonly from free-will helped with some kinde of externall aide of God.

We hauehave not Faith to beleeue such Mysteries as these. p. 47Nor yet in the last place can we conceiue how there should be true repentance,Repentance. with a sincere purpose of Reformation and obedience,Reformation. where the Heart is not changed and renued by the Holy Ghost.Not of Ahab or Iudas. That Godly sorrow and Hatred of sinne should spring out of a gracelesse heart, that so holy a Resolution of Amendment of Life should be in an vnholy person; be Assertions so contradictory and iarring: that no Christian Eare can with patience endure to heare them. We conclude then touching these dispositions vntounto Sanctification, that if these Graces be true, they are parts and chiefe Branches of inherent Righteousnesse. But if they be false and counterfeit, they are not so much as Preparations therevnto. So much of this first Argument: wherein yet one of these 7 dispositions first reckoned vp is omitted (viz.) a Desire of receauing the Sacrament of Baptisme. (that is) A Man thats baptised in his youth, afterward, before he be Iustified, must hauehave a desire to be Rebaptised. For what is it for one baptised to desire to receaue that Sacrament againe? This conceit is so absured that howeuer Bellarmine reckon it vp among the other Dispositions; because of the Authority of the councell of Trent: yet aaTom. 2. Tract. … cap. 3. Quest. 3. Bell. lib. 1. c. 14.Becanus giues it ouer in plaine Feild; numbring these fore naming sixe graces onelyonly, choosing rather to venter the Councells credit, then his owne, by defending an vnreasonable position.

2 Argument. 2 Arg.If Faith alone doe iustifie vsus; then it may d…e…t when other graces are absent; as well as when they are present. For seeing the Vertue of Iustifing vsus depends vponupon Faith alone: and that in this act it receaues no aide from any other grace; It followeth that it needs not the cōpany of any other grace: as in the law of sense. If the whole force of Burning proceed onelyonly from Heat: then where Heat is, though there be no other Qualities yet there will be burning; yea if Faith only hauehave force to Iustifie, it will follow, that it may iustifie not onelyonly in the absence of other graces: but in the p. 48presence of the coutrary vices. For as the absence of other graces doth not hinder: so the presence of other vices will not hinder Faith one jot in it office of Iustifying.

But twere absurd to affirme, that Faith can Iustifie without other vertues with other vices—Ergo, The force of Iustifying is not in Faith alone.

To this we answere. That this sophisme is fashioned vponupon the same Block with the former, that to Iustifie and Sanctifie are all one. In which sense we confesse the Consequence is vnauoydable. If Faith alone by it owne vertue and force did sanctifie: then it would effect this not onelyonly in the absence of other graces; but in the presence of their contrary Corruptions: and the similitude which we bring to illustrate our assertion, would confirme that of the Aduersaries. Tis the eye onelyonly sees, say our Men: yet the Eare is in the Head too. Yea, reply they, But the eie could see well notwithstanding the Eare were deafe. Tis theaa… antid. …onc. Trid. Sess. 6 cap. II. Heate onelyonly of the fire or Sunne that warmes, though there be light ioyned with it. True say they, But if there were no Light, yet if heate remained, it would warme for all that: as the Heate of an Ouen, or of Hell, burnes, though it shine not. Thou holdest in thy hands many seedes (Tis the old comparison of Luther on the 15 of Gen.) I enquire not what tis together but what is the vertue of each one single. Yea, reply our Aduersaries; thats a very needelesse question indeed. For if among them many seedes there be some one that hath such soueraigne vertue; that it alone can cure all diseases, then tis no Matter whether thou hauehave many or few, or none at all of any other sort in thy hand. Thou hast that which by it owne vertue without other ingredients will worke the Cure Nor hauehave we ought to make answere in this case; If, as the Eye sees, heate warmes, seeds and other simples doe cure by their owne proper Vertue: so Faith alone by its owne efficacy did sanctifie vsus. But there is the Errour. Faith works not in our sanctification or Iustification by any such inward p. 49power & vertue of its own, from whence these effects should properly follow. For Sanctification Faith, as we hauehave seene, is part of that inherent Righteousnesse 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 LoueLove, Feare, Zeale, Hope, Repentance, &c. Inasmuch as Mans regeneration is not the infusion of one; but of the Habit of all graces. Againe, 'tis not the Vertue of Faith that iustifies vsus; The grace of Iustification is from God, he workes it: but tis our Faith applies it and makes it ours. The Act of Iustification is Gods meere worke; but our Faith onelyonly brings vsus the Benefit and Assurance of it. Iustification is an externall priuiledge which God bestowes on beleeuers; hauing therein respect onelyonly to their Faith, which grace onelyonly hath peculiar respect to the Righteousnesse of Christ and the promise in him. Whereby tis manifest that this argument is vaine. Faith alone is respected in our Iustification: therefore Faith is or may be alone without other graces of Iustification. Bellar: bbCap. 15. eiu… dem Lib. primi.would vndertake to proue that true saith may be seuered from Charity and other Vertues: but wee hauehave heretofore spoken of that Point: and shewed, that [true Faith, yet without a Forme:] [true Faith, dead, and without a soule] be Contradictions as vaine as [A true Man without reason] [A true Fire without heate.] We confesse indeed that the faith of Iesuites (the same with that of Simon Magus) may very well bee without Charity and all other sanctifying graces; a bare assent to the truth of Divine Reuelations, because of Gods Authority. As tis in Diuels, so tis in Papists and other Heretickes. But we deny that this is that which deserues the name of true Faith: which whosoeuer hath, hee also hath eternall life. As it is, Iohn 6. 47.

3 Argument. 3 Argu…That which Scripture doth not affirme, that is false doctrine.

p. 50But the Scripture doth not affirme that wee are Iustified by Faith alone—Ergo, so to teach, is to teach false Doctrine.

This Argument toucheth the quicke: and if the Minor can be prooued, we must needs yeeld them the Cause. For that the Iesuites conceiue that this is a plaine case:Bell. lib. 1 cap. 16. for where is there any one place in all the Bible, that saith, Faith alone Iustifies? They euen laugh at the simplicity of the Heretickes (as they Christen vsus) that glory they hauehave found out at last the word (OnelyOnly) in Luc. 8. 50. in that speech of Christ, to the Ruler of the Synagogue, [Feare not, beleeue onelyonly, and shee shall be made whole.]

And much sport they make themselues with Luther: That to helpe out this matter at a dead lift, by plaine fraud hee foysted into the Text, in the 3. to the Romans, the word (OnelyOnly.) When being taught with the fact, and required a Reason: He made answere according to his Modesty, (Sic volo, sic iubeo, stet pro ratione voluntas.) Tis true that Luther in his Translation of the Bible into the Germane tougue: read the 28. verse of that Chapter, thus. (We conclude that men are iustified without the workes of the Law: onelyonly through Faith.)[Allein durch …en gsaubren.] Which word onelyonly is not in the Originall. Where, in so doing, if he fulfild not the Office of a faithfull Translator: yet he did the part of a faithfull Paraphrast, keeping the sense exactly in that Alteration of words. And if he be not free from blame: yet of all men the Iesuites are most vnfit to reproue him; whose dealing in the corrupting of all sort of Writers, Diuine and humane, are long since notorious and infamous throughout Christendome.

What Luthers Modesty was in answering those that found fault with his Translation:Bell. quotes Lu…beri Resp. ad duos Art. ad ami…m quendam. we hauehave not to say. OnelyOnly thus much, That the impudent Forgeries of this Generation, witnesse abundantly: that it is no rare thing for a Lie to drop out of a Iesuites or Fryers penne. But be it, as it may be; Tis not Luthers Translation; Nor that place in the 8. of p. 51Luke, that our Doctrine, [touching Iustification by Faith alone,] is founded vponupon. We hauehave better proofes then these: as shall appeare vntounto you in the confirmation of the Minor of this Syllogisme.

Whatsoeuer the Scriptures affirme, that's true doctrine. But the Scriptures affirme, a man is iustified by Faith alone.

Therefore thus to teach, is to teach according to the word of whole-some doctrine.

Our Aduersaries demaund proofe of the Minor. We alleadge all those places wherein the Scriptures witnesse: that we are Iustified by faith, without the workes of the Law. Such places are these. Rom. 3. 28. (Therefore we conclude that a man is iustified by faith, without the workes of the Law.) Rom. 4. 2. 3. (If Abraham were iustified by workes, hee hath whereof to glory: but not before God. For what saith the Scripture? Abraham beleeued God: and it was counted to him for righteousnesse.) And vers. 14. 15. 16. (For if they which are of the Law be heires: faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect. Because the Law worketh wrath, for where no Law is, there is no transgression.) Gal. 2. 16. (Knowing that a man is not iustified by the workes of the Law, but by the Faith of Iesus Christ: Euen we hauehave beleeued in Christ, that we might be iustified by the Faith of Christ, and not by the workes of the Law. For by the workes of the Law shall no flesh be iustified.) Gal. 3. 21. 22. (Is the Law then against the promises of God? God forbid. For if there had beene a Law giuen, which could hauehave giuen Life: verily righteousnesse should hauehave beene by the Law. But the Scripture hath concluded all vnderunder sinne: that the promise by the faith of Iesus Christ, might be giuen by them that beleeue.) Ephe. 2. 8. 9. (For by grace ye are saued, through Faith, and that not of your selues; It is the gift of God: Not of workes, least any man should boast.) Phil 3. 8. 9. (Yea doubtlesse, and I count all things but losse for the excellency of the Knowledge of Christ Iesus my Lord. For whom I hauehave suffered the losse of all things: and doe count them but dung, that I p. 52may winne Christ. And be found of him not hauing mine owne righteousnesse, which is of the Law: but that which is through the faith of Christ:aaTit. 3. 5. 6. 7.Titus 3:5Titus 3:6Titus 3:7 the Righteousnesse which is of God by Faith.) Out of which places, not to name more, expresly touching this point of our Iustification, we argue thus.

A Man is iustified either by the workes of the Law, or by faith in Christ. But hee is not Iustified by the workes of the Law. Ergo, He is iustified onelyonly by faith in Christ.

In this disiunctiue Syllogisme, they cannot find …ault with vsus for adding the word [onelyonly] in the Conclusion; which was not in the Praemises. For Reason will teach them, that where two Tearmes are immediately opposite, if one bee taken away, the other remaines alone. So that in eueryevery disjunctiue Syllogisme, whose Maior Proposition standeth vponupon two Tearmes immediately opposite: if one be remoued in the Minor, the Conclusion is plainely equivalent to an exclusiue Proposition. As if we argue thus. Eyther the wicked are saued: or the godly. But the wicked are not saued. Thence it followes in exclusiue Tearmes, Therefore the godly onelyonly are saued. Our Aduersaries cannot deny, but that the Proposition [A Man is iustified by workes, or by Faith,] consists of Tearmes immediately opposite. For else they accuse the Apostle Paul of want of Logicke, who Rom. 3. should conclude falsely, [A man is iusitified by faith without workes: if he be iustified either by both together, or else by neither. Seeing then he opposeth Faith ād workes as incompatible, and exclude workes from Iustification: wee conclude infallibly by the Scriptures, That a man is iustified by faith alone. This Argument not auoidable by any sound āswere, puts our aduersaries miserably to their shifts. Yet rather then yeeld vntounto the truth, they fall vntounto their distinctions: whereby, if twere possible, they would shift off the force of this Argument. Whereas therefore the Scriptures oppose Workes and Faith: the [Law of Workes,] and the [Law of Faith.] Our [owne righteousnesse which is of the p. 53Law] and the (Righteousnesse of God by Faith,) manifestly telling vsus that we are Iustified, (Not by Workes, by the Law of Workes, nor by our owne Righteousnesse which is of the Law, but that we are iustified by Faith, by the Righteousnesse of God by Faith.) Our Aduersaries hauehave a distinction to salue this Matter withall. They say then Workes are of two sorts.

1 Some goe before Grace and Faith, and are performed by the onelyonly strength of free-will: out of that Knowledge of the Law, whereunto Men may attaine by the light of Nature, or the bare Reuelation of the Scriptures. These workes or this obedience vntounto the law, which a meere naturall man can performe, is (say they) that Righteousnesse which the Scripture cals our owne. By this kinde of Righteousnesse and Workes, they grant none is Iustified.

2 Some follow Grace and Faith: which are done by Mans free-will, excited and aided by the speciall helpe of Grace. Such Obedience and Righteousnesse is (say they) called the (Righteousnesse of God,) because it is wrought in vsus of his gift and grace. And by this Righteousnesse a man is iustified.

By this Invention they turne of with a wet finger, all those Scriptures that we hauehave alleadged. Wee are Iustified (not by the workes of the Law,) that is, by the Obedience of the Morall Law, which a man may performe without Gods Grace: But we are Iustified by (Faith of Christ,) that is, by that obedience of the Morall Law, which a man may performe by faith, and the helpe of Gods grace.bbRom. 3. ….Rom 3 Boasting is excluded, saith the Apostle, by what Law? By the Law of workes, that is, by the Law performed by the strength of Nature? Nay, For he that performes the Law by his owne strength, hath cause to boast of it. By what Law then? By the Law of Faith, that is, by faith which obtaines Gods grace p. 54to fulfill the Morall Law. Now he that obeyes the Law by Gods helpe, hath no cause to boast. (ccRom. 9. 31. 32 How knowes Bellarm…ne that? Bell. lib. 1. c. 19▪Rom 9:31Rom 9:32 Israel which followed the Law of righteousnesse, could not attaine vntounto the law of righteousnesse.) Wherefore? Because they sought it not by Faith; that is, they sought not to performe the Law by Gods Grace; (But as by the workes of the Law,) that is, by their own strength: Thus Paul desires to be found in Christ, (not hauing his owne righteousnesse which is of the Law) that is that righteousnesse he performed without Gods grace before his Conversion; …ello. cap. 16.But (the righteousnesse of God which is by faith.) i.e. That righteousnesse which he performed in obeying the Law by Gods grace after his Conversion. For confirmation of this distinction, and the Interpretations thereon grounded, Bellarmine brings three reasons to shew that when workes and faith are opposed: all workes of the Law are not excluded.

1 Its manifest; Faith is a worke: and that there is a Law of Faith as well as workes. If therefore, Rom. 3. all workes, and all Law be excluded from Iustification: then to be iustified by Faith, were to bee iustified without faith.

2 Its plaine the Apostle, Rom. 3. intends to proue that neither Iewes by theaaBell lib. 1. …. 19. naked obseruation of the law of Moses: nor the Gentiles for their good workes; before they werebb…. Tom. 2, tract. 4. cap. 2▪ quest. 6. §. 15. conuerted to the faith of Christ, could obtaine righteousnesse from God.

3 The Apostle shewes, Rom. 4. 4. what workes he excludes from Iustification, (viz.) such whereto wages is due, by debt, not by grace. Now workes performed without Gods helpe deserueccBell. cap. 19▪ reward (ex Debito:) but workes performed by his helpe, deserve wages (ex gratia.

I doubt but (notwithstanding these seeming Reasons) the fore-named distinction and expositions of Scripture according thereto; appeare vntounto you at the first sight, strange, vncouth, farr besides the intent of the Holy Ghost, in all those p. 55fore-reckoned passages of Scripture. Let vsus examine it a little more narrowly: and yee shall quickly perceiue; that in this Schoole distinction, there is nothing but fraud & shifting. (By workes done, by the strength of Nature wee are not iustified. By workes done with the helpe of grace wee are iustified.) This is the distinction: resolue it now into these tearmes which are more proper, & it runs thus. (A man is not sanctified by those workes of the Mora…l Law which he doth without grace: but a man is sanctified by those workes of the Morall Law he doth by Grace.) Both Sentences are squint eyed, and looke quite awry from the Apostles ayme in this dispute touching Iustification. Is it his intent, Rom. 3. to proue that a sinner destitute of grace cannot be made inherently holy, by Morality, or outward workes of Piety? or thus. That a Sinner cannot attaine to Sanctification by his owne strength: but he must attaine to it by the grace of God? Take a suruey of the Chapter, and follow the Apostles Argumentation. All both Iewes and Gentiles are vnderunder sinne, verse 9. therefore (eueryevery mouth must be stopped) and none can pleade innocency; (and all the world must be guilty before God.) and so liable to condemnation, verse 19. What followeth hence now? (Therefore by the workes of the Law, shall no flesh be iustified in his sight, verse. 20.

How strange were this Conclusion, taken in our Adversaries Construction. Ergo, By Obedience vntounto the Morall Law done without grace no flesh can attaine Sanctification in his sight. For neither doth the Apostle speake of Sanctification, but of absolution as is apparant; All are sinners against the Law, Ergo, by pleading innocency in the keeping of the Law, no Man can be wholy sanctified nor Iustified nor absolued from Blame in Gods sight. Nor yet will the Reason immediately annexed admit that glosse [Workes without Grace] By the workes of the Law shall no flesh be Iustified in his sight. Why] For by the Law commeth the Knowledge of Sinne] that is, By the Law Men are conuinced of p. 56Sinne, and declared not to be innocent. Which reason is not worth a Rush, according to our Aduersaries Construction. He that without grace shall doe the workes of the Law: he is not thereby made holy. Why? Because the Law is the knowledge of sinne. The Law thus obserued tels him he is a sinner. In which reason there is no force, vnlesse it bee true on the other side. He that by the helpe of grace doth the workes of the Law, is thereby sanctified: because the Law thus kept tels him he is not a sinner, which is most vntrue. In as much, as not onelyonly those which are destitute of grace; but those that hauehave grace also, and by the helpe thereof, keepe the Law in some measure, are by the Law notwithstanding convinced to be sinners. The Apostle yet goes forward. (If we be not iustified by the workes of the Law, by what then? He answeres, (verse 21.) But now is the righteousnesse of God made manifest without the Law.) We are iustified by the righteousnesse of God: But what is that? It is (saith the distinction) that obedience to the Law which we performe by Gods grace. A glosse apparantly false. For the righteousnesse of God here is a Righteousnesse without the Law: But obedience to the Law, though performed with grace, is a Righteousnesse (with) the Law; because tis the Righteousnesse of the Law. For tis all one, he that obeyes the Law by his owne strength; if he doe itddAs Adam. perfectly he hath the righteousnes of the law, & he that obeyethit perfectly, by Gods grace, hath still the same righteousnes of the law, and no other. For so the Law be kept, it alters not the righteousnes thereof, that we keepe it by our own strength, that wee hauehave of our selues, or another helpe that giues vsus strength to doe it. For then that strength which he giues vsus is our owne. Which point duely obserued cuts in sunder the sinewes of this distinction; for tis cleare the Apostle distinguisheth the Righteousnesse of the Law and of God as different in thir kindes: these make them to be one and the same thing, [Obedience to the morall Lawe] but done by diuers helpes; one by meere nature: the other by Grace. p. 57This is most contrary to the Scriptures, and specially to that excellent place Rom. 10. 3. 4. &c. where the Apostle shewing the differēce betweene the Righteousnesse which is our owne or of the Law; and that which is the Righteousnesse of God or Faith: tels vsus. The Righteousnesse of the Law is thus described [Th Man that doth these things shall liue thereby:] but the Righteousnesse of Faith speaketh on this wise [whosoeuer beleeueth on him (i. e. Christ) shall not be ashamed.) Can any thing be more plaine; then that the Apostle opposeth heere [Doing of the Law; and [Beleeuing] in Christ: Not [doeing] the Law by our owne strength, and doeing of the Law by [Gods grace.] These are Iesuiticall glosses that corrupt Apostolicall Doctrine, and strangely peruert the worke of Christ in our Redemption as if he had done no more for vsus but thisaaSo Bellarmin… cap. 19. answering that place▪ Gal. 2. [If righ…teousnesse be by the Law, then Christ dyed in vaine] saith: Nay, seeing we are iustified by faith▪ and workes following it, Christ died to purpose, that God might giuegive vsus grace so to be iustified.Gal 2 (viz.) procured that where as we could not liue by doeing of the Law through our owne strength: God will now aide vsus by his grace, that we may fulfil the Law, and by that Legall Righteousnesse obtaine Iustification and remission of Sinnes. We abhorre such Doctrine, and doe reiect as vaine and imaginary that distinction whēce such absurdities necessarily followbbWorkes without grace doe not iustifie. MorehhWhy? because imperfect, or because done by natures strength. Not the later: For then Adam not iustified. Not the former forse all good works of the best are imperfect. might be sayed in confutation thereof, were it needefull: but we hauehave dealt long vponupon this point, and tis time to hasten forward. By the way vntounto the Iesuits Arguments in the defence of this Distinction We answere.

1 We confesse Faith is a worke, and in doeing of it we obey the Law, because (as Saint Iohn speakes) Iohn. 3. 23. [This is Gods Commandment, that we beleeue in the name of his Sonne Iesus Christ.], And therefore the Gospell is called [The Law of Faith.] because the promise of grace in Christ is propounded with Commandment that Men beleeue it. But now we deny that Faith iustifies vsus, as 'tis a worke whi…h we performe in Obedience to this Law: It iustifieth vsus onelyonly as the Condition required of vsus; and an Instrument embracing Christs Righteousnesse. Nor can the contrary be proued.

p. 582 The Iesuits are mistaken in the scope of the Apostle Rom. 3. whose intent is not to shew the Iew or Gentile could not attaine Sanctification without Gods grace; by such Obedience to the Law; as they could performe through the meere strength of Naturall Abilities. They affirme it strongly: but their Proofes are weake, being manyfestly confuted by the whole File of the Apostles disputation, who clearely and plainely exclude both Iewes and Gentiles, from being Iustified by the workes of the Law without making mention or giueing the least Intimation, by what meanes these workes must be performed, whether without grace or by the Helpe of grace. Yea it had been quite besides his purpose so to hauehave done. For the Apostles argument is cleare as the Light; and strong as a threefold cord. All are Sinners against the Law, therefore by obedience vntounto the Law, (Let Men performe which way they list or can, without grace or with grace) no Man is in Gods sight pronounced innocent,

33 To the Last argument out of Rom. 4. 4. we answere, The Apostle there proues: that the Faithfull, children of Abraham; are not iustified by workes. Because Abraham the Father of the Faithfull was Iustified by Faith; and not by workes. Where wee affirme; That the Apostle excludeth all the workes of Abraham from his Iustification: both such as he performed when he had no grace, and those he did when he had grace. For those workes are excluded wherein Abraham might glory before Men. Now Abraham might glory before Men as well in those workes which he did by the helpe of Gods grace: as those which he did without it. Nay more in those: then in these. As in his obedient Departure from his owne Country at Gods command; his patient expectation of the promises; his ready willingnesse euen to offer his owne Sonne out of LoueLove and Duty to God, his religious and Iust demeaning of himselfe in all places of his abode. In those things Abraham had cause to glory before Men, much more, then in such works p. 59as he performed before his Conuertion: when he serued other Gods beyond the Flood. Therefore we conclude that Abraham was Iustified; neither by such workes; as went before Faith and grace in him: nor yet by such as followed after. This is most cleare by the v. 2. [If Abraham where iustified by workes, he had wherein to glory: but not with God.] Admit here the Popish Interpretation: and this speach of the Apostles will be false. Thus [If Abraham were iustified by workes] that is by such workes as he performed without Gods gratious helpe [he hath wherein to glory▪] viz. before Men: but [not with God.] Nay, thats quite otherwise. For its euident. If a Man be Iustified by obeying the Law through his own strength: he may boldly glory before God, as well as before Men; seing in that case he is not beholding to God for his helpe. But according to our doctrine, the Meaning of the Apostle is perspicuous. Abraham might glory before Men in those excellent workes of piety, which he performed after his vocation: and in mens sight he might be iustified by them. But he could not glory in them before God: nor yet be iustified by them in his sight. So then all workes whatsoeuer are excluded from Abrahams Iustification: and nothing lest but Faith, which is imputed vntounto him for Righteousn…sse; as it is v. 3. Whence it followes. That as Abraham: so all others are Iustified without all Merit, by Gods free grace and fauour. For so it followes, verse 4. 5. [Now vntounto him that worketh, the wages is not counted by fauour; but by Debt: but to him that worketh not; but beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly, his faith is counted for Righteousnesse.] These words runne cleare, till a Iesuite put his Foote into the streame to raise vp the Mudde. To him that worketh] that is, which fulfileth the Righteousnesse of the Morall Law: [the wages of Iustification and Life [is not counted by fauour: but by debt] for by the perfect Righteousnesse of the Law▪ a Man deserues to be iustified and saued. [But to him that worketh not] that hath not fullfilled the righteousnesse of the Law in doing all things; that are written therein: p. 60[But beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly] That is relyeth vponupon Christ, who by his Righteousnesse obtained absolution for him (that is) Rightousnesse in himselfe.] His Faith is imput…d for Righteousnesse] that is. He by his Faith ob…aynes I…stification in Gods sight: not by Merit of his owne, but Gods gratious acceptation of Christs Righteousnesse for his.

But here our Aduersaries trouble the water by a false Inte…retation. [To him that worketh] that is, say they that fulfil, the Law by his owne strength. Wages is not counted by fauour, but by debt,] but if he fulfill it by Gods grace, his wages is pai… him by fauour, not of debt. Where vntounto we reply: That 1 This glose is a plaine corruption of the Text. For by workes in this fourth verse the Apostle vnderstands that kind of workes were of mention is made v 2 By which Abraham was not Iustified: and these as we hauehave shewed where works done by the helpe of Grace not by the meere strength of Nature. 2 And againe for the Assertion it selfe, namely [He that fulfils the m…rrall Law by the helpe of Gods grace is iustified, by fauour not by debt] we say tis ether a manifest falshood or at best, an ambiguous speech. For tis one thing to bestow Grace on a Man to fulfill the Law: and tis another thing to Iustifie him; when he hath fulfilled the Law. If God should giuegive strength to a Man exactly to fulfill the Morral… Law that were indeed of his free fauour and grace: but when this man, that hath receaued this stre…gth shall come before God with the perfect Righteousnesse of the Law, pleading that in eueryevery point he had done what was required God is bound in Iustice to pronounce him innocent, and of due Debt to bestow on him the wages of eternall Life. Adams case is not vnlike to such a Man. For God gaue Adam what strength he had: yet Adam fulfilling the Law by that strength, should hauehave merited Iustification and Life. Therefore when the Apostle speake … all workes in the perfect fulfilling of the Law, he sai…h, that [to him that worketh Wages is not counted by fauour p. 61but: but by debt:] he speaketh exactly, and the Iesuits in excluding workes done by Grace comment absurdly. Thus much touching the third point concerning Mans Iustification by Faith alone: as also of the first generall Head promised in the Beginning. Namely, the condition required of vsus vntounto Iustification (viz.) Faith.

SECT. 3.