Of Justification By Faith, Treatise · Section 6
SECT. 6.
CHAP. I.
The reconciliation of that seeming opposition, betweene S. Paul, and S. Iames in this point of Iustification.
THus much of this Argument and of the first Branch of mans Righteousnes, whereby if it were possible he should be justified. viz. His Obedience to the Law of God. By which meanes we hauehave shewed, no flesh shall be justified in Gods sight. We are to proceed vntounto the text branch heereof.2 Conclusion. viz. Mans satisfaction for his transgression of the Law. Wherein we hauehave also to proue, that a Sinner cannot be acquitted before god's judgment seat, by pleading any satisfaction, that himselfe can make for his offences.
But in our passing vntounto that point we are to giuegive you warning of that stumbling stone which St. Iames, (as it may seeme) hath layed in our way: lest any should dash his Faith vponupon it; and fall, as our adnersaries hauehave done into that Errour of Iustification by workes. That blessed Apostle, in the second Chapter of his Epistle, seemes not only to giuegive occasion: but directly to teach this doctrine of Iustification by workes. For in the 21. ver. &c. He sayeth expressly, that Abraham was justified by workes when he offered his sonne Isaack vponupon the altar; and also that Rahab was in like manner justified by workes, when she entertained the spies. Whence also he sets downe ver. 22. a generall Conclusion. That a Man is justified by workes and not by faith alone. Now in shew, nothing can be spoken more contrary to St. Paule his Doctrine in his Epistle to the Romans and else-where. For in the fourth chap. speaking of the same example of Abraham, he saieth cleane contrary, that Abraham was not justified by workes, for then he might hauehave boasted. ver. 2. And in the 3 chap. treating generally of mans Iustification, by faith; after a strong dispute he drawes forth this conclusion. That a man is justified by Faith without the workes of the Law. v. 28. Which Conclusion is in appearance contradictory to that of St. Iames. This harsh discord betweene these Apostles seemes vntounto some not possible to be sweetned by any qualification, who knowing that the Holy Ghost neuer forgets himselfe hauehave concluded that if the spirit of trueth spake by St. Paul it was doubtlesse the spirit of error, that spake by the author of this Epistle of Iames. For this cause most likely it was doubted of in ancient times, asaHist. Eccl. 2. cap. 22. foreign. Eusebius and Hier…me witnes. But yet then also publiquely allowed (foreign) in many Churches, and euer since receaued in all: Out of which for the same cause Luther and others of his followers, since him would againe throw it forth, accounting the author of it to hauehave built not gold and siluer; but straw and stubble vponupon the foundation. Erasmus assents to Luther. And Musculus agrees with them both, who in his Commentaries vponupon the fourth to the Romans, speakes his mind simply, that he sees not how Iames and Paul can agree together, and therefore he turnes out St. Iames for the wrangler, supposing that this Iames was one of the Desciples of Iames the Apostle, the brother of Christ, who vnderunder pretence of his Master's name and authority, continually snarled at the Apostle Paul, and opposed his Doctrine. Howbeit his Epistle got credit in after times, (cum veritas paulatim inualescente mendacio proculcari caeperit.) That is. When error by degrees praevailed against the trueth. But this medicine is worse then the disease, and is rather violence, then skill, thus to cut the knot where it cannot bee readily vntied. A safer and milder course may be holden; and some meanes found out for the according of this grand difference without robbing the Church of somuch pretious Treasure, of diuine knowledg, as is stored vp in this Epistle. Wherefore both they of the Romish and we of the reformed Churches, admitting this Epistle for canonical doe each of vsus search after, a fit reconciliation betweene the Apostles. But they and we betweene our selues are irreconcileable in our seuerall reconcileations of them. They reconcile them thus. By distinguishing. 1. of Iustification. 2 of Workes. Iustification (say they) of two sortes.
1. The first when a man of vnjust is made just and holy, by the Infusion of Grace, or the Habit of Charitie.
2. The 2. When a man of just is made more just by the augmentation of the Habit of Grace first giuen vntounto him.
Againe they diuide workes into two sortes.
1. Some goe before Faith, being performed by the meere strength of nature, and free-will without the helpe of grace; and such workes as these are not meritorious.
2. Some follow Faith, being performed by the aide and assistance of grace giuen vntounto man: and such workes as these be meritorious.
These distinctions praepared, the worke is now ready for the soddering, which they finish artificially glewing togeather the proposition of the two Apostles in this sorte. St. Paul saieth that Abraham, and all men are justified by Faith without workes. This (say they) is to be vnderstood of the first Iustification, and of workes done before Faith, without grace, by the strength of nature. So that the meaning of Paule's proposition (Abraham and all men, are justified by faith without workes is this. Neither Abraham, nor any other can deserue the Grace of Sanctification, whereby of vnjust and vnholy they be made just and holy, by any workes done by them, when they are Naturall Men, destitute of Grace, but only by Faith in Christ Iesus, or thus. No Man merits Grace to make him a good Man of a Bad, by any thing he doth before he beleeue in Christ; but by beleeuing he obtaineth this. On the other side S. Iames saith, that (Abraham and all others are iustified by Workes, not by Faith only.) This (say the Romanists) is meant of the second Iustification, and of such workes as are done after Faith, by the aide of Grace: So the meaning of the Proposition shalbe this. Abraham and other Men being once made good and just, deserue to be made better, and more just by such good workes as they performe through the helpe of Grace giuen vntounto them; & not by faith only. Being once sanctified, they deserue the increase of Sanctificatiō through that merit of their Faith, and good workes out of Faith and Charity.
Is not this difference between these Apostles finely accorded think you? They will now walke together being in this sort made friends through the mediation of the Schoole-men. But it is otherwise. They are so far from reconciling them, that they hauehave abused them both, and set them farther asunder making them speake what they neuer meant. Neither in S. Paul nor S. Iames is there any ground at all, whereon to raise such an interpretation of their words. And therefore we respect this reconcilement, as the shifting quercke of a Scholeman's braine, that hath no footing at all in the text. Which we doe vponupon these Reasons.
1. That distinction of Iustification (that is of Sanctification) into the first giuing of it, and the after increase of it, (howsoeuer tolerable in other matters) is vtterly to no purpose, as it is applied vntounto the doctrine of these Apostles. Who when they speake of Iustification of a sinner in God's sight doe vnderstand thereby the Remission of Sinnes through the imputation of Christ's Righteousnes, and not the infusion, or increase of inherent Sanctity in the soule of man. This confusion of Iustification with sanctification is a prime error of our adversaries in this article, as hath bin shewed, in clearing the acceptions of the word Iustification: and shall be shewed more at large in handling the forme of our Iustification,
2. The distinction of Iustification taken in their owne sense, is falselie applied to St. Iames as if he spake of the 2. Iustification, and to St. Paul as if he spake of the first. For firstaLib. 4 dé Iust. cap. 18. Lorin … Iac. Bellarmine himselfe being judge St. Iames in the example of Rahab speakes of the first Iustification, because (as he saieth) she was then, at the first made a beleeuer of an infidell a righteous woman of an harlot. And againe Paul, he speakes of the 2. Iustification in the example of Abraham, which is alleaged by both the Apostles. Heere's then a confusion insteed of a distiction. Paul speakes of the first, Iames speakes of the 2. and yet both do speake of both Iustifications. Againe when they say Iames speakes of the second Iustification, whereby of just a man becomes more just, ti's a groundlesse imagination for asmuch as it was to no purpose for the Apostle Iames to treat of the second Iustification, whereby men grow better: when those Hypocrites, with whom he had to doe, had erred from their first iustification, whereby they were not, as yet, made good, as the learnedbIackson of lust. Faith. S. 2. cap. 6. Iackson obserues. Nay there is not in all St. Iames his dispute, any s…llable, that may giuegive any just suspicion that by Iustification, he meanes the increase of inhaerent Iustice.cLeeo supra … tat. Bellarmine catcheth at the clause. v. 22. (By workes Faith was made perfect) which is, in the Iesuites construction, Abraham's inhaerent justice, begun by faith, receiued increase and perfection by his workes) But this is onlie the Iesuites phrensie. Abraham his faith and his Righteousnes, whereof his Faith is but a part, was not made but declared to be perfect, by so perfect a worke) which it brought forth, as euen Lorinus another of that sect expounds it orthodoxly.
3 Thirdly, that distinction of workes done before Faith, without grace, and after Faith by grace, is to as litle purpose, as the former; in this matter of our Iustification. Heretofore we hauehave touched vponupon that distinction and shewed the vanitie thereof, in limiting St. Paul to workes done without grace, when simplie he concludes all workes from our Iustification. And St. Iames though he require workes of grace to be ioyned with that Faith which must justifie vsus: yet he giues them not that place and office in our Iustification, from which Paul doth exclude them, and wherein our adversaries would establish them, as it shall appeare anon.
Leauing then this sophisticall reconcilement coined by our aduersaries I come to those reconciliations which are made by our diuines; wherein we shall hauehave better satisfaction vponupon better grounds. Two waies there are whereby this seeming difference is by our Men reconciled.
1. The 1. by distinguishing the word (… Iustification)
| which may be taken either | 1, For the absolution of a Sinner in Gods iudgement. |
| 2, For the declaration of a mans Righteousnes before men. |
This distinction is certaine and hath its ground in Scripture which vseth the word Iustifie in both acceptions, for the quitting of vsus in Gods sight, and for the manifestation of our innocency before man against accusation or suspicion of faultines. They applie this distinction for the reconciling of the two Apostles. Thus. St. Paul speakes of Iustification, (in foro Dei) S. Iames speakes of Iustification (in foro hominis) A man is justified by faith without workes saieth S. Paul: that is in God's sight, a man obtaines remission of Sinnes and is reputed just only for his Faith in Christ, not for his workes sake. A man is justified by workes; and not by Faith onelyonly saieth S. Iames that is, in mans sight we are declared to be just by our good workes, not by our Faith onelyonly: which with other inward and invisible Graces, are made visible vntounto man onelyonly in the good workes, which they see vsus performe. That this application is not vnfit for to reconcile this difference, may be shewed by the parts.
1. For S. Paul, ti's agreed on all sides that he speakes of mans iustification in God's sight. Rom. 3. v. 20.
2. For S. Iames we are to shew that with just probability he may be vnderstood of the declaration of our Iustification and righteousnes before men. For proofe whereof the Text affords vsus these reasons.
1. Verse. 18. Shew me thy Faith without thy Workes and I will shew thee my Faith by my workes. Where the true Christian speaking to the Hypocriticall boaster of his Faith, requires of him a declaration of his faith and Iustification thereby, by a reall proofe, not a verball profession, promising for his part to manifest and approue the trueth of his owne Faith by his good workes. Whence it appeares, that before man, none can justifie the soundnes of his Faith: but by his workes thene proceeding. 2. V. 21. Abraham is saied to be justified when he offered vp his sonne Isaak vponupon the Altar. Now ti's manifest that Abraham was justified in Gods sight long before; euen. 25. yeares Gen. 15. 6. Therefore by that admirable worke of his in offering his Sonne he was declared before all the world to be a just man and a true Beleeuer. And for this purpose did God tempt Abraham in that triall of his Faith: that thereby all beleeuers, might behold a rare patterne of a liuely and justifying Faith, and that Abraham was not without good cause called the Father of the Faithfull.
3. V. 22. It is saied that Abrahams faith wrought with his worke and by workes was his faith made perfect. Which in the iudgement of popish aLor… in lacob.Expositors themselues, is to be vnderstood of the manifestation of Abrahams faith by his workes. His Faith directed his workes: his workes manifested the power and perfection of his Faith.
It is not then without good probability of Reason, that Caluin and other Expositors on our side, hauehave giuen this solution vntounto this doubt.bLib. 4 cap. 18. Bellarmine labours against it and would faine proue that justification cannot be taken heere pro declaratione Iustitiae. But his Argument cannot much trouble any intelligent reader, and therefore I spare to trouble you with his sophistry.
This now is the first way of reconciling the places. Howbeit the trueth is, that although this may be defended against any thing that our aduersaries objected to the contrary: yet many and those very learned divines chose rather to tread in another path and more neerely to presse the Apostles steps; whom also in this point … willingly follow.
2 The second way then of reconciling these places, is by distinguishing of the word (Faith) which is taken in a doubled sense.
1. First for that Faith, Gal. 5. 6.which is true and liuing (foreign, Faith which worketh through louelove) and is fruitfull in all manner of Obedience.
2. Secondly for that Faith which is false and dead, being onelyonly a bare acknowledgment of the trueth, of all Articles of Religion accompanied with an outward Formality of Profession: but yet destitute of sincere Obedience.
This distinction of this word (Faith) is certaine by the Scriptures, as hath heretofore bin shewed in handling of that Grace. Our Men now apply it thus. S. Paul when he affirmes that we are justified by Faith onelyonly, speakes of that Faith which is true and liuing working by Charity. S. Iames when he denies a Man is justified by Faith only, he disputes against that Faith which is false and dead, without power to bring forth any good workes. So that the Apostles speake no contradictions, where Paul teacheth we are iustified by a true Faith, and S. Iames affirmes we are not justified by a false Faith. Againe S. Paul saith we are not iustified by workes. S. Iames saith we are justified by Workes. Neither is here any contradiction at all. For S. Iames vnderstands by Workes, a (working Faith) in opposition to the idle and dead Faith before-spoken of (by a Metonymie of the Effect.) Whence it is plaine that these two Propositions (Wee are not iustified by Workes) which is Pauls, and (We are iustified by a working Faith) which is Iames, doe sweetly consort together. Paul seuers Works from our Iustification, but not from our Faith. Iames ioyned Workes to our Faith, but not to our Iustification. To make this a litle plainer by a similitude or twaine: There is great difference betweene these two sayings, (A Man liues by a Reasonable soule) and (A Man liues by Reason.) The former is true, and shewes vsus what qualities and power are ess…ntiall vntounto that soule, whereby a Man liues. But the later is false, because we liue not by the quality, or power of Reason, though we liue by that soule which hath that quality necessarily belonging to it, without which it is no humane soule. So also in these Propositions, (Planta vivit per animan… auctricem) and (Planta vivit per augmentationem) each Puny can tell that the former is true, and the other false. For although in the Vegetatiue soule whereby Plants liue, there be necessarilie required to the (Being) of it, those 3 faculties of Nourishment, Growth, and Procreation: yet it is not the facultie of growing that giues life vntounto Plants, for they liue when they grow not. In like manner. These two Propositions (we are iustified by a working Faith) & (We are iustified by Workes) differ much. The first is true, and shewes vntounto vsus what qualities are necessarilie required vntounto the (Being) of that Faith, whereby the Iust shall liue. Namely, that beside the power of beleeuing in the Promise, there be also an Habituall Pronnesse and Resolution vntounto the doing of all good Workes, joined with it. But the later Proposition is false. For although true Faith be equallie as apt to worke in bringing forth Vniuersall Obedience to God's will; as it is apt to beleeue and trust perfectlie vntounto God's promises: yet neuerthelesse we are not justified by it as it brings forth good Workes; but as it embraceth the promises of the Gospel. Now then Iames affirmes that which is true, that (We are iustified by a working Faith,) and S. Paul denies that which is false: viz. (That we are iustified by workes.
CHAP. II.
The confirmation of the Orthodoxe reconciliation of S. Paul and S. Iames, by a Logicall Analysis of S. Iames his disputation in his second Chapter.
THis Reconciliation is the fairest, and hath the most certaine grounds in the text. It will, I doubt not, appeare so vntounto you, when it shall be cleered from these Cavils that can be made against it. There are but only two things in it that may occasion our Aduersaries to quarrell. The first is touching the word (Faith) we say that S. Iames speakes of a false and counterfeit Faith. They say he speakes of that which is true, though Dead without Workes. This is one point.aBell. lib. 1. de …ust. cap 15.
The second is touching the interpretation of the word (Workes) vsed by S. Iames when he saith, (We are iustified by Workes.) This we interpret by a Metonymie of the Effect for the Cause, We are justified by a working Faith, by that Faith which is apt to declare and shew it selfe in all good Workes. This interpretation may happily proue distastefull to their nicer Palates, who are very readie when it fits their humour, to grate sore vponupon the bare words and letter of a Text. These cauils remoued, this reconciliation will appeare to be sure and good. For the accomplishment of this I suppose nothing will be more commodious, then to present vntounto you a briefe resolution of the whole dispute of S. Iames touching Faith, that by a plaine and true exposition thereof we may more easily discouer the cauils and sophisticall forgeries wherewith our Adversaries hauehave pestered this place of Scripture. The disputation of S. Iames beginnes at the 14. v. of the second Chapt. to the end thereof.
The scope and summe whereof is. A sharpe reprehens…ion of hypocriticall Faith of vaine Men as they are called (v. 20) Which in the Apostles time vnderunder pretence of Religion thought they might liue as they list. Two extremes there were, whereunto these Iewes, to whom the Apostle writes, were mis-led by false teachers and their own corruptions. The 1. That notwithstanding Faith in Christ; they were bound to fulfill the whole Law of Moses; Against which Paul disputes in his Epistle to the Gal. who also were infected with that Leven. The other was, that Faith in Christ was sufficient without any regard of Obedience, to the Law: so they beleeued the Gospell, acknowledging the Articles of Religion for true, & made an outward profession all should be well, albeit in the meane Time Sanctitie and syncere Obedience were quite neglected. The former Errour brought them in Bondage: this made them licentious pleasing haeresie if any other, whereof there were and will be alwayes store of sectaries who content themselues to hauehave a forme of Godlines, but deny the power thereof. Against such hypocrites & vain Boasters of false Faith and false Religion, S. Iames disputes in this place, shewing plainly that such men leaned on a staffe of Reed, deceiuing their owne selues with a counterfeit & shadow of true Christian Faith insteed of the substance. The reproofe with the maine Reason is expressed by way of interrogation in the (14. v.) What doth it profit my Brethren, though a Man say he hauehave (as many then did, and alwaies will say, boasting falselie of that which they hauehave not in truth,) And hauehave not workes; that is, Obedience to God's Will, whereby to approue that Faith he boasts of? Can that Faith saue him? so that Faith vvithout Workes a sauing Faith, that vvill bring a Man to Heauen? These sharpe Interrogations must be resolued into their strong Negations. And so vve hauehave these tvvo Propositions. 1 Containing the maine summe of the Apostle's dispute: The other a generall Reason of it. The1Arg. of S. Iames. is this. Faith without Obedience is vnprofitable. The second prouing the first, is this. Faith without Obedience will not saue a Man. The vvhole Argument is.
That Faith which will not saue a man is vnprofitable, of no vse.
But the Faith which is without Obedience will not saue: Ergo
Faith without Obedience is vnprofitable.
The Maior of this Argument vvill easilie be granted. Th…t it is an v…pro…itable Faith which will not bring a Man to life and Happines. But hovv doth S. Iames proue the Minor. That a Faith without workes will not doe that? though it scarse need any proofe▪ yet because hypocrisie is euer armed vvith sophistrie, for a plainer Conviction, the Apostle proues it by this manner of Argumentation.
That Faith which saues a Man is a true Faith.
But a Faith without workes is not a true Faith. Ergo
A Faith without workes will not saue a Man.
The Maier is euident to all that hauehave Reason. The Minor S. Iames proues by diuerse Arguments.
1. The first is contained v. 15. 16. 17. and it is dravvne … pari, from comparison vvith another like vertue. Namely Charity tovvards the poore. The Argument is thus. If Charity towards the poore professed in Words, but without workes be counterfeit, then Faith in God professed in like manner without Obedience is also counterfeite not true. But Charity towards the poore in words professed without deeds is a counterfeit Charity. Ergo, Faith in God without Obedience is a counterfeit and false Faith.
The Reason of the maior Proposition is euident, from the similitude that is betweene all Vertues and Graces. There is no vertue, but men may counterfeit and falsely arrogate it to themselues; as they may boast of a false Faith, so also (as Salomon and experience speakes) of a false Liberality, false Valour, false Prudence, &c. Now there is but one way to discouer this counterfeiting in any kind, and that is to goe from words to workes, from praesumptions and boastings to actions. This way all count most certaine, nor will any man beleiue words against workes, or be persuaded by faire speaches, that the habites of vertues and graces be truly seated in his mind, whose tongue tells vsus they be so: but his doeings confute his sayings. Wherefore the Apostle in his comparison proceedes on an vndeniable ground. Now for the minor (that the Charity which is rich in good words, and poore in almesdeeds, is not true but counterfeit pitty) the Apostle shewes by an ordinary instance (If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food) that is. If a beleiuing Christian want food and raiment or other necessaries (and one of you say vntounto them, depart in peace, and be ye warmed and filled) If he giuegive him kind words, Alas poore soule I pitty thee and wish thee well, I Would I had to giuegive thee, goe in God's name where thou mayest be releiued, and so let him passe with a few pittifull Complements, notwithstanding yee giuegive them not those things which are needfull for the body: what doth it profit. Is the poore man's backe euer the warmer? or his belly the …ller, with a few windy complements? Can such a man persuade any that he hath in him indeed the bowells of merciemercy and compassion towards the needy, when they find such cold entertainment at his Gates: 'Tis manifest that this is but a meere mockery, and that such pittifull words come not from a heart that's truely mercifull. The Apostle now applies this touching Charity, vntounto Faith. v. 17. Euen so Faith if it hauehave not workes is dead being alone. As that Charity, so also that Faith which men professe without Obedience is false and fained, and therefore vnprofitable to saue a man. It is dead: How must this be vnderstood? Faith is a quality of the soule, and qualities are then saide to be dead, when they are extinguished. As if we should say such a man's Charity is dead; it is because he hath lost it; that which was in him is abolished. But this is not the meaning. For then when St. Iames saieth that Faith is dead being alone: his meaning should be that Faith seuered from workes, is no Faith at all: but quite extinguished. Now this is not so. For there's a Faith seuered from workes in Hypocrites, Haeretiques, Reprobates and Deuills. Which Faith is a generall assent to all diuine truthes: and this Faith in them hath a true being, but no sauing vse. Wherefore. it is called … dead faith in regard of the effect: because 'tis nothing availeable to bring them in whom it is, to Life and Saluation as a true and liu…ng Faith is. Heere our Aduersaries hauehave much strange Contemplation, telling vsus that Faith without workes though it be a dead Faith, yet 'tis a true Faith. Euen as an Instrument is a true Instrument, though it be not vsed. So that in their Philosophy ti's one and the same true Faith which is dead without, and liuing with workes. Euen as 'tis one and the same Body which liues with the Soule and is dead without it: or as water is the same whether it stand still in a Cisterne or runne in a Riuer. Whence they proceed to discourse that Charity is the forme of Faith: and conclude that it is not the inward and Essentiall forme of it, as the Soule is the forme of a man (for that workes are not essentiall to Faith) nor the accidentall forme as whitenes is of Paper; because Faith according to their Schooles, is in the vnderstanding, and Charity in the will▪ But it is the externall Forme of it, because it giues to Faith a merit and worthines for the deserving of Heauen. These fond speculations of the Forme and merit of Faith I passe by now, hauing touched vponupon them heeretofore. To that which they say. That a liuing Faith, and a dead Faith is one and the same true Faith: 'tis vtterly false, they differ asmuch as Light and Darknes. 1. In their subject. a dead Faith is in the Reprobate Men and Deuills. A liuing Faith only in the Elect. 2. In their Object. A dead Faith assents to diuine Reuelations as barely true or good onelyonly in the generall: a liuing Faith assents to them, as truer and better in themselues; then any thing that can be set against them. 3, in their Nature. A dead Faith is no sanctifying Grace: but a common gift of Creation as in the deuill; of ordinary illumination as in Reprobate Men. A liuing Faith is a sanctifying Grace, a part of inhaerent holines wrought in the heart by the speciall power of the Holy Ghost. All which hauehave bin heeretofore cleared in handling the Nature of Faith. Wherefore vntounto those arguments or Sophismes rather, whichaLib. 1. de Iust. cap. 15. Bellarmine brings to proue that Iames speakes of a true diuine, infused, Catholique, Christian Faith, though it be dead faith; I answere breifely. That we grant a dead Faith to be a true Faith: but it is in its kind. Because it hath a true being in men and deuils, in whom it is, and ti's directed toward true objects: But it is not that true Faith which is Catholique Christian & sauing. This is of another kind, and in comparison of this, that other is but a meere shadow and counterfeit resemblance of true Faith. Wherefore when those Hypocrites accounted themselues to hauehave that faith which is truely Christian and sauing, S. Iames shewes them, that this their faith which was alone naked of Obedience, was nothing so: but a Faith of another kind, a dead faith, hauing onelyonly a false shew of a true and liuing faith. This of the first Argument.
2 The22d Arg. of S. Iames. Argument is contained. v. 18. being drawne from an impossibility, in prouing the trueth of it. The Argument stands thus.
That Faith, which is truely Christian may be shewen and proued so to be.
But a Faith without workes cannot be demonstrated to be a true faith.
Ergo. A Faith without workes is no true Faith.
The major is omitted as most euident of itselfe. Because there is no morall vertue, or grace of the Holy Ghost truely planted in the heart: but it may be knowne by some externall Actions, which it is apt to bring forth. Euen as life is knowne by breathing, or beating of the Pulse. The trueth of an inuisible Grace hath it's demonstration in visible workes. But now for the Minor, S. Iames proues that Faith without Obedience cannot appeare by any proofe to be true faith. Which he doth in a Dialogue betweene a true beleeuer and a Hypocrite. Yea a man may say, thou hast Faith, and I hauehave Workes shew me thy faith without workes, and I will shew thee my faith by my workes. That is. Thou saiest thou hast a true Faith, though thou hast no workes: I say I hauehave true faith because I hauehave workes. Come wee now to the triall, and let it appeare who saieth true, thou or I. If thou saiest true; proue thy Faith by something or other to be true. Shew me thy Faithbforeign or foreign not foreign. 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 foreign. and so Piscator. But they giuegive no good reason of this she is so doing. The change was easie from foreign into foreign. without thy wotkes. Workes thou hast none, whereby to shew thy faith, make it then appeare by something else. But that's impossible. Where workes are wanring, ther's no demonstration else whereby to justifie the trueth of faith. And therefore thou art driuen to confesse that thou vainely boastest of that which thou hast not. But on the otherside (saieth the true Beleeuer) I can make good, that which I say, prouing that my faith is true by my workes. I will shew thee my faith by my workes. My sincere Obedience is a reall demonstration: that my beleife is no verball ostentation and vaine bragg. This proofe of S. Iames is very con…incing, and gripes the Consciences of Hypocrites, smiting them with shame and confusion when they come to this triall; and so hauehave their false and fraudulent hearts laied open. But heere it will be asked what workes doe demonstrate the trueth of faith, and also how they doe proue it. Whereto wee answere Workes are of two sortes. 1. Ordinary, such workes of Sanctity & Obedience, as are required to a holy Conuersation. 2. Extraordinary. viz, Miracles. We say S. Iames vnderstands the former, and those onelyonly: our aduersaries conclude both. But erroneously, for asmuch as S. Iames speakes not of the doctrine of faith, but of the Grace of faith. The Grace requires good workes of Piety and Charity as perpetually necessary for the conmirmation of it's Trueth. So doeth not the doctrine of Faith alwaies require Miraculous workes for the confirmation of it's divinity: But oney at the first publication thereof. Wherefore Lorinus is very ridiculous, who vponupon this place tels vsus, that they may justly demaund of vsus Haeretiques (For so they bedust vsus) Miracles for the confirmation of our new and false Doctrine. Indeed were it new and false their request were not vnreasonable, that we should make our doctrine credible by doing of Miracles. But sure the Iesuite iudgeth of our doctrine by his ovvne, vvhichwhich did he not suspect for a nevv Error, vvee see no reason they should still require Miracles for confirmation of an olde Truth For our selues we seeke not the aide of a lying Wonder to vphold a true doctrine: nor doe we count it any disgrace at all to our Religion, that we cannot by our Faith so much as cure a lame Horse, as the Iesuite out ofaDe lib. arbi… Erasmus scoffes at vsus. Now surely if such a beast as Bellarmine's deuout Mare, want helpe to set her on all foure, we cannot be yet so well perswaded of that vertue of Romish Faith, as to thinke that a Frier will doe more good at such a jadish miracle, then a Farrier. But whereas the Iesuite goes forward to require of vsus the other sort of good workes, of Piety and Charity for the demonstration of our Faith hee hath reason so to doe, though not so much as he imagines, when hee chargeth vsus with neglect of good Workes and vnbridled licentiousnesse. Would to God we could cleere our practise from such neglect, as well as we can our doctrine from teaching it. But yet, by their fauour, if we come to comparisons, we know no Reason why we should runne behind the dore, as more ashamed of our practises, then they may justly be of theirs, in which case we boldly bid him amongst them; that is without sinne to cast the first stone at vsus. To proceed. Seeing Workes of Obedience are the proof…s of a true Faith, it must be considered in what sort they proue it. For may not good Workes be counterfeited as well as Faith? I answere. That in this triall the judgment of verity & infallibility belongeth vntounto God, who only knowes the heart and conscience, being able to discerne eueryevery secret working of the Soule, and so to judge exactly whether or no all outward appearances come from inward syncerity. But for the judgement of Charity that belongs to vsus. If we behold in any man the Workes of Obedience to God's will; of such a Man we are to judge that he hath true Faith. Though yet herein we must as farre as humane frailtie will giuegive leaue, iudge also not according to appearance, but iudge righteous iudgment. Mens practises must be examined: if hypocrisie bewray it self, (as 'tis hard for a Counterfeit not to forget himself at some one time or other, if he be duly obserued) there Charity must not be blinde: it must see and censure it. 'Tis not a charitable, but a peruerse Iudgment to call euill good: nor is it any offence to call that a barren or bad Tree, that beares either no fruit at all, or none but bad; And thus of this second Argument of the Apostle, that these Hypocrites Faith was vaine, because, when it comes to the proofe, it cannot be iustified to be found and good.
3 The3Arg of …. Iames. Argument is v. 19. from the example of the diuels themselues, in whom there is a Faith without Workes, as well in hypocrites: and ergo it is in neither of them a true Faith. The Argument is brought in to confute a Cauill with the hypocrite might make against the former reason. True might he say, I cannot shew my Faith by my Workes: yet for all that I hauehave a true Faith. And why? Because I beleeue the Articles of Religion, that there is one God, with the rest. Hereto the Apostle replies. That such a beliefe is not a true Christian Faith, because it is to be found euen in the diuels. The Argument runnes thus.
That faith which is in the diuels is no true Christian faith.
But a bare assent to the Articles of Religion without Obedience is in the Diuels. Ergo
A bare assent without Obedience is no true Christian faith.
The Maior of this Argument will easily be granted. That the diuels hauehave not that true Faith which is required of a Christian Man to his saluation. The Minor is also euident. That the diuels doe belieue the Articles of Christian Religion. S. Iames instances in one for the rest, namely the Article of the Godhead, whereto the Diuels assent aswell as Hypocriticall Men. Thou beleeuest that there is one God, saith the true beleeuer to the hypocrite, pleading that he beleeued the Articles of Faith, Thou doest well. 'Tis a laudable and good thing to acknowledge the Truth of Religion. But vvithall thou must knovv that the diuels deserue as much commendation for this beleefe, as thou doest. The diuels also beleeue. Euen they confesse the Truth of that and the other Articles of Religion. An euident proofe vvhereof is this, that they tremble at the povver, vvrath, and iustice of God, and the remembrance of the last iudgment, vvhichwhich did they not beleeue, they vvould not feare: but novv they expect it vvith Horrour, because they knovv it vvill come vponupon them. Whence 'tis plain that the Faith of Hypocrites and diuels is all one, neither better then other, both vnfruitfull to bring forth Obedience, both vnprofitable to bring vntounto saluation, and therefore neither of them that true Faith, vvhichwhich is Christian and sauing. This Argument of the Apostles, pincheth our Aduersaries sore, vvho stiffly maintaine that S. Iames speakes of a True, though of a dead Faith. For they can not for shame say that there is a true Faith in the diuels and damned Spirits. But yet S. Iames hath concluded that they hauehave that dead Faith which hypocrites boast of. What then? Then a dead Faith is no true faith, as ouraBell. lib. 1. d… Iustif. cap. 15. Adversaries affirme it is. Wherefore to helpe themselues, they deny that it is one and the same dead Faith, which is in hypocrites and euill Spirits. Indeed ex parte obiecti, they grant that the Faith of diuels is as true and catholique as that of wicked Men, because they both beleeue the the same things. And also in regard of the effects, they grant their Faith to be alike, because both be vnfruitfull. But not ex parte subiecti, so they say there's much difference. The Faith of diuels is of one sort, and the Faith of hypocrites of another. But heere they make a litle to bold with the blessed Apostle, ouerturning the force of his argument, to vphold their owne fancie. The Apostle proues against Hypocrites that their idle Faith without Obedience is not true sauing Faith. Why? Because the diuel's idle Faith destitute of Obedience is no true sauing Faith. But now. Is the Faith of diuels & hypocrites of the same kinde and Nature. Yea, or no? No, they be not, they be of a diuerse nature, say the Adversaries. Let it be then considered, what force there is in the Apostle's Argument. Faith without workes in Deuils saues them not. Ergo Faith without workes in wicked Men, saues them not. Might not one prompted by a Iesuite, reply vponupon the Apostle. Nay by your leaue, your Argument is inconsequent, because you doe not dispute, ad idem. Faith in the diuels is of one kinde, Faith in Hypocrites is of another: & therefore though Faith without works cannot saue diuels; yet Faith without works may saue Men. Thus were the Apostle's Argument laide in the dust, if these Mens Opinions may stand for good. But would you know what distinction these Men make betweene the faith of diuels and wicked Men, which St Iames takes for the same. 'Tis thus. First the Faith of Euill Men is free, the Faith of diuels is compelled and extorted from them by a kinde of force. Sob… Bellarm. Fides hominum malorum libera est, captivante nimir ùm piâ voluntate intellectum in obsequium Christi: Fides vero Daemonum est coacta, & extracta ab ipsàrerum Evidentiâ. Quod insinuavit idem Iacobus dicens. Daemones credunt, & contremiscunt. Nos enim non credimus contremiscentes, id est, inviti & coacti, sed spontè & libentèr. Wicked Men beleeue freely and willingly. Why? Because their pious and godly Will captiuates their vnderstanding to the Obedience of Christ, so causing it to assent vntounto the Truth. The diuels beleeue vponupon compulsion, being forced to it by the Euidence of the things themselues. Which Saint Iames intimates, They beleeue and tremble: that is, they beleeue against their Wills. Is not this a shamelesse Iesuite that will say any thing to patch vp a broken cause? For be not these absurd Contradictions to say, that wicked Men hauehave godly Wills, that by a pious Motion of the Will, their vnderstanding is captiuated to the Obedience of Christ, and yet they be hypocrites and wicked Men still. No Man can relish such assertions, who knowes how averse and fromward the will of Men is to embrace any thing that is of God, till such time as it be regenerate by sanctifying Grace. It is therefore without all reason, to affirme that wicked Men beleeue willinglie, and 'tis against all experience, which shewes that vngodly Men are vtterly as vnwilling to beleue any truth that makes against them in any kinde whatsoeuer; as a beare is to be brought to the stake. Indeed in matters that like them, or such as be of an indifferent Nature, neither fauouring nor crossing their Corruptions, they'll be apt to beleeue, though not out of a pious affection, as the Iesuite dreames: but out of selfe-louelove and other selfe-considerations. But take them in any other point of Religion, that doth any way grate vponupon their wicked affections, all the perswasion and instruction in the World, cannot worke them to a beleefe of it, till the Conscience (spite of their hearts) be convicted by some notable Euidence of the Trueth. Now what else can be said of the diuels; who will as willinglie beleeue what makes for them, (if any thing did) or what makes not against them; as any wicked man can doe? And they are as vnwilling to beleeue any thing, that makes against them, as any wicked Man is. Nor would they beleeue it, did not the cleerenes of diuine Reuelations convince them of the certaine Truth thereof. So that there is no difference at all in this respect, as the one, so the other beleeue vnwillingly; as diuels, so wicked Men beleeue with trembling. The diuels indeed with greater horror, as their beleefe and knowledge is alwaies more distinct then Mans: but yet Men with horror too, when their Consciences by fits are awakened to behold the woes, that are comming vponupon them. VntoUnto this difference ofcBecanus. Bell. others adde two more. Namely: 1 That the Faith of diuels is naturall; that of wicked Men supernaturall and infused. 2 That the Faith of Diuels is dishonest, the Faith of wicked Men is an honest Faith. Whereto we say thus much. That touching the first difference, we grant indeed that the Faith of the diuels is not supernaturall except it be in regard of the obiect. The faculties which they receiued in their creation are not so farre corrupted in them: but that they are able to assent vntounto, and apprehend diuine Reuelations without further helpe, then of their owne naturall Abilities. Man in his fall sustained greater losse in the spirituall powers of his soule, & therefore stan…s in need of helpe. Which helpe is afforded euen vntounto the vngodly; but this is by ordinary illumination, not by speciall infusion of any sanctifying Grace. Enlightned they are aboue the ordinary pitch of naturall blindnes: but not aboue that whereto a meere naturall vnderstanding may be aduanced. Yea were Mans Vnderstanding raised vp to that perfection which is in diuels: this were more then Nature, yet lesse then Grace. This common gift of Illumination bestowed on wicked Men, but not on diuels, is no proofe that their Faith is of a diuerse kinde. As to the last difference we are not so far studied in Moralities, as to conceiue wherein the dishonestie of the diuel's Faith, and the honestie of Hypocrites Faith doth lie. To ordinarie vnderstanding it seemes eueryevery way as honest & commendable a matter, for a wicked fiend, as for a wicked Man, to beleeue what God reueales vntounto him. If not, we must expect to be further informed by these Iesuites Men that are better read in that part of Ethickes, whether diabolicall or hypocriticall.
4.4… of S. Iames. This of the Apostle's third Argument. we come to the fourth.
The 4. Argument is contained in the 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25 verses. Before which the Apostle repeates his maine Conclusion. That Faith without Obedience is a false and dead Faith. But wilt thou know O aforeign as an empty Vessell without liquorvaine Man (or hypocrite) that Faith without workes is dead? v. 20. For the convincing of him further, he proceeds to a new Argument to proue it vntounto him. The Argument is this.
That Faith which will not iustifie a Man is a false and dead Faith.
But the Faith which is without workes will not iustifie. a Man. Ergo
'Tis a dead and a false Faith.
The Maior the Apostle omits as most evident of it selfe. The Minor he proues by an induction of two Examples. Thus.
If Abraham and Rahab were instified by a working faith, thou that Faith which is alone without workes will not iustifie.
But A…raham and Rahab were so iustified, viz. by a working Faith. Ergo
Faith without workes will not iustifie a man.
The Reason of the Consequence is manifest. Because as Abraham and Rahab: so all other must be justified. The meanes of justification and Life, were euer one and the same for all men. Which also the Apostle intimates in that clause v. 21. Was not our Father Abraham &c. implying that as the Father, so also the children, the whole stocke and generation of the Faithfull, were and are still justified by one vniforme meanes. The two instances the Apostle vrges, that of Abraham. v. 21. 22. 23. that of Rahab. v. 25. The conclusion with aequally issues from them both, he interserts in the middest, after the allegation of Abrahams Example. v. 24. I shall goe ouer them as they lie in the Text.
In the example of Abraham, the Apostle v. 21. sets downe this proposition. That Abraham was justified by a working Faith. For this interrogatiues Was not our Father Abraham justified by workes? must be resolued into an affirmatiue Abraham our Father was justified by workes. That is a working Faith. Which proposition the Apostle confirmeth by it's parts. 1. Shewing that Abrahams Faith was an operatiue faith declared and approued by his workes. Secondly, prouing that by such a working Faith Abraham was justified in God's sight. That the faith of Abraham was operatiue, full of life and power to bring forth Obedience vntounto God, the Apostle alleageth one instance insteed of all the …est to proue it. And that is that singular worke of Obedience vntounto God's command. When he offered vp his sonne Isaak vponupon the Altar. Many other workes there were performed by Abraham abundantly justifying the trueth of his Faith: But the Apostle chooseth this aboue all other, as that worke which was of purpose enjoyned him by God for a triall of his faith. Wherein Abraham mightily ouer…oming all those strong temptations to disobedience and infidelity, made it appeare, that his faith was not an idle, dead and empty Speculation, but an actiue and working Grace. Wherefore the Apostle adds ver. 22. Seest thou how faith wrought with his workes, and by workes was faith made perfect? That is as in other workes of that holy Patriarch, so specially in that sacrificing his sonne, all that can see, may plainely behold, the strength and life of his faith. Faith wrought with his workes. That is. His faith directed and supported him in the doing of that worke, as the Apostle Paul expounds it. Heb. 11. 17 By faith Abraham offered vp Isaack: that worke had not binne done, if faith had not wrought it. In eueryevery circumstance thereof faith did all in all from the beginning of the worke to the end. This interpretation is most simple and generally receaued. Faith wrought with: That is. In or by his workes, vntounto the performance whereof the force of faith was in spaeciall manner assesting. Pareus reads the words by aa… tmesis. foreign. (that is) foreign (scilicet) foreign, (that is) Faith being with his workes wrought. What? his Iustification. But this construction seemes somewhat hard and not necessary for this place. The other sense is much plainer, shewing vsus by or with what vertue Abraham's workes were wrought. viz. By the vertue of his faith, which in most powerfull manner incited and inabled him to obey. The Apostle goes forward, And by workes was faith made perfect. That is declared to be perfect.b… For workes did not perfect Abrahams Faith essentially, in asmuch as long before this time, it was perfect, as is plaine in that Abraham was justified by it 25 yeares before the oblation of his sonne Isaack, and also by the strength of his Faith had done many excellent workes and obtained great blessings at the hand of God. So that the offering vp of Isaack was not the cause but a fruite of the perfection of Abrahams Faith, the great difficulty of that worke shewed the singular petfection of that Grace which was able so to encounter and conquer it. The goodnes of the fruit doth not worke, but declare the goodnes that is in the tree; the qualities of the fruits alwaies depending vponupon the nature of the Tree: but not on the contrary. Thus then the first part of the Proposition is plainly proved by the Apostle. That Abrahams Faith was a liuely and working Faith declaring and approuing it's owne trueth by the workes of his Obedience.
The next part. Namely. That Abraham was justified in God's sight, by such a working Faith, he proue…. 1. By a Testimony of Scripture. 2. By an effect or consequent thereof, Both are expressed in the 23. v. The first in these words. And the Scripture was fulfilled which sayeth. Abraham beleeued God, and it was imputed vntounto him for Righteousnes. The application of this testimony is very heedfully to be obserued, because it serues excellently for the clearing of the Apostles meaning, when he saieth we are justified by workes. And the Scripture was fulfilled saieth S. Iames. When? At the time, that Isaack was offered. But was it not fulfilled before that time? Yes. Many yeares, when the promise of the blessed seed was made vntounto him, as appeares Gen. 15. 6. Whence this testimony is taken. How was it then fulfilled at the oblation of Isaack? Thus. The Trueth of that which was verified before, was then againe confirmed by a new and euident experiment. Well. Thus much is plaine enough. But heere now the difficulty is, how this Scripture is applyed vntounto the Apostles former dispute. In the 21. v. He saieth that Abraham was justified by Workes when he offered Isaack. How proues he, that he was so justified? why by this testimony. Because the Scripture was fulfil…ed at that time, which saieth, Abraham beleeued God &c. Marke then the Apostle's Argument. When Abraham offered Isaack the Scripture was fulfilled which saieth Abraham was iustified by faith. For that's the mea…ing of that Scripture. Ergo, Abraham when he offered Isaac… was justified by workes. This at first sight s…emeth farre set, and not onelyonly besides, but quite contrary to the Apostles purpose to proue he was then justified by workes, because the Scripture saieth, he was then iustified by Faith. But vponupon due consideration, in…erence appeares to be euident, and the agreement easie. The Apostle and the Scripture alleaged, hauehave one and the same meaning: the Scripture saieth. He was iustified by Faith, meaning, as all confesse, a working Faith fruitefull in Obedience. S. Iames affirmes the very same, saying, that he was justified by workes, that is. Metonymically by a working Faith▪ And therefore the Apostle rightly alleageth the Scripture for confirmation of his assertion: the Scripture witnessing. That by Faith he was iustified; the Apostle expounding what manner of Faith it meanes. Namely a Faith with workes or a working Faith. So that the application of this Testimony vntounto that time of offering vp of Isaack is most excellent: because then it appeared manifestly what manner of Faith it was, wherefore God had accounted him just in former times. Without this Metonymie it appeares not that there is any force in the application of this Scripture and the Argument from thence. The Scripture witnesseth that Abraham was then justified by Faith. Ergo 'tis true, that he was then justified by Workes. What consequence is there in this Argument except we expound S. Iames by that metonymie, Workes, that is a working Faith? And so the Argument holdes firme. Take it otherwise, as our aduersaries would hauehave it, or, to speake trueth, according to the former interpretation of our diuines; it breeds an absurd construction either way. Abraham in offering Isaack was justified by workes, that is, secundâ Iustificatione of good he was made better. How is that proued? By Scripture. Because the Scripture saieth. That at that time he was justified by faith. That is, primâ Iustificatione of bad he became good. Is not this most apparent Non-sence. Againe according to the Interpretations of our diuines, Abraham at the offering vp of Isaack was iustified by workes (that is, say they) declared iust before men. How is that proued? by Scripture. Because the Scripture saieth. That at that time, he was justified by Faith. that is, accounted just in God's sight. In which kind of arguing I must confesse I apprehend not how there is any tolerable consequence. Wherefore we expound S. Iames metonymically, putting the effect for the cause; workes, for a working Faith, as the necessary connexion of the text enforced vsus. Nor is there any harshnes at all, nor violent straining in this figure, when two things of necessary and neere dependance one vponupon the other, (as workes, and a working Faith) are put one for another. Neither hauehave our aduersaries more cause to complaine of vsus for this figuratiue interpretation of workes, then we hauehave of them for their figuratiue interpretation of faith. For when we are saied to be justified by faith, they vnderstand it dispositiuè & meritoriè not formaliterè Faith in itselfe is not our sanctification, nor yet the cause of it. But it merits the bestowing of it, and disposeth vsus to receaue it. Let reason iudge now, which is the harsher exposition. Theirs? faith iustifies (that is) Faith is a disposition in vsus deseruing that God should sanctifie vsus by infusion of the habit of Charity. Or ours? Workes justifie, that is, the Faith whereby we are acquited in God's sight, is a working Faith. Thus much of this Testimonie of Scripture prouing that Abraham was justified by a true and working faith,
In the next place the Apostle shewes it by a visible effect or Consequent that followed vponupon his Iustification expressed in the next words: And he was called the freind of God. A high prerogatiue, for God the Creator to reckon of a poore mortall Man as his familiar freind; but so entire and true was the faith of Abraham, so vpright was his heart, that God not onelyonly gratiously accounted it to him for Righteousnes: but also in token of that gratious acceptance entered into a league with Abraham taking him for his especiall freind and confederate; A League of…ensiue and defensiue. God would be a Freind to Abraham [Thou shalt be a blessing] and a freind of Abrahams Freinds. I will blesse them that blesse thee; …and an Enemy of Abrahams enemies: I will curse them that u…se thee. Which League of freindship with Abraham before the offering vp of Isaack was therevpon by solemne protestation and oath renued, as we hauehave it Gen. 22. v. 16. &c.
Thus we hauehave this first example of Abraham. From thence the Apostle proceeds to a generall conclusion in the next verse (24) Yee see then how that by workes a man is iustified, and not by Faith only. That is. Therefore it is euident. That a man is iustified by a working faith: not by a faith without workes. Which Metonymicall interpretation is againe confirmed by the inference of this conclusion vponupon the former verse. The Scripture saieth, That Abraham beleeued God and it was imputed vntounto him for Righteousnes. Ergo (saieth … Iames) Yee see how a man is iustified by workes and not by Faith onelyonly. A man might heere say. Nay rather. Wee see the contrary. That a man is iustified by faith onelyonly and not by workes. For in that place of Scripture there is no mention at all made of Workes. Wherefore of necessity we must vnderstand them both in the same sense. And so the conclusion followes directly. That eueryevery man is iustified by an actiue not an idle Faith, because the Scripture witnesseth, that Abraham was instified by the like Faith. Our Aduersaries collection then from this place. (That Faith and Workes be compartners in Iustification, we are … partly by faith, partly by workes) is vaine & inconsequent. For when the Apostle saies, A Man is iustified by workes and not by faith only: his meaning is not, that workes and faith are two Coordinate causes by their ioynt-force-working our Iustification; but the Apostle vtterly excludes Faith onelyonly from Iustification, and attributes it wholy vntounto workes. For by foreign Faith onelyonly, he vnderstands faith alone, that faith which is foreign v. 17. alone, solitary, by itselfe, without workes. And such a dead faith whereof these hypocrites boasted. S. Iames excludes wholly from justifying of a man. I say then that he is not iustified by faith onelyonly: but that he is iustified by workes. That is a working faith that is fruitfull in Obedience.
The Apostle goes forward from the Example of Abraham vntounto that of Rahab verse.2 Example, 25. Likewise was not Rahab the Harlot iustified by workes? That is in the same manner as Abraham: so also Rahab was iustified by a working saith. Which appeared to be so by that which shee did when she receaued the messengers, entertained the two spies which were sent to search the land, lodged them in her house without discouering them. And when by accident they were made knowne, hid them secretly vponupon the roofe, and afterwards sent them out another way, conveied them away priuily, not by the vsuall, but by another way (that is) through the window letting them downe ouer the wall by a Cord as the story hath it. Ios. 2. In this dangerous enterprise, wherein this weake woman ventured her life in succouring the Enemies of her King and Country: it appeares plainly that she had a strong and liuely Faith in the God of Israel: and that the confession which she made with her mouth to the spies (The Lord your God, he is the God in Heauen aboue and in the Earth beneath. Iosh. 2. 11.) proceeded from a truely beleeuing heart, insomuch as her words were made good by works, that followed them. Wherefore the Apostle iustly parallels these 2 examples of Abraham offering his sonne; and Rahab in the kind vsage of the Spies, because both those facts were singular trialls of a liuely faith which was able in that sorte to ouercome what was hardest to be conquered. viz. Naturall affection. In Abraham both fatherly affection to the life of a deere and only sonne: and in Rahab the Naturall louelove to ones Country and a mans owne Life did all stoope and giuegive way, when once true Faith commands Obedience. Here againe our adversaries trouble themselues, and the Text with needlesse speculations telling vsus, that now the Apostle hath altered his cliffe, and gone from the second Iustification in Abrahams example, to the first Iustification in this of Rahab. That Rahab was conuerted at this time of receauing the spies being made a beleeuer of an infidell, a good woeman of a bad. That she by this good worke did expiate her former sinnes and merited the grace and fauour of God, notwithstanding that she committed a venial sinne in handling of the businesse, telling a downe-right lie, which though she should not hauehave done; yet it hindred not the meritoriousnes of the worke, with such other fond imaginations peruerting the simplicity of the Trueth. But first they are not agreed among themselues whether the Apostle doe in that sort shift from one Iustification to another. Bellarmine affirmes it and many moe. But others deny it, as may be seene in Lorinus his exposition of the. 21. v. of this Chapter. And were they agreed vponupon it, sure I am they should disagree from the Apostle, who makes this second instance of the same nature with the former. foreign. In like manner saieth he, was Rahab iustified: viz. as Abraham was. Againe when they say Rahab became a true beleeuer at that time of receauing the spies, not before, 'tis more then they can proue. By the circumstances of the story it appeares plainely, that she beleeued before they came, by the relation of the great workes which God had done for his people, and the promises that were made vntounto them, that they should possesse Rahabs countrey. This bred feare in others: but faith in her, by the secret working of the holy Ghost: See Ioshua 2. 9. &c. And certainly; (had she not had Faith, before the spies came, who can thinke she would hauehave giuen entertainment to such dangerous persons? But she knew them to be the Seruants of the God of Israel in whom shee beleeued; and therefore by thisaHeb. 11. 31. Faith she receaued them peaceably; though Enemies of her Countrey. Lastly to that of the Merit…riousnes of the worke of Rahab, to deserue Grace and Life aeternall; we reiect it, not only as a vaine but an impious conceit, which neuer entred into the humble hearts of the S…. of old: but hath bin set on foote in the last corrupt ages of the world by men drunken with selfe-LoueLove, and admiration of their owne Righteousnes.
Thus we hauehave these 2 Examples whereby the Apostle hath proued sufficiently, that the Faith which is separated from Obedience, will not justifie a Man, & therefore that it is a dead Faith, and not a true liuing Faith according as was proposed. v. 20. Now for a close of this whole dispute he againe repeates that conclusion, adding thereto anew similitude to illustrate it by, in the last verse of the Chapter. For as the Body without the Spirit is dead, so faith without workes is dead, that is, As the Body without the Spirit, i. e. the Souls, or the Breath and other Motion (is dead) vnable to performe any liuing action whatsoeuer: So Faith without workes is dead; that is, vtterly vnable to performe these liuing actions, which belong vntounto it. What are those? Two. 1. To repose it stedfastly vponupon the promise of life in Christ, which is the proper immediate liuing Action of Faith. 2. To justifie a Man in the sight of God, which by a speciall priuiledge is the consequent of the former. These liuing actions cannot be performed by that Faith which is dead, being destitute of good workes. That Faith which hath not power to bring forth Obedience, is thereby declared to be a dead Faith, deuoide of all power to embrace the promise with confidence and relyance as also to justifie. A Man would thinke this were plaine enough, and needed not to be troubled with any further C… villations. But 'tis strange what a coile our Adversaries make with this similitude, writhing and straining it to such Conclusions as the Apostle neuer intende… ▪ Hence they gather. 1. That as the Soule giues life to the Body, as the …rme of the Body: so Workes giuegive life to Faith as the forme of it 2 That as the Body is the same true Body without the Soule & with it: so Faith is one and the same true Faith without workes and with them, which are nothing but sophisticall speculati… besides the purpose of the Text. The Apostle intends nothing but to shew the Necessity of the Copulation of a liuing Faith and Obedience together: by the similitude of the like Necessitie of the vnion of a liuing Body, and the Soule. But his purpose is not to shew, that the manner of their Connection is the same, that just in eueryevery point as the Soule is to the Body, or the Body to the Soule: so Workes are vntounto Faith, and Faith vntounto Works. It sufficeth to his intent, that as in the absence of the Soule, the Body: so in the absence of Obedience, Faith is dead. But thence it followes not, that workes by their presence doe the same thing to Faith; as the Soule to the Body by it's presence; or that Faith in the absence of Workes remaines the same; as the Body doth in the absence of the Soule. If we must needs be tied to the strict termes of the Similitude: let vsus a little examine the comparison, and we shall see our Aduersaries all flye off first from it. Let the comparison be first thus. Betweene the Body and the Soule, Faith and Workes as the termes be in the Text. As the Body without the Soule is dead because the Soule giues life, i.e sense, breathing, and all other Motion to the Body.
So Faith without Workes is dead, because Workes giuegive life vntounto Faith.
But now this Comparison will not runne on all foure. For Workes are not vntounto Faith as the Soule is to the Body; but as sense and motion is to the Body. Seeing Workes are externall acts, not internall habits: and so are proportionable not to the Soule, but to the liuing actions thence issuing. Wherefore 'tis as absurd to say, that Workes giuegive life vntounto Faith, as 'tis ridiculous to affirme, that Sense & Motion giuegive life to the Body, which are not Causes; but Effects & signes of Life. Therefore when Faith without Workes is dead, 'tis not spoken in that sense, because Workes giuegive life to Faith, as the Soule doth to the Body. L… then the Comparison bee thus. Between the Body and the Soule. Faith and Charity.
As the Body without the Soule is dead, because the Soule is the forme of the body, and giues life to it.
So Faith without Charity is dead, because Charity is the Forme of Faith, and giues life to it.
But neither will the Comparison hold vponupon these termes. For 1. our Adversaries here put in Charity the habit, for Workes the act: which is more then themselues ought to doe, seeing they will tye vsus at short Bitts, to the very letter of the Text. For though we can be content to admit that interpretation, would they admit of the Apostle's plaine meaning, & not straine for querkes: yet seeing they argue so precisely from the Words of the Comparison, they must not now hauehave libertie from vsus to goe from them, but be content to take the Words as they lie in the Text, and make their best of them. Yet seeing 'tis most senselesse to make Workes (that is) externall Actions the Forme of Faith an internall habit: let them take Charity insteed of them, an internall habit likewise, Wil it be any better now? belike so. Thē 'tis thus. As the Soule is the Forme of the Body: so Charity is the forme of Faith. and as the Soule giues life and action to the Body, so Charity vntounto Faith. Will they stand to this? No. Here againe they fly off in both Comparisons. Charity is one habit, Faith another distinct betweene themselues, and therefore they deny, as there's good reason, that Charity is either the Essentiall forme of Faith, as the Soule of the liuing Body: or the accidentall Forme, as whitenes of Paper. They say 'tis onelyonly an externall Forme. But this now is not to keepe close to the Apostle's comparison, but to runne from it at their pleasure, when they fall vponupon an absurdity in pressing of it so strictly. The Soule is no externall, but an internall essentiall Forme, & therefore Charitie must be so, if all runne round. Againe doth Charitie giuegive life or liuing actions vntounto Faith as the Soule doth vntounto the Body? Neither dare they hold close to this Comparison. For the proper worke or action of Faith is to assent vntounto the Trueth of diuine reuelations, because of Gods authoritie, as themselues teach. Whence now comes this assent? From the Habit of Faith, or of Charity? They grant that it comes immediatlie from the Habit of Faith, which produceth this action, euen when its seuered from Charity. Then 'tis plain that it is not Charitie that giues life to Faith, which can performe the proper action that belongs to it, without it's helpe. How then doth Charity giuegive life vntounto Faith? For this, they hauehave a sillie conceit. Charity giues Life, that is Merite vntounto Faith. The beleefe, or assent vntounto diuine Trueth is meritorious if it be with Charity. If without, then 'tis not meritorious, This is a fine toy, wherein againe they runne quite from the Comparison of the Apostle. For the Soule giues liuing Actions to the Body, not only the Qualifications of the Actions: and so Charitie is not like the Soule, because it giues only the qualification of Merit vntounto the Action of Faith, & not the action it selfe. Beside. A most vaine interpretation it is, without any ground from Scripture, to say a liuing Faith, (that is) a meritorious Faith: when euen in common sense, the life of any habit consists onelie in a power to produce those actions, that naturallie and immediatlie depend vponupon that Habit. And what Reason is there in the World why the Habit of Charity should make the actions of Faith meritorious, or, why Charity should make Faith meritorious, rather then Faith make Charity meritorious, seing in this life there is no such praeeminency of Charity aboue Faith? Wherefore we despise these speculatiue Sophismes, which with much faire glozing, our Aduersaries draw from the Text: but yet when all comes to the Triall, themselues will not stand to the strict application of the similitude, because it breeds absurdities, which euen themselues abhorre. Now if they take liberty to qualifie and interpret, they must giuegive vsus leaue to doe so too, or if they will not we shall take it. To shut vp all. Their other Collection is as weake as the former: namely. A dead body is a true body. ergo a dead Faith is true Faith. This Argument forceth the Similitude, and so is of a Force. In materiall things which hauehave a diuerse being from different Causes, it may hold. But 'tis not so in Vertues and Graces. Trueth and Life are both essentiall to such qualities. True Charity is a liuing Charity (i. e.) actiue, as the Apostle himselfe proues. v. 15. True Va- Valour. And so of eueryevery vertuous quality, if it be true, 'tis liuing and stirring in Action: if it be otherwise, 'tis counterfeit, some other thing that hath onelyonly a shadow of it. All these Trickes are pin vponupon the Apostle to pervert his plaine meaning; viz: That as it is necessary to the being of a liuing body that it be coupled with the …oule, so 'tis necessary to the being of a liuing true Christian Faith, that it bring forth Workes of Obedience.