A Treatise of Justification, Book 7 · Chapter 8
CHAP. VIII. Whether good Workes doe justifie. Bellarmines proofe, but especially that Testimony of Saint Iames, Chapter 2. fully discussed, and clared.
§. I.
AFter so many wandrings, Bellarmine at length commeth to make good his fifth Argument,De justif. lib. 4. c. 18. which he propounded to prove, that faith alone doth not justifie, because good workes doe also justifie; though here, as I have noted, this Argument is brought in to prove the truth of actuall righteousnesse. The Title of this Chapter is, that good workes are not onelyonly just, but that also they doe justifie. In stead whereof he presently propoundeth this assertion to be proved, that by good workes a just man is more justified, and made more just. But this is not the Question. For we doe confesse, that a man already justified before God, by the practise of good works increaseth in righteousnesse inherent, and is made more holy and just. The thing which we deny is this, that good workes doe not concurre with faith unto the act of iustification before God, as any cause thereof. Against this assertion he ought to have disputed, if he would seeme to contradict us. But he hath altered the question, because he is not able to mainetaine the contradictory of our assertion; and maketh the question to be this, whether by good workes men are justified, that is to say, made more just, viz. in respect of righteousnesse inherent. But we deny, that there are any degrees of justification, or that a man may be more justified, or that justification doth ever signifie increase of righteousnesse: wee reject their new▪ found distinction of justification into the first and second, and acknowledge no other justification, but that, which in the Scriptures and Fathers is called the justification of a sinner: and thereby wee understand a continued act of God: who, as when we being sinners did first beleeve, did justifie us; so remaining sinners in our selves he doth still justifie us, by imputation of Christs righteousnesse, acquitting us from our sinnes, and accepting of us as righteous in Christ. And this justification, which is onelyonly acknowledged by the Scriptures and Fathers, is every where ascribed to faith. Whereas the first justification of the Papists is ascribed to charity as the onelyonly forme; the second to workes, as to the merit thereof. But all this ariseth from their erroneous and wilfull confounding of justification and sanctification. For their first justification is that, which the Scriptures call regeneration, and is the first act of Sanctification, by which we are habitually sanctified, for they make it to be nothing else, but the infusion of the habits of grace: Their second justification, is their actuall fanctification, or exercise of good workes, whereby their inherent righteousnesse or sanctification is increased. But the question is not of sanctification, but of justification; which the Papists by their wicked doctrine, confounding it with sanctification, have wholly abolished, it being the maine benefit of the Messias, by which we are both freed from hell, and entitled to heaven. Neither is the question understood of justification before men, but before God. For before men we doe confess… that by good workes men are justified, that is declared and known… to be just, as by the fruits, effects, consequents, and signes of justification by faith: but before God we are not justified, that is, made or constituted just by work…s, as any cause thereof, for good workes goe not before justification, but follow after, which is a plaine evidence that they are no cause of it.
§. II. But let us examine his proofes; the first and principall is outThe place of Jam. 2. 14. &c. fully discussed and cleared. of Iames 2. which being the onelyonly place of Scripture, whereupon with any shew of probability they ground their doctrine of justification by workes: I will not content my selfe to answere Bellarmines cavils alone: but I will endevour to stop the mouthes of all the Papists, who use to vaunt of this place, especially of the 24. verse; where they bragge, that their assertion is expressed, and ours confuted in plaine termes: yee see then that a man is justified by workes, and not by saith onelyonly. Which words are a consectary or conclusion deduced from the example of Abraham: who though he were justified by faith without works as Saint Paul teacheth; yet was hee also justified by workes and not by faith onelyonly, as Saint Iames affirmeth. A conclusion therefore in shew of words contradictoryA seeming difference b… tweene Saint Paul and Saint Iames. to that of the Apostle Paul, Rom. 3. 28. wee conclude, that a man is justified by faith without the workes of the Law, and Gal. 2. 16. we know, that a man is not justified by the workes of the Law▪ foreign that is, but onelyonly by faith: which no doubt was the Apostles meaning. For as I have shewed heretofore, if this be a good disjunction, that we are justified either by faith, or by works; (that is, either by the righteousnes of Christ which is out of us in him apprehended by faith or by the works of the Law, that is, by righteousnes inherent in our selves all which is prescribed in the Law) as undoubtedly it is; for a third thing cannot be named, whereby we might be justified, and by both we cannot; (for if by faith, then of grace; and if of grace, then not of works, and contrary wise Rom. 4. 4, 5. 11. 6.) then it followeth necessarily, that if we are not justified by workes, we are justified by faith alone. Hence ariseth this great controversie between the true Catholiks and the Papists: we affirming, that we are justified by faith without works, or by faith alone; The Papists contending, that wee are justified by workes and not by faith only: we alleaging the authority of Saint Paul in his Epistles, to the …omanes, Galatians, Ephesians; the Papists this Testimony of Saint Iames.
§. III. The way to determine this weighty Controversie is to reconcile the seeming difference betweene the two Apostles. Some,How it may be reconciled. a Erasm. Cajetan Musculus, &c. a when they were not able to untye this Gordian knot, have sought, with Alexander, to cut it, by questioning without just cause the authority of that Epistle of Saint Iames. But the Papists and wee are thus farre agreed. First, as they doe not deny those Epistles of S. Paul, which were never questioned; so we acknowledge this of Saint Iames, though it hath beene questioned, to bee canonicall. Secondly, that the two Apostles, acted by the same Spirit of truth in penning their Epistles, could not possibly deliver contrary assertions: and consequently, that they onelyonly are to bee esteemed to hold the truth, who fitly reconciling the seeming variance betweene the two Apostles, doe teach that doctrine, which is agreeable to both. Here then I am to demonstrate, both against the Papists, and for our selves: against the Papists three things. First, that the doctrine which they ground upon this place of Saint Iames, is contrary to that of Saint Paul. Secondly, that their exposition of Saint Iames they make him contradict the Apostle Paul. Thirdly, that their doctrine cannot be grounded upon this Text. For our selves two things. First, that by our exposition the two Apostles are easily reconciled. Secondly, that the assertion of the two Apostles, according to our doctrine, not onelyonly may well stand together, but also of necessity must goe together. For the first: wee have the same controversie with the Papists, as I have noted before, which the Apostle maintayned against the justiciaryes of his time. And their opposite doctrine to Saint Paul, which they would gladly father upon Saint Iames, standeth in those six maine errours, which I have plainely and fully confuted in this treatise. And namely in this particular; they affirming, that men are justified by workes, which the Apostle every were constantly denyeth. To the second, whiles they understand the two Apostles to speake in the same sense, of faith, of workes, of justifying; as namely, that both speake of a true justifying faith; of workes, as causes of justification; of justifying, as making just by righteousnesse inherent: they make the one directly to contradict the other. For if Paul affirme, that men are justified by a true faith without workes, and Iames deny it: If Paul deny, that we are justified by workes, as the causes of justification, and Iames affirme it: If Paul deny, that wee are made just before God by workes, and Iames affirme it; how doe they not contradict one another?
§. IV. Bellarm. hopeth to salve the matter with his new-found distinctionBellarmines reconciliation of Paul and Iames. of the first and second justification: that Paul speaking of the justification, wherein a man of a sinner is made just, excludeth workes done by the strength of nature without faith and without grace: and that Iames speaking of the second justification, wherein a just man is made more just, saith, that by the workes of grace proceeding from faith a man is justified.
Answ. Such a distinction might be applyed to sanctification, which is partly habituall, the which they call their first justi…cation, consisting chiefly in charity: and partly actuall, which is their second justfication, consisting in good workes: but being applyed to justification, it hath no ground, either in the Scriptures or in the ancient fathers. Neither can any such distinction possibly bee applied to that justification, which the Scriptures teach, as I have showed bLib. 1. c. 1. §. 8. & l. 2. c. 6. §. 5.heretofore. Secondly, if there could be such a distinction, I would say, that Paul, when hee denyeth Abraham to have been justified by workes did speake of the second justification, wich Bellarmine himselfe confesseth. For Abraham, when he was said to be justified by faith without workes, did abound which workes, as Bellarmine confesseth, and yet was not justifyed by them. And that Iames when hee speaketh of Rahab the harlot, whom hee affirmeth to have been justified by workes, speaketh of the first justification, as Bellarmine also affirmeth. If therefore Paul say, that in the first justification none are justified by workes, and Iames affirme that some are, as namely Rahab: If the Apostle Iames say, that Abraham in his second j…stification was justified by workes, and Paul doe as planiely deny it, how are they reconciled? Againe saith Bellarmine, Paul from justification onelyonly excludeth the workes done without grace; Iames includeth onelyonly the workes of grace. I answeare, that Paul excludeth from justification Abrahams workes, which as else where cHeb. 11. 8, 9, 17.hee testifieth, he wrought by faith: And Iames includeth the workes of Rahab the harlot, which was done, as Bellarmine saith, without grace going before. Where I desire the reader to observe what Bellarmine answeareth. As Paul, saith hee, when he did speake of the first justification, brought the example of Abraham, which was indeed of the second, that hee might prove, as it were à majori, from the greater, that a sinner cannot bee justified by workes done without faith, if righteous Abraham was not made more just by his workes done without faith: even so Iames, when hee did speake of the second justification, brought the example of Rahab, which is of the first justification, that hee might prove à majori, (hee should say à minori, if my logicke faile me not) from the lesse, that a just man is made more just by his workes and not onelyonly by faith, if Rahab of an harlot was made just by workes and not onelyonly by faith. Answ. Thus then hee maketh the Apostles to argue. If Abrahams workes would not have justified him without faith, much lesse would the good workes of the wicked. And if Rahab by her worke of merciemercy was of an harlot made just: how much more shall the good workes of the righteous make them more just?Bellarmines absurdities noted.
§. V. Where by the way you may note diverse absurdities, which I have partly touched before. First, that the Apostle forsooth bringeth Abraham as an example of justification by workes: when it is most evident, that hee bringeth him as an example of justification by imputation of righteousnesse without workes, and maketh his example the exemplar or patterne of all others, who in like maner are justified by faith without workes, or by imputation of righteousnes without workes.
Secondly, That Paul produceth Abraham as an example to prove, that a just man is more justified by his workes; for which there is no colour praeter impudentiam asseverandi, the contrary is proved, that Paul speaking of the justification of a sinner applyeth, what hee saith, to Abraham. For hee proveth that Abraham was not justified by workes, because the Scripture saith, dRom. 4. 4, 5.Abraham beleeved God and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but beleeveth on him that iustifieth the ungodly (which was Abrahams case) his faith is counted for righteousnesse.
Thirdly, the Apostle when he excludeth Abrahams workes from iustification, doth not exclude his good and gracious workes, but such as hee did, or might have done without grace, that is to say, gracelesse workes. But no doubt the Apostles intent in producing the example of Abraham, which Chrysostome also hath observed; was this: If Abraham who did abound with so many notable works, which hee wrought by faith, was not iustified by them but onelyonly by faith: then it is certaine, that none are iustified by workes, though their workes be never so gracious.
Fourthly, He supposeth, that gracious Abraham might have done good workes without grace, and that the Apostle denyeth him to have bene iustified by such workes, as hee might have done, but did not.
Fifthly, By an impudent devise, whereof there is no colour, hee maketh the Apostle from the example of Abraham to argue à majori. If Abrahams workes would not have iustified him, unlesse they had proceeded from faith: then much lesse can the workes of sinners and unregenerate men done without faith iustifie them.
Sixthly, He shamefally inverteth the Apostles question, and perverteth his whole disputation; As if the Apostle disputed this question, whether workes doe iustifie without faith (which hee doth never so much as mention;) and not, whether faith doth iustifie without workes, which is indeed the question.
Seventhly, Where hee saith; that the Apostle excludeth workes onelyonly from their imaginary first iustification, which is meerely habituall; hee conceiveth, that the Apostle tooke all these paines, to prove, that workes are no part of habituall righteousnesse.
Eightly, Where hee saith, that the Apostle excludeth from iustification workes of nature and not of grace, it is as much as if hee should have said, that the Apostle doth so seriously labour to prove, that men are not justified by such workes as are not good, but evill.
To conclude, it is evident, that the Apostle Paul excludeth from the act of justification all workes in ge…all, whether done before grace or after; of all men, whether unregenerate, or regenerate, even of Abraham himself. Yea more specially the workes of the faithfull and regenerate. First, Because he speaketh of good workes, even the workes of righteousnesse which wee (the faithfull) have done Tit. 3. 5. Secondly, The question being, whether faith doth justifie without workes, or whether faith and workes together; the Apostle must be understood to exclude those workes from the act of justification, which with faith concurre in the party justified. Even as Abraham, though his faith was accompanied with store of good works yet he was justified, and so are all the faithfull, by faith without works.
If therefore St. Iames doe affirme, that men are justified in the same sence that Paul denyeth the same; and that Abraham was justified by his workes, which Paul denyeth; he is made to contradict the Apostle Paul.
§. VI. But as the Popish doctrine is repugnant to the doctrine of the Apostle Paul, so neither can it bee grounded upon this text,The Popish doctrine not grounded on Iam. 2. which may appeare by a briefe Analysis thereof. Where first, you are to consider the occasion of this discourse, and thereupon the scope of the Apostle therein. The occasion was the dissolute life of manyThe Analysis of that passage beginning at the foureteenth verse. Christians, who, as Iude speaketh vers. 4. did turne the grace of God into wantonnes, vaine men, as St. Iames calleth them vers. 20. who, when they had learned, that a man is justified by faith without workes, hereby tooke occasion to cast of all care of good workes. As if it were sufficient for them howsoever they lived, to professe them selves to believe.
The scope therfore and intendement of the Apostle is, not to confute the doctrine of Paul concerning justification by faith alone, but according to Pauls direction Tit. 3. 8. to perswade all those, who professe themselves to believe, to be studious of good workes. And that hee doth by this argument: because, howsoever faith doth justifie alone, yet the profession of faith alone without good workes will not justifie nor save a man; but is altogether vaine and unprofitable. The foreign or state of the question, which hee propoundeth to argue, manifestly appeareth by the proposition, wherein the question is propounded, and by the conclusion wherein the question is concluded, the proposition, vers. 14. What profit my brethren, if a man say hee hath faith, and hath not workes, will foreign that faith save him? Marke the wordes: if a man shall say, hee hath faith, that is, if a man shall professe himself to believe, and hath not works, that is a conversation answerable in some measure to his profession; will that faith, which is in profession onelyonly justifie or save him? this interrogation implyeth a most Emphaticall negation: wherein hee doth not onelyonly deny that faith, which is onelyonly in profession, and doth not worke by love, doth justifie or save a man; but also, for the truth of his deniall, hee doth appeale, as it were, to their conscience; sor so much is meant by the interrogation. The question then is not, whether true faith doe justifie alone, as Bellarmine would have it; but whether that faith, which is alone, and by it selfe; vers. 17. without workes, without a Christian conversation, be a true justifying or saving saith. This the Apostle denieth, and so doe wee. In the rest of the discourse hee proveth this negative assertion by an argument from the contrary, namely that this fruitlesse faith is not a true faith, because it is dead. Where the Apostle argueth to this effect: That faith, which is dead, doth not iustifie or save a man: The faith which is profession onelyonly, and is alone without workes is dead. Therefore that faith which is in profession onelyonly, and is alone without workes, doth not iustifie or save a man.
The assumption hee proveth in this whole discourse, where the con…lusion is alwayes this, that the faith which is alone and without workes is dead, and therefore that is the question wich is disputed and concluded.
§. VII. Now that the faith which is alone and without workesThat the faith which is with out workes is dead, proved by five arguments. is dead, hee proveth by five arguments.
1. The first à par…: That charity which is onelyonly in word and not in deed is vaine and unprofitable vers. 15. 16. Even so pariratione, that faith which is in profession only having no works to accompany it, is dead, vers. 17.
2. The second argument is taken from the effects. For a true lively faith may bee demonstrated by good workes: and that which cannot be demonstrated by good workes, is but a dead faith. And this hee proveth vers. 18. against the carnall Gospeller, as it were, by the partyes owne testimony, or forced confession, provoking him to make experience, which kind of proofe is called foreign. Thou professest the faith having no workes: I also professe the faith and have workes, come now to the tryall, hee that hath a true faith may approve it by the fruits: shewe then they faith, if thou canst, by thy workes (which thou knowest thou canst not doe) and I by my workes will approve my faith.
3. The third argument is from the subject. For a true justifying faith is not common to all men. 2. Thes. 3. 2. and much lesse to Devils, but is proper to the Elect, Tit. 1. 1. But that faith, which men professe without charity and without good workes is common to Devils. vers. 19. Thou professest, that thou believest that there is one God, thou doest well: but if this thy beliefe be not accompanied with charity and good workes; know this, that the devils themselves who hate God, doe, though with horrour, knowe and perforce believe the same.
4. The fourth argument to prove, that faith onelyonly professed, or which is in profession onelyonly, is not a true and a lively, but a conterfeit and a dead faith; is a twofold example, of Abraham, and of Rahab, who were justified, that is, declared and knowne to be just by their workes. For in this sence, as the word is often used in the Scriptures as M…t. 11. 19. Luk 7. 29. R…. 3. 4. 1. Tim. 3. 16: so of necessity it must bee taken in this place. For by good workes, which alwaies followe, and never goe before justification, wee are not made just: but being already justified, wee are by them declared and knowne to be just. For hee is a righteous e1 I…hn 3. 7.man that worketh righteousnesse. And this the Schoolmen themselves doe teach, that works do… justifi… …clarativè Th…s Aquinas saith, fJn Gal 3. lect. 4.Opera n…n sunt ca…sa quòd aliqui… sit i…tus apud Deum, &c. workes are not the cause why any man is just before God, but rather they are the executions and manifestations of iustice. Nam nullus per opera iustificatur apud Deum sed per habitum fidei. For no man is iustified before God by workes, but by the habit of faith. And whereas it might bee obiected out of Iam. 2. that Abraham was iustified by workes: hee answeareth, gIbid.the word to be iustified many be taken two wayes: whereof the one is, quantum ad executionem iustitiae, & manifestationem inrespect of execution and manifestation of iustice, & hoc m…do iustificatur homo, i. iustus ostenditur ex operib. operatis, and thus a man is iustified, that is declared be iust by the workes which hee hath done. And thus the ordinary glosse expoundeth the word in this place. But let us come to the words. vers. 20.
§. VIII. But wilt thou know O vaine man, that faith, that is,Verse 20. expounded. that faith professed or in profession onelyonly without workes is dead, or that the faith which is without workes is knowne to be dead. For the life of faith it self doth not depend upon workes as the cause, but is thereby knowne as by the effects. You see againe what the question is which hee will conclude: namely that the faith which is without workes, or which is in profession onelyonly without workes, is not a lively but a dead faith, and consequently not a justifying faith. For a justifying faith is like the faith of Abraham and of Rahab: but that faith which is in profession onelyonly and wanteth workes is not like the faith of Abraham and of Raba…. For though Abraham was iustified by faith without workes as the Apostle Paul proveth, yea by faith alone as the Papists themselves confesse; yet the faith by which hee was justified was not alone, but was fruitfull of good workes, by which both hee and his faith were justified, that is knowne to be just and upright.
§. IX. Vers. 21. was not Abraham our Father, saith hee, justifiedThe example of Abraham, Verse 21. by workes, when hee had offered his sonne Isaack upon the Altar? Of which wordes the meaning is not, that Abraham by that worke was justified before God, or made just, for long before, the holy Ghost gave him this testimony Gen. 15. Abraham believed God and it was imputed unto him for righteousnesse: not, that then hee first believed, or was then first justified: for when hee first left his countrey, which hee left by faith Heb. 11. 8. hee had believed, and his faith no doubt was imputed to him for righteousnesse: but that by that speciall worke after hee was proved, hee was approved and knowne to be a righteous man. For upon Abrahams approbation of his faith and obedience, when he was tryed, the Lord gave him this testimony, Gen. 22. 12. Now I know, that thou fearest God &c. Did not God know it before? Yea no doubt, but hee speaketh after the maner of men. He had tempted Abraham, that is, by a commandement of tryall hee had proved his faith and obedience; not that hee did not know, but that he would make it knowne to Abraham and others. As on the contray, God is said 2. Chron. 32. 31. to have left Ezechias to try him, that hee might know, that is, that hee might make knowne all that was in his heart, when as therefore Abraham being tryed, had by that act of offering his sonne approved his faith and obedience, the Lord saith, Now I know, that is, now by this tryall it is made knowne, that thou art a just man and one that feareth God. And in this sence, as it is most manifest, hee is said by his workes to have been justified, that is, knowne, declared, approved to be a just man.
§. X. Hereupon St. Iames inferreth vers. 22. Doe you not see,Verse 22. how faith did co-operate to or with his workes? The verbe foreign may be understood two wayes, either that faith with other graces did co-operate to the bringing forth of this worke, as namely with the feare of God, and love of God, Gen. 22. 12. though faith was the principall, Heb. 11. 17. Or else, that faith did co-operate with his workes, not to justifie him before God, but to manifest, declare and approve his righteousnes. In which sence we must understand the word Faith, as in the proposition (vers. 24.) for faith professed: or the profession of faith which doth concurre together with workes to make a man, truely justified, to bee knowne. And in this sence faith doth co-operate with works, and may be said to justifie by declaring a man to be just, though Bellarmine holdeth the contrary. For that a man may bee acknowledged to be a man truely justified before God by faith, two things must concurre; the profession of the true faith, and a Christian conversation, neither of which alone is sufficient.
It followeth in the same verse: and by workes was faith made perfect. Which words saith Bellarmine cannot signifie any other, but that his righteousnesse, which was begunne by faith, was perfected by good works. Answ. But Iames doth not say, that his righteousnesse, but his faith was perfected, and whereas hee saith the words cannot signifie otherwise, I say they may be understood two other wayes. First, that faith by workes is perfected, because by workes it is manifested, and perfectly knowne, in which sence Gods strength is perfected in our weakenesse 2. Cor. 12. 9. Secondly, because workes bring the fruits and effects of faith to be perfected, when it bringeth forth good fruits according to his kind. For when any thing hath attayned to the end (as it hath when it doth effectually produce those uses or fruits, for which it was ordayned) it is said foreign to be perfect. Now the end of our justification by faith is our sanctification. For when faith was wrought in us (that is to say, in our regeneration) we were the workemanship of God created unto good workes, which God hath preordayned that wee should walke in them. Eph. 2. 10. Faith therefore may then bee said to be perfected, when it doth effectually bring forth the fruit of good workes: whereby a man is not made, but declared to be just.
§. XI. Vers. 23. And this appeareth yet more plainely by that which followeth. And the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for righteousnesse. This Scripture was fulfilled Gen. 15. 6. above 30. yeares before his offering of Isaake: and here againe it is said to have been fulfilled in this act, that is, the truth of that testimony, which was given him so long before was then manifested, when by this worke hee evidently declared, that hee was indued with a true lively iustifying faith. And to the like purpose the same sentence might, as Bellarmine confesseth, be applyed to Abraham in respect of any other notable fruit of his faith: that then also that sentence was verified, Abraham believed God &c. For then it was declared and manifested, that hee was indued with a true iustifying faith. As for that conceipt of Bellarmine, that if the Hebrew word be well scanned, it will appeare, that the meaning of the words is, that Abrahams believing God was a …ust worke, it is but a poore shift. For Paul understandeth it of Abrahams person, and maketh that text his principall ground of the iustification of the faithfull by imputation of righteousnesse without workes. And Iames likewise understandeth it of Abrahams person: shewing that by this act of offering his sonne the truth of that testimony was manifested, that hee was indued with a true faith, by which hee was iustified.
It followeth in the same verse, and hee was called the friend of God. 2. Chron. 20. 7. Esai. 41. 8. that is, by this act hee approved himselfe to bee such a one.
§. XII. Hereupon Saint Iames, Verse 24. inferreth this consectaryVerse 24. or conclusion: you see then by this example of Abraham, that a man who is justified before God by faith alone, as Abraham was, and that by imputation of righteousnesse without workes; is also justified by workes, as Abraham was, that is, by them, as by fruites and effects hee is declared and approved to bee just, and not by faith professed onelyonly. Hee doth not say, a man is justified by workes as causes, but as the effects. For that, and not the other is deduced from the example of Abraham.
§. XIII. The other example is of Rahab, Verse 25. For thoughVerse 25. The example of Rahab. you may thinke, that you need not compare with Abraham, and yet have a true justifying faith; yet you will bee ashamed to bee behinde Rahab the harlot; who was no sooner justified before God by faith, but she was also justifyed, that is, declared and knowne to bee just by her worke of charity towards the Espyes, which shee wrought by faith, Heb. 11. 31.
Concerning this example of Rahab, Bellarmine hath foure Assertions: of which never an one agreeth with another. First, That Rahab was not declared to bee just, because shee was an harlot: which is false. For though shee had beene an harlot, yet now she beleeved, and by her faith was justifyed before God, and by her worke which shee wrought by faith, was justified, as Saint Iames saith, that is, declared to bee just. Secondly, That Iames bri…geth the example of Rahab to prove, that by good workes a righteous person is made more righteous: which also is false, and contrary to his former Assertion. Thirdly, That by this worke of mercy shee was truely justified, and of a sinner made just. But Rahab, as Bellar…ine saith, was an example of the first justification; and therefore of a sinner not made just by her worke, but by the habit of grace infused. The trueth is, by faith shee was justifyed before God, and by her worke shee was declared to bee just before men. Fourthly, That by that worke, as a disposition, she was prepared unto justifica…ion. Which agreeth neither with his third, where he said, that by this worke shee was truely justifyed, and of a sinner made just, nor with Saint …mes, whose meaning plainely is, not that shee was prepared unto justification by this worke, no more than Abraham was by his; but that she was declared by this worke, as a fruite of her faith and a consequent of her justification, as Abraham was by his workes to be justifyed before God. And thus much of the two examples.
§. XIV. There rema…eth his fifth Argument, which is a similitude,The fifth argument … simil…. verse 26. Verse 26. For as the body without the Spirit is dead, so faith without workes, or that faith which is without workes is dead, which words also may bee two wayes expounded. For either the Apostle Iames speaketh of the habit of faith, or of the profession of it. If of the habit, then the comparison standeth thus: As the body of man without the Spirit, that is, without breath (which is the prime signification of the word foreign derived from foreign to breathe, in which sense it is called the spirit of the mouth, and spirit of the nostrils) I say, as the body without breath is dead: so that saith, which is without workes, which are as it were the breathing of a lively faith, is judged to be dead. For as hDe resurrect. serm… ….Bern…rd also saith, As we discerne the life of this body by its motion, so the life of faith by workes. If therefore faith it selfe be here meant, wee must by Spirit understand breath and not the soule. For although the Papists absurdly make charity, which is a fruite of faith, 1 Tim. 1. 5. to be the forme of it; yet me thinkes they cannot bee so absurd, as to compare faith to the body, and workes to the soule: as though workes, which are the fruites and effects both of faith and of charity, were the forme, and as it were, the soule of faith.
If by faith we understand faith professed or the profession of faith, as in this discouse hitherto it hath beene used, and as it is used elsewhere, as Act. 14. 22. R…m. 1. 8. then you may understand the simili…de thus: As the body of man without the Spirit, that is, the …oule is dead: so the profession of faith without a godly life, which is as it were the life and …oule of our profe…on, is also dead. For hypocrites whose life is not conformable to their profession, though they have a …ame, that they live, yet they are dead. Ap…c. 3. 1.
Thus by five arguments Saint I…mes hath proved, that the faith, which is alone, and without workes, is not a true and a lively, but a dead and counterfeit faith, and yet …, both here and Lib. 1. d… justif. cap. 15. will needs have Saint …ames to speake of a true faith, as if he supposed, that a true faith might be without workes.
Therefore the Popish Doctrine of justification by workes as causes thereof cannot be grounded on this T…xt of Saint Iames.
§. XV. Yea, but will some say, the contradiction is not yet salved.Object. Concerning the contradiction, of faith onelyonly, and not onelyonly. For Saint Paul affirmeth, as you say, that faith alone doth justify, and Saint Iames in plaine termes denyeth, that a man is justifyed by faith onelyonly. I answere, when we say, that faith onelyonly doth justify, we doe not meane absolutely, that nothing doth justify but faith in no sense whatsoever. For many things may truely bee said to justify ali… atque ali… sensu, in divers senses, as I have shewed heretofore. God the Father as the prime efficient, Christ as the meritorious cause, God as the Iudge, Christ, as the Advocate. God, as the Creditour, Christ, as the Surety. The grace of God as the moving cause, the righteousnes of Christ as the matter, the imputation thereof as the forme, the holy Ghost as the applying cause, the Word and Sacraments as the instruments of the holy Ghost, Faith as the hand of the receiver, works as testimonies and signes, &c. but our meaning is, that we are justified by the righteousnesse of Christ onelyonly, which is apprehended by faith alone, and that in us nothing doth concurre to the act of justification, but faith alone, it being the onelyonly instrument whereby wee receive Christ.
And thus have you heard what is to be alleaged against the Papists. First, that their doctrine concerning justification by workes which they would build upon this Text, is repugnant to the Scriptures. Secondly, that by their exposition they make Saint I…mes to contradict Saint Paul. Thirdly, that their doctrine cannot bee grounded on this Text.
§. XVI. Now for our selves, I will shew, that by our expositionOur reconciliation of the two Apostles. the seeming difference betweene the two Apostles is manifestly reconciled: and that by our Doctrine their Assertions, not o…ely mayFirst, from the diversity of the Partie… with whom they dealt. well stand together, but also must necessarily goe together. The reconciliation is easily made, if we consider two things, first, the diversity of the Parties, with whom the two Apostles had to deale. For the Apostle Paul having to deale with Pharisaicall Iustitiaries, who sought to bee justified by a righteousnesse inherent in themselves, and by an obedience performed by themselves, proveth by invincible arguments, that a man is justified by faith without workes. Saint Iames having to deale with carnall Gospellers, vaine men, turning the grace of God into wantonnesse, who having heard, that faith doth justifie without workes, did cast off all care of good workes, thinking it sufficient to professe themselves to beleeve, though their life were dissolute. Against these Saint Iames proveth, that vaine is the profession of faith without good works … that the faith, which is without works, is not a true, liuely justifying faith, but a dead and counterfeit faith: that whosoever is justified before God by faith, must also be justified, that is, declared and approved to bee just, not onelyonly by profession of his faith, but also by the practise of good workes. Wherefore in this respect there is no more difference betweene the two Apostles Paul and Iames, than betweene L…ther, and us, who are Preachers of the Gospell at this day. For as Luther having to deale with Popish justitia…ies who taught justification by workes, urgeth most zelously justification by faith alone, and in the question of justification, after the example of Saint Paul, speaketh contemptuously of workes: so we, having to d…le with Libertines and carnall gospellers, insisting in the steppes of Saint Iames, urge the necessity of good workes.
§. XVII. Secondly, wee are to consider the divers acceptions ofSecondly, from the divers acceptions of the words, fa…th, justifie, wo kes. the words, faith workes justifie, in the writings of the two Apostles. Paul speaking of a true lively faith, which worketh by love, saith (in effect) that faith alone doth justifie. Iames, speaking of the faith of hypocrits, which is in profession only, s…vered from the grace of sanctification, and destitute of good workes; …aith, that such a faith doth neither justifie alone nor at all, as being not a true, but a dead and counterfeit faith.
Paul, speaking of the c…uses of justification before God, denyeth workes to concurre to the act of justification, as any cause thereof▪ Iames speaking of the effects and …ignes of justificati…n, whereby it may be… knowne, affirmeth, that workes must concurre in the parties justified, that by them our faith may be demonstrated, …nd our justification manifested. Paul therefore rejecteth workes obtruded, as causes of justification; Iames urgeth th…m, as effects and signes thereof.
Paul, speaking of Iustification in the proper sense, as it signifieth that gracio…s action of God, whereby wee are made or constituted just; affirmeth, that wee are justified by faith without workes. Iames, speaking of th…t justific…tion, whereby we are (not m…de just before God, but) declared and …, to God, our …, and our conscience to bee just, and indued with a true faith; …, that we are so justified, not onelyonly by the profession of faith, but also by good workes.
Now these … … very well stand together. For although it be most true, which Saint Paul affirmeth, that true faith doth just fie alone: yet it is … true, which Saint Iames faith, that the faith, which is alone, doth not justifie neither …lone nor at all, because it is not … true and a lively, but a …, and dead faith. For … the living eye, though it see alone, yet is not alone, so a liuely f…ith, though it justifie alone, yet never i… alone, though it justifie without workes, yet it is not without work…s. Though good workes doe not … to the act of justification, a… any cause ther…of, according to Saint Pauls doctrin…: yet they must concurre in the same subject, that is the party justified, as necessary fruit… and … of … true justifying …aith, … Saint Ia…es … cheth. Though we be justified before God, that is, both absolved from our …, and accepted in Christ as righteous by faith alone without respect of work… as Saint Paul teacheth: yet, according to the doctrine of …aint Iames, we… are to bee justified, that is, declared and approved to be just not onelyonly by faith professed, but also by good workes. Finally, though good workes n…n … …, yet, … justifica…, as Augustin… useth to speake, or as he also saith, non pr…edunt iustifi…andum, sed justificat… …, though they doe not go… before justification, as caus…s, … P…l teacheth; yet they must follow in the parties justified, as effects, according to Saint Iames his doctrine.
§. XVIII. But the assertions of the 2. Apostles not only may wel standBy our doctrine the …ssertions of the two Apostles must goe together. toge…her; but also according to our doctrine they must necessarily goe together. For if we shall be altogether conversant in setting forth the commendation of good works, and in urging the necessity thereof, not informing the people in the doctrine of justification by faith alone: they will be ready to place the matter of their justification, and the merit of their salvation in themselves, as the Papists doe. And so being ignorant of Gods iR… ▪ 10. 3.righteousnesse, and seeking to establish their owne righteousnesse, they doe not submit themselves to the righteousnes of God. But wee must so urge the necessity of good workes in the doctrine of sanctification, that wee remember, that in the question of justification they are of no value. On the other side, if wee shall be wholly taken up in the doctrine of justification by faith alone, teaching, that in the question of justification they are of no worth, and doe not withall informe the people of the profit and necessity of good works in other respects; how ready will they bee to cast off all care of good workes, and content themselves with a bare profession of faith? But wee joyne these assertions together, after the doctrine and practise of the Apostles in their kRom. 6. 1, &c. …ph. 2. 8, 9, 10. Tit. 3. 8.Epistles. Wee teach that justification and sanctification are unseparable companions. And theresore, as they who are sanctified, may bee assured of their justification; so without sanctification none can bee1 Ioh. 1. 7, 9. & 2, 1, 2, 3, 4. assured of their justification. It is true, that there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus, but who are they? that live not after the flesh, but after the Spirit, R…. 8. 1. that are new creatures 2 Cor. 5. 17. that crucifie the flesh with the lusts thereof, Gal. 5. 24. It is true, that a true lively faith doth justifie alone, but what manner of saith is that? that purifieth the heart, Act. 15. 9. and worketh by love, Gal. 5. 6. and may be demonstrated by good workes. Iam. 2. 18. It is true, that wee are not justified by our workes, nor saved for them, yet those are neither justified, nor saved, that are without them, for as they are necessary consequents of justification, so they are necessary antecedents of salvation. For though they be not the cause of our salvation; yet they are the way by which we are to come to salvation: though they be not causa reg…andi, as Bernard saith, yet they are via regni. Though they bee not the merit of salvation; yet they are the evidence, according to which God will judge us. By faith wee have our inheritance, and our title to Gods Kingdome, but it is to be inherited among those that are lAct. 26. 1…. & 20. 32.sanctified. A godly conversation, though it be not properly a cause of our glorification; yet it is causa si…e q… n…n. For as the Apostle saith, without holinesse no man shall see God. Heb. 12. 14. And for this cause we seriously exh…rtall men, who professe themselves to beleeve, and to be iustified by faith, to be careful, that they may be mTit. 3. ….precedents of good works, for these are good, and profitable, and necessary, as I shewed before,Sixe o…her testimonic… …lleaged by Bell…rmine. when I propounded those arguments which wee doe use to move men unto good workes. So much of his first testimony.
§. XIX. To that place of Saint Iames he addeth nDe justif. l. 4. c. 19.sixe other testimonies, to which a short answer will suffice. To the first out of Eccles. 18. 21: I have fully answered in the first oLib. 2. cap. 4. §. 2. & 3.controversie.
2. His second testimony is Rom. 6. 19. As you have exhibited your members to serve uncleanness… and iniquity unto iniquity: so now exhibitTestimon. 2. Rom. 6. 19. your members to serve justice unto sanctification. Where, unto sanctification, doth not signifie to get the first holinesse, sor he speaketh to them who were holy and just, but to increase sanctification. But that by sanctification is meant justification: and by sanctity, justice, it is plaine by the antithesis, for he opposeth sanctification to iniquity. His argument is thus framed: Sanctification may and must bee increased by good workes, which is proved by this text, and not denyed by us.
Iustification is sanctification. And that he proveth, because what is opposed to iniquity is justification: sanctification is here opposed to iniquity. Therefore here sanctification signifieth justification. Ans. That justification and sanctification are by no means to be confounded. I proved at large in the first pLib. 2.question, for this is the source of all their errours in the doctrine of justification. The Apostle doth carefully distinguish them. For having in the former chapters treated of justification by faith without works; that men should not abuse that doctrine to licentiousnesse of life; in this, and the next chapter, he treateth of sanctification shewing in this qRom. 6chapter that sanctification is a necessary companion of justification. And therefore exhorteth those that are justifi… to the dueties of sanctification. The abuse he preventeth vers. 1. and 15. for wheras he had taught in the doctrine of justification, that where sinne abounded grace did superabound; he maketh this objection, what then? shall we continue in sinne that grace may abound? God forbid! So againe, by Iustification we are freed from the curse of the Law, and from the rigour and terrour or dominion it? what then? shall we sin, because wee are not under the Law, but under Grace? God forbid!
The unseparable conjunction of these two benefits is shewed by the rRom. 6. 3, 4, &c.Sacrament of Baptisme for as it is a seale of that righteousnesse, which is by faith, unto us being baptized into the remission of sins: so it is the laver of regeneration, wherin, as the Apostle saith, we are baptized into Christs death and resurrection; that as he dyed, so we should dye unto sin: and as he rose againe never to dye any more: so wee should arise from the grave of sinne never to dye any more: for how should they that are dead to sinne live any more therein? And hereupon followeth his exhortation, that we should not let sinne reigne in us, nor give our members as instruments of unrighteousnes unto sin, &c. And as he doth dehort us from suffering sinne to relgne in us: so he assureth the faithfull, that sinne shall no more hauehave dominion over them, because they are not under the Law but under grace, and having prevented the abuse of that doctrine, vers. 15. he reneweth both his dehortation from suffering sinne to reigne in them, because if it did reigne in them, they must needes be the servants of it: when as in their redemption they were freed from the bondage of sinne, that they might become the servants sVers. 18.of righteousnesse; and also his exhortation vers. 19. that they would yeeld their members, as seruants to holinesse, &c.
To his reason, that by sanctification here is meant justification, because it is opposed to iniquity: I answere, that both justification and sanctification are opposed to sinne and iniquity; but with this difference. In sin there are two things, the guilt, and the corruption or pollution. By justification, which is opposed to accusing and condemning Rom. 8. 33. wee are freed from the guilt of sin and damnation: by our sanctification, which is opposed to pollution, wee are freed in some measure from the corruption, that it is to say, from the dominion of sinne.
§. XX. His third testimony is 2 Cor. 7. 1. where the Apostle exhortethHis third tes…imony, 2 Cor 7. 1. that having these promises (of our justification and adoption, chap. 6. 16, 28) wee should cleanse our selves from all pollution of the flesh and spirit, perfecting or accomplishing our sanctification in the feare of God. The Apostle doth not exhort us unto justification, (for that is never done in all the Scriptures) but being justified and adopted, wee are exhorted with our justification and adoption to joyne the dueties of sanctification, and therein to grow and increase, untill wee come to a perfect man in Christ.
§. XXI. His fourth testimony, 2 Cor. 9. 10. he will multiply yourHis fourth tes… mony, 2 Cor. 9. 10 seed and will augment the increases of the fruits of our justice. Where we are taught saith he, that by alm…s-giving our wealth is diminished, but our j…stice is increased. Answ. We answere, that by the Christian practice of vertues our justice, (but not our justification) is increased. Howbeit, the Apostle doth not speake of justice it selfe to be increased, but of the fruites of justice; by justice in this place meaning, as vers. 9. and Matth. 6. 1. liberalitie in almes-giving: and by the fruites of righteousnesse, almes. Unto which, that they might bee more and more enabled, the Apostle prayeth, that their seed may be multiplyed, meaning thereby their store (which in the faithfull is as it were the seed of almes) that having alwayes all sufficiency in all things, they might abound to every good worke, being enriched in every thing to all bountifulnesse, ve…s. 8, 11. so farre is the Apostle from signifying that by their almesgiving their wealth should be diminished
§. XXII. His fifth testimony, Ioh. 14. 23. If any love me, hee willHis fif…h …estimony, Ioh. 14. 23 keepe my word, and my Father will love him. This new living after the fulfilling of the Commandements, what is it, sath he, but the increase of love, and thereby of righteousnesse, which by observing the Law of God is required. Answ. Wee confessè, that by the observance of the Law of God, our love of God is exercised and our righteousnesse increased, though it be not proved out of this place. For this love, after the keeping of Christs word here mentioned, is Gods love to us, not ours to him.His sixth testimony, Apoc. 22. 11.
§. XXIII. His sixth testimony is Apoc. 22. 11. hee that is just, let him be justified yet. Answ. The word yet or still doth not signifie increase but continuance: or if increase were meant, it could not bee understood of the righteousnesse of justification but of sanctification. But to this allegation I have answered twice before.Lib. 2. cap. 4. §. 5. & cap. 5 §. 10.
To conclude, in these six places wee have seene scarce any colour of proofe either of justification by workes, or of increase of justification; and yet these, besides Iam. 2. are all the testimonies which he hath alleaged out of the Scriptures: which being compared with those plentifull and pregnant Testimonies that plainely deny justification by workes, doe manifestly shew the cause of the Papists to bee most desperate.
But it may bee you will say, that although the Scriptures faile him, yet hee hath store of testimonies of the Fathers, and plenty of reasons. Out of the Fathers, he produceth not one testimony: Neither doth he give any reason, but such as have beene already confuted.
§. XXIV. To these testimonies, saith he, two reasons may be added out of Bellarmines two Reasons.those things, which have been proved in the former Chapters concerning the possibility of the Law, and the truth of actuall righteousnesse: for, saith he, if a just man can fulfill the Law, as before it hath beene demonstrated, then …ay he also without doubt be justified by workes. Againe, If a just man can performe workes truly good, which are polluted with no vice, as we have shewed before, then he may worke righteousnesse, and consequently may by multiplying of just workes increase his justice. Answ. He should say his justification. But in both hee disputeth a posse ad esse: it is possible for a man to fulfill the Law and consequently to be justified by workes it is possible, that a righteous man may performe some workes truely and purely good by multiplying whereof he may increase his justice. But the question is not, whether some choise man one of a million, can fulfill the Law, and bring forth workes purely good; but whether every one that is justified doth fulfill the Law, that is, doth continue in all the things which are written in the Booke of the Law to doe them. Whether the workes, yea all the workes of every one, that is justified, be purely good. For if he should transgresse in any one particular, though it were but by omission, he hath not fulfilled the Law. If any of his workes were not truely and purely good, or if all his workes be not pure, then hee cannot be justified by workes. But he is so farre from proving these things as it were the esse, that he is not able to prove the posse, that any one mortall man is able to fulfill the Law; or that any one action of any one regenerate man is purely and perfectly good. The contraries of both which I have plentifully proved before.