Of Free Justification by Christ, Book 3 · Part 6
An Answer to the Adversaries, wherein their Frivolous Exceptions, and Sophistical Subtilties are confuted.
BUT these Sophistical Distinctions which they make use of, as antidotes in difficult cases, are so absurd and unreasonable, that there is not any Poison more deadly and injurious to the Doctrine of Salvation.
And I greatly wonder at the power and efficacy of Errour, that so stupifies their undestanding, that in the light of Noon-day they can be so blind, and err so perniciously, and betray their own Ignorance so shamelesly. It is a Rule of Lawyers; (as I formerly have said) A Rule of Lawyers.Where the Law distinguishes not, we ought not to distinguish. What need then is there in a thing so evident, of so many by-ways of distinctions, and Labyrinths of perplexities? for Paul hath spoken expresly, and given many weighty Arguments, whereby he makes it very clear, that it is theGrace ofGod only, to which we are indebted for all our Iustification. But those men are of another mind, saying, That this Grace consists not in the favour of God only, whereby he receives sinners for the sake of Christ, but also in Moral Vertues and Charity, whereby the Law is fulfilled. Tho' I deny not that the excellent gifts of honest actions are bestowed upon us by the Grace of God: Yet our Iustification before God depends not upon this grace of working: Therefore we do not utterly reject the distinction that they bring of pardoning and renewing grace, if they keep them duly within their own bounds. But that which they conclude from hence, we altogether disapprove. I know and confess it is the Grace of God, which both sanctifies and justifies; which both pardons & renews: For we are daily renewed unto new obedience by the influence of Divine Grace. But though this be so, we are not renewed for this purpose, that by this newness of obedience we may be justified: But before Renovation we are sirst justified by Faith in the Son of God; all the sins of our former life being blotted out for the sake of Christ in whom we believe: Unto which Iustification succeeds the renovation of imperfect Obedience, but not such as justifies a man from his sins in the sight of God: for Aug. de fid. & oper. c. 15.good works go not before him that is to be justified, but follow him that is justified. For whereas hence they make a twofold Iustification; a first (as they call it) and a second; of which the one is before works, and the other after works, whereby it is perfected; it is a vain imagination, not derived from the fountains of sound Doctrine, but from the filthy Cisterns of Sophistry and vain jangling. For the Gospel acknowledges no Iustification but one only, and such a one as endures for ever.
As Christ, whom he loves, he is said to love unto the end: And as God hath once chosen and called those unto Salvation, whom he will justifie for ever; so also he likewise once justifies those whom he will glorifie. For I see no such difference between these things, but that what agrees unto Election and Vocation, may also be attributed to Iustification. Wherefore as God's election and calling of those, who are justified, is one, and not twofold; it must follow by necessary consequence, that there is but one Iustification of those who are chosen. Therefore if God hath once chosen those, that are to be justified, why may not one Iustification be sufficient for them, whom Election hath called unto glory? especially because there is one and the same cause and manner both of electing and justifying. He chose The cause why we are chosen and justified in Christ only.them in Christ first, whom he predestinated unto life: And in like manner he justifies in Christ those, whom by the sacred Decree of his Election he appointed to glory. But if you ask the cause, why God chuses his own in Christ, I answer, That the cause thereof is not placed in the works of men, but it depends upon the free favour of God, and the like we may say of Iustification; for those, whom he justifies, he justifies in Christ; but if you ask, why doth he justifie in Christ, the cause appears evident, which cannot be found in our VVorks, but before all VVorks in the favour of God only.
But you may say, Those things are not well compared with one another, which disagree in Nature; for Election, and Vocation, and Glorification are such things, as being once determined of God, cannot be disannulled. But the Case is otherways in Iustification, which may sometimes be lost, and sometimes retained, according as it is hindered or not hindered by the Grace of God. For thus spake Vega de fide & operibus, q. 2. pa. 754. It is sufficient, that we by believing only, be justified, unless we do otherways hinder the Grace of God by our Sins.Vega, and Scotus, and others. That I may Answer such Men, I confess indeed, if the manner of our Iustification were such, as those Men feign, to wit, if its chief reliance were upon Works, and the increase of Vertues; it would be true, which they assert, concerning the uncertainty of losing or keeping Iustification. But seeing all the stability of our Iustification depends not at all upon our Works, but upon the Merits of Christ by Faith, and the Remission of Sins by his Righteousness; therefore it is, that as there is one Election and Vocation, and that sure and firm, so also Iustification is not twofold, but one and the same, and such an one as endures for ever. I call it one, because there remains always One manner of justifying and that perpetual.one and the same cause and manner of Iustifying, which relies not on the Merits of Works, but consists of Faith and the Remission of Sins. And though the Sins from which we are justified, are not all of the same kind, but are distinguished by times and variety of Actions, yet nevertheless Iustification, that is, the Remission of Sins in respect of the form and manner is not divers but one: Not twofold but simple, as Faith also, which is the procuring cause of Iustification is not, which though it is daily increased, yet it remains always one and the same. Moreover, as this Iustification which increases together with Faith is only one, so also the same being firm and stable, no less than the Promise of God, on which it relies, undergoes no change, but continues firm, and constant and the cause thereof is, because it relies not on The Distinction of a first and second Iustification is confuted.Works but Faith only, whence the Apostle said. It is therefore by Faith, that according to Grace the Promise may be sure to all the Seed.
On the contrary, they who make a twofold Iustification, and assign divers causes of both, of which the one confists of Faith only, without Works going before, which they call the first, and the other, which they call the second is increased by Works of Grace, as they speak. I see not what they can find in the Scriptures, for the defence of their Opinion; for Paul writing to so many Churches The cause of Iustification is not twofold but one.acknowledges no cause of Iustification, but one, which he professes to be Faith in Christ, and that without Works. What need is there of better evidence? Can you not be perswaded to believe the Truth, which hath been so often and so perspicuously demonstrated by so great a Master as Paul? But to what purpose hath Christ appointed him to be a Teacher to us Gentiles; if we despise his Instructions, and chuse to our selves other Masters, that teach another Gospel? And what else do those Men, who reject the Apostle's Doctrine, and hearken to such as teach contrary thereunto? Paul says, Without Works Man is justified: Will you then dare to plead for Iustification by Works in Opposition to the Apostle? Dare you deny what he affirms? But you say, I detract nothing from Works in opposition unto Paul, but I add Grace, from whence they receive the power of Meriting and Iustifying. Then, according to your Opinion, Works being assisted by Grace do justifie, but without Grace they avail nothing.
But what will you answer to St. Paul, who without making any Distinction of Works, says not of such or such Eph. 2.Works only, but indefinitely and in the general of all Works. It is of Faith, and not of Works, lest any should boast. And again, to the Romans, If by Grace, then it is not of Works, and elsewhere, Rom. 11.To him, that worketh not, &c. And how often doth he in all his Epistles Attribute all Power of Iustifying to Faith, shutting out not only such or such Works, but all Works of what kind soever, concerning which Paul speaking indefinitely and absolutely, utterly excludes them from any concernment in Iustification. Which would be false, if any Works, whether performed by Grace and in Faith, or without Grace, were conducible to Iustification. And hence this Argument arises.
An Argument against inherent Righteousness.
We are justified without Works by Faith, as Paul testifies.
VVorks of Charity infused by Grace, are VVorks.
Therefore, without these Works also, that consist of Grace, we are The Caviling of the Papists.justified.
The Adversaries Answer to the Major: Paul asserts, that we are justified without Works, but with this Exception, unless they be planted in us by Faith, and the influence of Grace; for the Apostle excludes not such kind of Works, because they please God, and procure Iustification. Contrarily those VVorks only are excluded, that are of the Law, or of Nature, without which we are said to be justified. But this Answer doth not satisfie the VVords of Paul, who without making any such Exception or Distinction of VVorks, teaches simply and indefinitely, that we are justified without Works. By what An indefinite Proposition.Logick then have these Sophisters learned to make a definite and particular Proposition of that which is Indefinite and Universal? Or what Reason have they to confine that unto a particular Case, which Paul speaks of Works in the general? Let us consider the Words of the Apostle: Who, if he had believed, that Works of Charity infused, procure Iustification in the sight of God, it cannot be doubted, but he would have expresly said so much. Now he says expresly without any Exception: By Works shall no Flesh be justified.
Whence we may form this Argument.
If Works performed by Grace and in Faith, were meritorious of Iustification, then some flesh would be justified by Works, seeing there are many Believers that Work by Grace.
But no flesh at all shall be justified by Works, as Paul bears witness.
Therefore it is false, that good Works performed by Grace have any Power of justifying.Rom. 3.
Let us confirm the saying of Paul by Scriptural Examples. That which Paul here preaches of free Salvation without Works, the same Isaiah foretells, will come to pass, though in other Words yet to the same purpose, under the Symbols of Wine and Milk. All ye that thirst, saith he, come without Isa. 55.Money, and without Price, and buy Wine and Milk. What is signified here by Wine and Milk, but the glorious Mystery of our Iustification? and what is the signification of these Words, wherein we are commanded to eat without Money and without Price, but that the Lord would intimate unto us by the Prophet the same thing, that the Apostle declares, to wit that we attain unto so great Felicity by the free Gift of God only, and not by Works or Merits of Works? For what can be the sense of these Words of the Apostle [Without Works] but the same that the Prophet expresseth in these Words (without Money, and without Price:) What hole can the Papists find here, to creep out at? Without our own Works say they, or without those that go before Faith, as Campian says, or without the Works of the Law as Osorius speaks, but not without the Works of Faith, or those Works which flow from the Grace of God; but this vain Sophistry is overthrown A frivolous Trick of the Sophisters.by the similitude of the Prophet, which would be utterly absurd, unless upon all accounts Salvation were freely offered without any Condition of Works. For otherwise, what will they answer the Prophet, or how can they interpret his Words, where he commands to eat without Money and without Price? Will they distinguish Money in this place just as they distinguish Works? So that they reject that Money as unprofitable, which is our own, being purchased by our own labours, but what is given us of God, they are so far from excluding this, that unless we have it, it is in vain to come and eat. O vain janglings of Sophisters, not so fit to be confuted by Arguments as to be hissed away, and accursed by an Apostolical Execration. Suitable hereunto is that saying of the same Prophet: Ye were sold for nought, and ye shall Isa. 52.be redeemed without Silver: What else can be understood by these Words, but the freeness of the Infinite Mercy of God towards us without any Merit of ours? Where then are the Merits of inherent Righteousness, which the wicked bring before God, if none obtain Iustification, (as they plead) but those who are first endued with Charity, and thereby are rendered just and worthy of Life Eternal?
For the Confirmation of what we assert, let us add also the Example of Abraham: From whence we may argue thus.
Argument, Rom. 4.
The VVorks of Abraham were done in Faith and Grace.
The VVorks of Abraham have no Praise or Glory before God.
Argument.
Therefore VVorks done by Faith and Grace Merit nothing before God.
I am not ignorant, what these Interpreters Answer, absurdly wresting The VVords of Paul wrested by the Papists.these Words of Paul to another Sense, contrary to the Mind of the Apostle. For thus they comment upon this place. If Abraham by VVorks, &c. The good VVorks of Abraham done in Faith, are not by these Words excluded from Iustification, neither is he declared to be justified by Faith only. But the VVorks of the Law, done without Faith, are excluded, which sort of VVorks because Abraham did not, therefore he is truly said to be justified by his VVorks before God. Moreover (as they say) it is not proved by these Words, that the good Works of Abraham: being a renewed Man and righteous, though done in Faith, did not justifie, but that Abraham was not justified by Works only without Faith. Thus they say, What should I answer then, but that their Interpretation doth not agree with the Mind of the Author? Paul writing to the Romans, when he had proved it by many and weighty Arguments, That a Man is justified by Faith without Works, being about to confirm the same by an Example; He enquires concerning the Works of Abraham: What shall we say, that Abraham our Father according to the flesh found? For if he was justified by Works, he hath whereof to Glory, but not before God, &c. First, let us see, what these Works were of which Paul treats, and next whose Works they were? The Adversaries Tarrianus Iesuit. pro epist. pent. lib. 4.Answer, and amongst those Campian our Countrey-man, who a while since, when he was urged by this place of Paul, concerning the Works of Abraham, is reported to have answered thus, like his own Iesuits, the Works of the Law, as they are done without Faith and Grace, avail nothing to Iustification; but because the Works of that Holy Man were not such, being replenished with Faith and Grace, therefore he is truly said to be justified by his own Works before God, yet not as his own Works. What do you say? Was he justified by Works, of whom Paul says expresly, that he had no cause of glorying in his Works before God? Was the Apostle ignorant of the Holiness and Excellency of the Works of the Godly Patriarch, which were not without Faith, and the Grace of God? And yet Paul denies that these Works, though excellent in themselves, availed any thing before God, in respect either of glorying or of Iustification? And it is evident by the Authority of Paul, that it was of Faith, and nor of Works that he was justified before God; for Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for Righteousness: How then will those Interpreters agree with the Apostle, in affirming he denies; for they contrarily do plead that Abraham was justified by his Works: Whereas in opposition thereunto the whole scope of this Epistle is to remove the works of the Saints, though excellent in themselves, from Iustification; not that pious works should be contemned, but that the free Bounty of God towards sinners may evidently appear, who liberally communicates his Righteousness, not to the dignity of Merits, but to Faith; not to him that worketh, but to him that believeth in him, that justifies the ungodly, (who justifieth the ungodly, saith the Apostle.) But here Campian objects after his former manner, pleading; first, That Abraham was justified by Works; and next, he renders the reason, why he was justified by Works; because that his Works were not done in Circumcision, nor in the Law, but before Circumcision and the promulgation of the Law, by Faith and Grace: And therefore they were acceptable to God.
Thirdly; Commenting upon the scope of the Epistle, he affirms, that we misunderstand the words of the Apostle, because his whole drift through all that Epistle is, to separate from Iustification the Ceremonies of the Law, and the Works, that were done before Faith in the Law, or by the Law only without Grace. For thus he reasons, and such are all Camplan's Objections. To all which I answer, that they are most false.
1. Whereas he affirms, That Abraham An Answer to the first Objection.was righteous by Works, Paul expresly denies it, Reason openly confutes it and the thing appears evident of it self. For what need had he of the promised Seed and a Redeemer, if already he had been righteous by Works? or what need was there, that Faith should be accounted unto him for righteousness, who was afterwards to obtain the praise of Righteousness by Works? Moreover, death being the wages, not of righteousness, but of sin; by what right could he be subject to the dominion of death, if he had not been a sinner? If he was a sinner, how then was he righteous by works?
2. Whereas he says, That these works were not done according to the Law, nor under the Law, but before the promulgation of the Law, I would ask him, What the Law is; which if it is nothing but the Rule of Righteousness, An Answer to the Objection.how can any man be just, where there is no Law? But what man was there ever in the World, but he carried about with him the Law of God, if not written in Tables, yet written on his heart, and engraven on his conscience? But the Decalogue was not yet engraven on Tables of Stone. But what was contained in the Moral Decalogue, which that holy man did not already comprehend within his own heart, both of loving God and his Neighbour, of not Murthering, of not committing An Answer to the third Objection.Adultery, or honouring Parents? &c.
3. As touching the scope of this Epistle, how greatly is campian mistaken? For who is so void of sense, that he doth not clearly perceive, that the drift of the Apostle is not that, which those Iesuits dream of, to attribute our Salvation or Iustification to any Works, either going before, or following after? Neither was this Office of an Ambassadour committed unto him, that he might contend with the Iews about Ceremonies, or with the Gentiles about Moral Duties; but as Peter was entrusted with the Apostleship of the Circumcision, so also the Preaching of the Gospel to the Uncircumcision was committed unto Paul; not that he should Preach the Law, but the Faith, which before he opposed: Not that he might declare the Righteousness of Works (in which there is no Salvation) but that God by him might reveal his Son amongst the Gentiles, and might manifest unto the World that heavenly Trophy and glad Tydings of Peace and Victory obtained in Heaven by Christ, and spread abroad far and wide through the Churches, the boundless riches of Divine Grace, which he had experienced in himself. For he was called for this purpose to the Apostleship, that the infinitely gracious Lord and Redeemer Christ Iesus might first exercise his Mercy towards him, and afterwards by him declare his great Mercy towards Sinners, not only by hisExample, but also by his Ministry For 1 Tim. 1.thus he bears witness of himself, that the Ministry of Reconciliation was committed to him, for which he was appointed to be a Preacher, and Apostle and Teacher of the Gentiles, in Faith and Truth, that he being an Ambassadour in Christ's 1 Tim. 2.stead, might invite all men, yea and beg of them, that they would 2 Tim. 1. 2 Cor. 5. Ephes. 3.be reconciled unto God. And this seems to be the principal scope, that Paul aims at, not only in the Epistle to the Romans, but also in all his Doctrine, to proclaim amongst the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and that he might set before the view of all men, what is the Communion of the Mystery that was hidden with God in former Ages, &c. But now in the Righteousness of Works, no such Mystery lay hidden with God from former Ages. Therefore it is false, and abominable, which Campian the Iesuit, and such like Sophisters assert concerning the scope and sense of Paul's Epistle to the Romans: For by the Law, (which Paul excludes from Iustification) they understand that part thereof which comprehends Ceremonial and Iudicial Works, wherein the Iews gloried; or Works The blind Errour of the Papists about the sense and scope of Pauls Epistles.purely Moral, performed before Faith, on which the Gentiles relied. Yea on the contrary, when Paul removes the Law from Iustification, he doth not only exclude it, upon the account of Iewish Ceremonies, or Moral Works performed before Faith; but also upon the account of its weakness through the flesh, both in Iews and Gentiles, both in the regenerate, and the unregenerate; so that it cannot make sufficient satisfaction to the Iustice of God. And Paul affirms, That for this cause God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.
What did God do, but what flesh could not do? For sin, he condemned sin in the flesh. In what flesh? ours, or his own Sons? Who of all the Regenerate, though endued with great habitual Faith and Grace, hath so led his life, walking not according to the flesh, but according to the spirit, but he always carries about with him flesh, that is weak in many respects, and vicious and subject to sin? Concerning which every one may complain with the Apostle: I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwells no good thing. And again; I find a Law. that when I would do good, evil is present with me, &c. For Romans 7.what they speak of Works following Faith and Grace, how little that helps their cause appears not more evident by any Argument, than by the Lives of those, that maintain this Controversie, if they be strictly enquired into. If that be true, which Campian with his Iesuits pleads for, That Righteousness is not obtained in men come to years, but by Works that follow after Faith: Let us behold then what excellent Works this Faith of the Mother Church of Rome brings forth; seeing they so much glory in the Title of Catholick Faith, and Preach so many things about Charity, which is the fulfilling of the Law.
Let us look into the Life and Works of the Roman Popes, Cardinals and Bishops, and the whole Crew of the Monks and Iesuits; Where can you find more of the flesh, or less of true holiness, than in those false-hearted and painted Hypocrites, whose whole profession of Religion consists, in Purple Gowns, high topped Mitres, Purple Caps, Rings adorned with Iewels, solemn Vows, Ceremonies, which in reality are rather Stage-playes than Exercises of Piety. This appears to be too true by the unhappy Tumults raised in the World, the Wars and Persecutions that are stirred up by none more, than by those very men, that call themselves Spiritual and Catholick; whom it should become to be the chiefest encouragers of Concord, and Messengers of Peace.
But having so much enlarged upon this sort of men, with their Works and Merits, let us return to the Examples of those of whom we spake before, who were freely admitted unto Baptism, and received into favour by Faith without any commendation of Merits at all, yea without mention of any Works, except such perhaps as were evil: Amongst which number those Iews may be reckoned, of whom three thousand at one time were Baptized by Peter.
Likewise also the Eunuch whom Faith only without Works, made not only meet for Baptism, but also an Heir of the Heavenly Kingdom: And the Iaylor, whom Paul Baptized. Moreover, Paul himself, and all the Apostles, and Publicans, the family of Cornelius, Zacehaeus, Mary Magdalen, and the Thief on the Cross; If Faith without Works was sufficient to them for the Grace of Baptism, why not also for the obtaining of Iustification and Life Eternal?
Vega, and those of his Association, Vega de Iustificat. p. 771.answers after his usual manner, that in all these Repentance was joyned with Faith, and other things also belonging to good Manners, and a godly Life. But it easily appears how vain and insignificant this Answer of Vega is: He says, Repentance and other Vertues are joyned with Faith: Which, tho' I confess to be in some sense true in the lives and persons of them that are justified; but these things have no union with Faith in the concernment of Iustification. And first, as touching Repentance, abundance hath been said before; for seeing Repentance is nothing but a mourning for sins committed, it may indeed of it self afflict the guilty person, and fit him for receiving of Grace; but it cannot obtain a pardon for the sins committed before a Secular Iudge, and much less before the Iudgment Seat of God. For that is the Office of Faith, which as it only obtains a pardon, so it obtains it for none but them that are afflicted, and repent, and believe in Christ. For for their sakes chiefly Christ was sent by his Father into this World, that he may help all them, that being in distress, flie to him by Faith. In which three things are to be considered, and placed each of them in their own bounds and territories. First, that we may see what the Mediatour does, what Faith performs, & what sorrow for sin produces. All our Salvation flows from the Mediatour as from a Spring and Fountain. But if you ask, how, or for what cause he saves; I answer, by Faith. And if you ask, whom he saves; I answer, those that repent of their wickedness, or whom he draws unto himself by an inward Call: Doth the Lord then save those for their Repentance? No verily. Suppose a man is greatly grieved at the remembrance of his bypast life, but yet comes not to Christ; will grief for his sins save him? No surely. Yea, who can come to Christ unless he first hear and understand, who he is from whom Salvation must be sought? Now it is Faith, and not Repentance, that does this: For it is not the grief and sorrow of a broken hearted sinner, but Faith that discovers a Saviour to us, and guides us to him, and obtains Salvation from him: Yea, which is Salvation to them that are in distress: for thus it is written: This is the will of God, That every one that seeth and believeth in him, should Iohn 3.have Eternal Life. By which it is evident enough, what should be attributed unto Repentance, and what to Faith, in the case of Iustification; for sin is not therefore pardoned, because he that sinned hath repented, but because he that sinned not at all, hath died for sin, therefore the sinner is forgiven, not for his Repentance, but for Faith, whereby he believes in him, that died for our sins, & rose again for our Iustification.