Of Free Justification by Christ, Book 3 · Part 1
An Argument taken out of St. Iames.
No Dead thing Iustifies.
All Faith without Works is Dead. Therefore, No Faith Iustifies without Works.
Answer.
First the manner of arguing is captious, and transgresses the right A Fallacy in the terms.Laws of Logick. For the terms therein exceed the due number: For there is a redundancy in the conclusion, by this addition, without Works. For this should have been the conclusion: Therefore no Faith, that is without Works justifies. And that may be well granted without any disadvantage to our Cause. For, suppose we grant, that Faith is Dead, which is not moved with a desire of doing good Works, according to the saying of St. Iames, yet it doth not therefore follow from hence, that no Faith Iustifies without Works. From which two things do follow, worthy of consideration.
First, That no Faith justifies, that is not lively: And next, though it abounds in good Works, and never is without them, yet it only without Works Iustifies.
This will appear evident by the Example of St. Paul: Who though he was not conscious to himself of any Wickedness, yet he durst not affirm himself to be thereby Iustified.
I think nothing hinders, but the whole Argument may be yielded unto, if so be the terms are rightly placed.
The Adversaries gather out of the Apostle Iames, that Faith is dead, which is without Works, and herein we do not much oppose them. But what follows from hence? Therefore, (as they say) dead Faith without Works doth not justifie.
And I deny it not: But what Conclusion flows from this manner of Arguing? Therefore only Faith doth not justiste? Why so? If no Faith, but that which is lively, justifies, and if it receives Life only from Works, then this is the consequence, that Faith justifies, only upon the account of good Works.
I Answer, First, though we grant it is true. that the Faith which justifies us in the sight of God is lively, and always joyned with a Godly Life: Yet, that this Faith justifies and reconciles us no other ways, but upon the account of good Works, is most false. For this is not a good consequence from the premises: Because Faith is not alone in the Life of the Believer, therefore Faith is not alone in the Office of justifying. Or because the Faith that justifies is not a dead, but a lively Faith, therefore it doth not justifie alone without Works: For herein is a fallacy of the Consequence. But you may object? Whence then is Faith said to be lively and not Dead, but from Works? Which if it be so, of necessity it must draw all its Life and Vertue from Works.
Nay, the matter is quite contrary: For though in the sight of Men, Faith is not discerned to be Lively and Vigorous, but by Works, yet Faith receives not Life from Works, but rather Works from Faith. As Fruits draw their Life and Sap from the Root of the Tree, but not the Root The Life of Faith is not begotten of Charity, but only is evidenced thereby.from them: Iust so external actions proceed from Faith, as the Root, which, if they be good, they evidence the Root to be sound and lively, and this is all they do, but they communicate no Life thereunto.
And this Life and Vertue of Faith is not one, but Twofold: And it acteth A twofold Life and Operation of Faith.partly in Heaven, and partly in Earth. If you ask what it doth amongst Men upon Earth: It does good to its Neighbour, working by Love.
But before God in Heaven it justifies the Ungodly, not by Love, but by the Son of God, whom it only lays hold of, Therefore those Men seem not to have got a clear insight into the Vertue and Nature of the Grace of Faith, that suppose the whole Life thereof to consist in Love, as if Faith of it self could do nothing, but as it receives Vertue and Efficacy from Charity.
Indeed both may seem to be true in the External Actions of Human Life, in which Faith lyes like a dead thing, unless it be enlivened by Charity to the exercise of good Works. And hereunto belongs that saying of Paul, whereby he so much commends Faith working by Love, understanding What Faith Works with God, and what with Men. A twofold Opperation of Faith.such Works, as Faith working by Love brings forth to the view of a Human Eye. Yet with God Faith hath a far different operation; for it only, without any reliance upon Works, or assistance of Charity, but trusting to the naked promise of God, and the dignity of the Mediatour, climbs up to Heaven, and gets access into the presence of God, where it does great and wonderful things, combating with the Iudgment to come, fighting against the terrours of Death, Satan, and Hell, pleads the cause of a Sinner, obtains his pardon, absolves and justifies him from the accusations of a guilty Conscience, takes away all Iniquity, reconciles God to the Sinner, appeases his wrath, subdues the power of Death and the Devil, and procures Peace, yea and Paradise it self; with theThief, that had led a wicked Life, and yet at Death was justified by Faith in the Redeemer. Who would desire more or greater things? And now so many and great things being done by Faith, let us enquire, After what manner it does them? Not After what manner doth … only Iustifie. … Life of Faith is not Charity but Christ.as it lives and works by Love, but as it lives only by Christ, and relies on the promise: for the Life of Faith, which lives (before God) is not Charity, but Christ, not receiving Life from Charity but communicating life unto it, and justifying Works, that they may be acceptable to God, which would otherways be abominable. Unto the truth of this we have a sufficient Testimony given us by Paul: When he says, my Life is Gal. 2. 1 Cor. 4.Christ; and again, the Life, that I now live in the Flesh, I live, not by the Love, but by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
And elsewhere speaking of himself, he says, That he was not conscious to himself of any VVickedness, and yet he denies that he is thereby Iustified, as the same Apostle discoursing about the works of Abraham, though they were never so Eminent Rom. 4.for Holiness, yet he saw nothing in them, which that Great Patriarch might make a matter of Glorying before God.
Hereunto may be added the Arguments of others, that have been Ex Andrad. Viga de Iustificatione. Quaest. 1 Ex Canisio & aliis.strangely wrested out of Scriptures: There are six Reasons principally, which they pretend the Evangelists furnish them with, against the Righteousness of Faith. First, they draw an Argument from these words of Christ, Come ye blessed of my Father to the Kingdom prepared for you: For I was an hungred and ye gave me Meat.
Argument.
Da. That, which is the cause of blessedness, is also the cause of Iustification. Whom he hath Iustified, them he hath also Glorified, &c. Rom. 8.
Ri. Works of Mercy, are the cause of blessedness; for I was an hungred, and ye gave, &c. Mat. 25.
I. Therefore, Works of Mercy, are the cause of Iustification.
Answer.
I deny the Minor. For Works of Mercy, as they are considered in themselves, are not the cause of Iustification, or blessedness, but rather effects and furits of Iustification: for they are no otherways pleasing to God, but as they are performed by persons in a justified state, and it is by the Faith of Christ, that they become acceptable. For unless Faith go before, and justifie the person of him that worketh, his works are not at all regarded by God, because they do not satisfie the Law of God, being tainted with the corruption of depraved Nature, and come far August. we are justified by that by which we are saved.short of that perfection, which Divine Iustice requires. Wherefore if we will Reason aright about the cause of blessedness, this manner of arguing will appear to be more forcible by. an evident Testimony of Scripture.
Argument.
Ma. That which is the cause of Psal. 32. Rom. 4.blessedness, the same is the cause of Iustification.
Mi. Remission of Sins is the Blessed are they whose Iniquities are forgiven, &c.cause of blessedness and Salvation.
Con. Theresore, Remission of Sins is the cause of Iustification.
But you may say, What must then be answered to the Words of Christ, who seems to promise the blessedness of the Kingdom as a reward of Works? You may find an answer to this objection in the Book of Iacobus Cartusiensis, who hath written Iacobus Cartusiensis de Authoritate Ecclesiae, An. 1440.on this manner. Men do accept and love the persons of others, for their Works that are acceptable, and profitable to them; but God accepts the Works for the sake of the person, &c. Therefore here there is need of a distinction between the Work, and the person of the Worker. But you may say: Are not Works that are performed in Charity, for the relief of the Poor, pleasing and acceptable to God? We deny not that our selves: But we enquire into the cause wherefore they become acceptable: Which that it may appear the more evidently, let us examine these words of Scripture; I was an hungred, said Christ, and ye gave me Meat: I was thristy, and ye gave me Drink, &c. I ask in the first place, who is it here, that was an hungred? You will say, Christ either himself in his own Body, or in a Member of his Body. Did you then feed Christ, when he was an hungred? That was Piously done indeed? Therefore I see and commend what you have done. But I ask, what was it that stirred you up to do it? Whether was it Charity, setting Faith a work, or was it not rather Faith setting Charity a work? But what if some other that was no Member of Christ, whether Heathen or Turk had need of your Meat? Would you in your Charity have fed him? I doubt of that. But suppose you your self had not believed in Christ but had been an Enemy to him, if you had seen one that belonged to Christ almost ready to perish for hunger, would you have relieved him? I do not believe so. Why? Because it is only believers, that feed Christ, but Infidels persecute him. The Lord, was thirsty on the Cross, and he had Vinegar given him for drink; which was a Hellish wickedness. But why did they give him Vinegar? Was it want of Love, or was it not rather want of Faith in those unbelieving Pharisees? Who if they had not wanted Faith, they would not have wanted Charity, to administer help, and Charity, would not have been unrewarded. But let us Works withoutFaith, thoeminent in themselves are of no value with God: yet on the contrary the Works of believers that are mean in themselves lack not their reward.proceed: Suppose one that is not a believers, whether Turk or Heathen, should refresh a hungry Christian, by giving him of his Meat, as old Simon the Pharisee entertained Christ with a Dinner: And many of the Heathens have been Eminent in offices of kindness and Love. Can the giving of Meat and Drink by any such without Faith merit Eternal Life? Surely not. But if a believer gives his Christian Brother so much as a Cup of cold Water in his necessity, shall he lack his Reward? Christ himself says he shall not.
Hereby you may see whence it is that our Vertues and good deeds are acceptable to God, and dignified with Rewards; not for themselves, but for the Faith of him that works them, which first justifies the person before all works. And after the person is justified, his performances are accepted; and though they are of small value in themselves, yet they are looked upon as great, and rewarded plentifully. Wherefore we How the name of reward in Scriptures is attributed to works.deny not, that sometimes in the Scriptures the name of Reward is joyned with Eternal Life; and that the works of Brotherly Charity may in some sense be called meritorious, if so be these works are performed by persons, who are already justified, and received into favour by remission of sins, and have obtained a right unto the promise of Eternal Life. Not that their works are of such value, that they should make satisfaction to the Law of God, or merit any thing with God (ex congruo, or condigne) as they phrase it, either by congruity or worthiness: But they are imputed as Merit by Grace: Not that Eternal Life is due to the works themselves; but because there are consolations laid up in Heaven for Saints and persons in a justified state, to support them in their afflictions: Eternal Life not being due to them for their works, but by right of the promise; just as a Son and Heir, to whom his Father's Inheritance Works imputed for Merits by Grace.is due, doth not merit the right of Sonship by any duties that he performs, but he being born a Son, his duties upon that account are meritorious, so that he wants not a due reward and recompence. Therefore in this Popish Argument there is a fallacy.