Vindiciae fidei, or A treatise of iustification by faith wherein that point is fully cleared, and vindicated from the cauils of it's aduersaries. Deliuered in certaine lectures at Magdalen Hall in Oxford, by William Pemble, Master of Arts of the same house: and now published since his death for the publique benefit.

CHAP. III.

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

THe third and last followes, wherein the Con∣trouersie is betweene vs and those of Rome; whose Assertion is: that

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

This we also reject as an error, contrary to the Scriptures, wherby we are taught, That a man is iustified by faith alone. For opening the truth of which point: you must call to minde the different acception of the word Iustifie: wherein it is taken by vs, and by our Aduersaries. With them to Iustifie is all one, as to Sanctifie: of vnjust and vnholy, to make inherently iust and holy. With vs to Iustifie is to ab∣solue an offender, quitting him from blame and punish∣ment. According to these different Acceptions, this pro∣position [A man is iustified by faith alone] hath a double meaning; one thus [A man by faith alone is inherently san∣ctified] another thus: [A man by faith alone obtaines ab∣solution in Gods Iudgement, from all faultinesse and punish∣ment. This latter meaning onely is true, and tis that onely which is defended by vs of the Reformed Churches; Name∣ly, that faith onely is the grace of God whereby a sinner be∣leeuing the promise, and resting himselfe vpon the righte∣ousnesse of Christ, receiues mercy from God in absoluing him from the fault and punishment of all his Transgressions: and to be accounted Righteous for Christs sake. Which

gracious priuiledge God hath annexed vnto faith, as vnto the Condition of the New Covenant, and not vnto Loue, Hope, Feare, Repentance, or any other grace; For not these, but Faith onely, respecteth the promise of the Gospell. The former sense of that Proposition, is false and absurde, viz. [A Man by faith alone is inherently sanctified] nor doe any of the Reformed deteine such a Construction thereof. Wherefore when Bellarmine and his Complices dispute eagerly against Iustification by faith alone, those Arguments wherewith they suppose to smite through the Truth of our Assertion, are let flye at a wrong Marke; being all aymed at this Butte, (viz) to proue; That a man is sanctified by o∣ther inherent Graces as well as faith. Which point we easi∣ly yeeld them, confessing that inherent righteousnesse, con∣sists not of one, but of thea 1.1 manifold graces of Gods Spirit, wrought in the heart of such as are Regenerate. Neuerthe∣lesse for the shewing of some points which may be doubted of; Let vs briefely take a view of the chiefe passages of Bellarmines long discourse; which he maintaines from the twelfth Chapter of his first booke de Iustificatione, to the end. For to proue that a Man is iustified not by faith alone. Of his Arguments which are few, I shall name three onely, which are materiall.

1 If other vertues Iustifie as well as Faith,* 1.2 then not faith alone.

But other vertues doe Iustifie—Therefore, &c.

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

1 Faith. 2 The Feare of God, 3 Hope in his mer∣cy. 4 Loue of God, as the Fountaine of Iustice (& ad benefactoris, saith Bellarmine) 5 Repentance, a sor∣row and detestation of sinne. 6 A desire of receiuing the Sacrament of Baptisme. 7 A purpose to leade a new life, and keepe Gods Commandements. All these (saith Bellarmine) doe iustifie a Man, Praepa∣ratoriè,

antecedentèr, dispositiuè. Faith, thats the roote and beginning of our Iustification, the rest follow in order; all must goe before as needfull preparations: and Iustification followes, as the effect of all in common, &c. Ergo, Not of Faith a∣lone. Theb 1.3 Iesuite goes ouer euery particular, to shew by Scriptures what force each of those graces haue to Iustifie. But tis not worth-while to repeate his proofes. Vnto the Argument, wee answere two things.

[ 1] 1 That it is framed vpon the errour which puts out of frame the whole dispute of our Aduersaries, about this Ar∣ticle of Iustification; namely, that Regeneration and Sancti∣fication is all one thing with Iustification; and that to Iusti∣fie a sinner is nothing but to doe away inherent corruption, by infusion of inherent righteousnesse. This we haue here∣tofore by the Scriptures cleared to be false; and therefore this Argument proouing our Sanctification to be wrought by other graces as well as by faith, toucheth not the point of Iustification in the Remission of sinnes, which faith alone obtaineth through the promise.

[ 2] 2 Touching these graces which they make prepara∣tory vnto Iustification, that is to Sanctification: Wee an∣swere, that tis a Philosophicall dreame of such as measure out the workes of Gods Spirit in mans conuersion, ac∣cording to Aristotles Physickes; and those disputes touch∣ing praeuious, or fore-going dispositions, that qualifie the matter for receiuing of the Forme. We acknowledge, that in mans Regeneration all graces of the Spirit are not perfe∣cted at once. But as the ioynts and sinewes in the bodily: so the graces of Sanctification in the spirituall New-birth, are at first weake and feeble: Which in continuance of time gather more strength, according to our growth in Christ. But yet these are true for the substance: though imperfect in their degrees and measure. There is now true Spirituall life in such a one which was before dead in sinne: although

there be not the free and able exercise of all the vitall pow∣ers. Health there is, but not entire from all degrees o•• sick∣nesse, and euery kinde of disease. Wherefore we aff••••me that these vertues which are by our Aduersarics reckoned onely as dispositions vnto Regeneration: are, if they be true and not counterfeit Mettall, the maine parts and fruits of Rege∣neration.

Hence we beleeue that these are foule errors (viz.) To teach that a man without grace by the power of his free-wil may dispose himselfe to his Regeneration, by beleeving in Christ, fearing and louing of God, hoping of his Mercy, re∣penting of his sinnes, resoluing vpon amendment, and all this with true and sincere affection: or to teach if a man can∣not do these things of his owne meere strength and free-will; yet by the Spetiall aide of God inciting and helping him; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 may doe them whilst he is vtterly vns••nctified in statu pecca∣ti. That true Faith, and Feare, and Hope, and Loue, and Repentance, and purpose of Reformation, are Vertues and Graces in a Man that is yet gracelesse and without Vertue, because destitute of Sanctification. That these Graces con∣sisting in the inward motion of the soule, and change of the Affections, are wrought in Man, not by any sanctifying Grace of the Holy Ghost, inwardly touching the heart: but by some other kind of Vertue and aid (they know not what) a 1.4externall,a 1.5 exciting and helping forward the strength of Na∣ture.a 1.6 All these are monstrous and mis-shapen imaginati∣ons, bred in proud hearts that would faine share the glory of their Conversion, betweene Gods grace and their owne free-will, and maintained by curious heads, whom Philosophicall speculations haue transported beyond the simplicity of diuine Truth. The Scripture speaks otherwise of these Graces, as of those that belong to such as are not in the way to be made good, but are made so already. [Ye are al the Children of God by Faith in Iesus Christ] saith the Apostle Paul Gal. 3. 28. Whosoeuer shall confesse that Iesus is the sonne of God: God dwelleth in him and he in God.] saith Iohn 1.

1. Ioh. 4. 15. and Chap. 5. 1. [Whosoeuer beleeueth that Iesus is that Christ; is borne of God.] Doe we by true Faith be∣come the Children of God, borne of him, in whom hee dwelleth and we in him, when as yet in the meane time we are yet vnsanctified, vnholy, vncleane, & not in the state of Grace? Bellarmine will proue that a man may haue Faith; yet not the Child of God: ou•• of Iohn 1. 12. [As many as receiued him, to them he gaue power to become the Sonnes of God: euen to them th••t beleeue on his name.] See (s••••th he) they that be∣leeue are not yet, but haue power if they list, to become the Sonnes of God, (viz.) by going on further from Faith to Hope and Loue, and the rest of the Tridenti••e dispositions. For tis Loue properly and not Faith, that makes vs the Sons of God; as he would proue (contrary to that expresse place of the Galat.) out of the 1 Ep. of Iohn, where the Apostle hath much excellent matter, but nothing to that purpose. To the place of Iohn, wee answere, that the Iesuite playeth with the ambiguity of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is not here a liberty to doe what we list; as if we could at our pleasure become Gods adopted sonnes: but tis a right and priui∣ledge which Christ the naturall Sonne bestowes on true be∣leeuers, to be made Gods adopted sonnes, and so coheires with him of the heauenly inheritance. When is this priui∣ledge of Adoption bestowed? Then when they beleeue, and assoone as they beleeue, before they be Regenerate? No, Saint Iohn denies it. [He giues power to be the Sonnes of God, euen to those that beleeue in him.] Who be they? Hee an∣sweres, vers. 15. [Which were borne not of bloud, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.] Faith then is not a Preparatiue to Iustification, but a part of it.

And is not Feare of GOD too?* 1.7 No, saith Bellarmine. That is theb 1.8 beginning of wisedome (that is) of a perfect Iustification. A bad interpretation, but a worse Argument. Tis the beginning, therefore not part. Nay; If the feare of God be the Alpha of Christian graces, certainely it selfe makes one Letter of that Alphabet. Tis such a beginning

of wisdome: as its selfe is wisdome too. Else God himselfe deceaues vs: who, as it is, Iob 28. 28. [Sayd vnto man: Behold the feare of the Lord that is wisdome, and to depart from euill is vnderstanding.] And therefore to take it in the Iesuits glosse, Feare of God is Iustification as well as the beginning of it.

For Hope;* 1.9 If it be true, (viz.) Thatc 1.10 which makes not ashamed,] Which is thed 1.11 Anchor of the Soule, sure and sted∣fast, that entereth within the Vaile.] It would bee knowne what difference the Iesuite will put betweene that Hope which is in a man before: and that which is in him after his Sanctification. If he say, It differs onely in degree: then hee grants, tis the same in substance: whence wee haue a faire position; That man sanctified and vnsanctified, is alike ca∣pable of the sauing graces of Gods Spirit.

The like we say for Loue of God, if it be sincere and without dissimulation bred in the heart:* 1.12 Vpon those spi∣rituall considerations not onely of Gods Mercy in Christ: but also of his Iustice and infinite Righteousnesse; (For so the Trent Fathers will haue this Loue to respect God, vt fontem Iustitiae) then we affirme this spirituall Loue is not to bee found but onely in those Hearts, that are in some measure Regenerate and made spirituall. In (whome 1.13 this Loue of God is shed abroad by the Holy Ghost that is giuen to them.] as thea 1.14 Apostle speaketh. This Bellarmine is so••ne forced to grant: yet he puts it off with a distinction [No man can loue God perfectly with all his heart, without the Holy Ghost: but loue him he may imperfectly without the Holy Ghost dwel∣ling in him, though not without the speciall aide of God.] Whereto we answere; 'tis one thing to loue God perfectly, and another to loue him truely. To loue him perfectly, is to loue him with all the heart, all the soule, all the minde, & all the strength: which we grant no man can doe without the Holy Ghost: but we also affirme, that no man did or shall euer doe it in this life, so long as there is lustfull corruption in him causing any the least auersion of his soule from God in any motion thereof. So that if none haue the Holy Ghost abi∣ding

in them; but such in whom Loue is thus perfected; he must be confined with the Saints in heauen, and not haue his dwelling with the faithfull on earth. But if imperfect Loue of God be also from the Holy Ghost, dwelling in the hearts of the Godly, who loue God truely in vnfeigned vp∣rightnesse of heart; though in much imperfection by reason of sinne, which diuerts the heart vnto other pleasures: then it must be knowne of the Iesuite, what he meanes by imper∣fect Loue. Is it false Loue, such a meere naturall Man may conceiue vpon generall grounds: That God is good, the chiefest good, iust, holy, and full of all excellency? He will not say for shame, this is a true preparatiue vnto Iustificati∣on. Is it true loue, but in its degree imperfect, not so vigo∣rous, so vehement, so hot as coales of Iuniper: yet such as hath some strength and warmth of spirituall affection? Then we require that these men will draw vs out a line by the Rule of the Scriptures, and to tell vs how farre the true Loue of God may come, without the grace of the Holy Ghost sanctifying the heart: But after tis past such a degree, then there is required the sanctifying grace of the Holy Ghost for it. Twill trouble their Mathematickes to describe vnto vs in what degree of Perfection that Womans loue was situated, whose example they alleadge for a proofe of this point out of Luke 7. 47. [Her sinnes which were many, are forgiuen her, for she loued much.] Can Bellarmine tell vs how much this was? that so by that patterne we may know how farre men goe in the true Loue of God before they bee at all sanctified by inherent Grace? For such wonders they would make vs beleeue concerning this penitent Sinner; that when her soule was full of Faith and Loue to Christ, her heart full of sorrow, her eyes full of teares for her sinnes; yet for all that she was a gracelesse, vnholy person, whose Loue, and Faith, and Sorrow, came not from the sanctifying grace of the Holy Ghost, but onely from free-will helped with some kinde of externall aide of God.

We haue not Faith to beleeue such Mysteries as these.

Nor yet in the last place can we conceiue how there should be true repentance,* 1.15 with a sincere purpose of Reformation and obedience,* 1.16 where the Heart is not changed and renued by the Holy Ghost.* 1.17 That Godly sorrow and Hatred of sinne should spring out of a gracelesse heart, that so holy a Resolution of Amendment of Life should be in an vnholy person; be Assertions so contradictory and iarring: that no Christian Eare can with patience endure to heare them. We conclude then touching these dispositions vnto Sanctificati∣on, that if these Graces be true, they are parts and chiefe Branches of inherent Righteousnesse. But if they be false and counterfeit, they are not so much as Preparations there∣vnto. So much of this first Argument: wherein yet one of these 7 dispositions first reckoned vp is omitted (viz.) a Desire of receauing the Sacrament of Baptisme. (that is) A Man thats baptised in his youth, afterward, before he be Iustified, must haue a desire to be Rebaptised. For what is it for one baptised to desire to receaue that Sacrament a∣gaine? This conceit is so absured that howeuer Bellarmine reckon it vp among the other Dispositions; because of the Authority of the councell of Trent: yeta 1.18 Becanus giues it ouer in plaine Feild; numbring these fore naming sixe gra∣ces onely, choosing rather to venter the Councells credit, then his owne, by defending an vnreasonable position.

2 Argument.* 1.19 If Faith alone doe iustifie vs; then it may d••e••t when other graces are absent; as well as when they are present. For seeing the Vertue of Iustifing vs depends vpon Faith alone: and that in this act it receaues no aide from any other grace; It followeth that it needs not the cōpany of any other grace: as in the law of sense. If the whole force of Burning proceed onely from Heat: then where Heat is, though there be no other Qualities yet there will be burning; yea if Faith only haue force to Iustifie, it will follow, that it may iustifie not onely in the absence of other graces: but in the

presence of the coutrary vices. For as the absence of other graces doth not hinder: so the presence of other vices will not hinder Faith one jot in it office of Iustifying.

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

To this we answere. That this sophisme is fashioned vp∣on the same Block with the former, that to Iustifie and San∣ctifie are all one. In which sense we confesse the Conse∣quence is vnauoydable. If Faith alone by it owne vertue and force did sanctifie: then it would effect this not onely in the absence of other graces; but in the presence of their con∣trary Corruptions: and the similitude which we bring to illustrate our assertion, would confirme that of the Aduersa∣ries. Tis the eye onely sees, say our Men: yet the Eare is in the Head too. Yea, reply they, But the eie could see well not∣withstanding the Eare were deafe. Tis thea 1.20 Heate onely of the fire or Sunne that warmes, though there be light ioyned with it. True say they, But if there were no Light, yet if heate remained, it would warme for all that: as the Heate of an Ouen, or of Hell, burnes, though it shine not. Thou hol∣dest in thy hands many seedes (Tis the old comparison of Luther on the 15 of Gen.) I enquire not what tis together but what is the vertue of each one single. Yea, reply our Aduersaries; thats a very needelesse question indeed. For if among them many seedes there be some one that hath such soueraigne vertue; that it alone can cure all diseases, then tis no Matter whether thou haue many or few, or none at all of any other sort in thy hand. Thou hast that which by it owne vertue without other ingredients will worke the Cure Nor haue we ought to make answere in this case; If, as the Eye sees, heate warmes, seeds and other simples doe cure by their owne proper Vertue: so Faith alone by its owne effi∣cacy did sanctifie vs. But there is the Errour. Faith works not in our sanctification or Iustification by any such inward

power & vertue of its own, from whence these effects should properly follow. For Sanctification Faith, as we haue seene, is part of that inherent Righteousnesse which the Holy Ghost hath wrought in the Regenerate: and tis opposed to the Corruption of our Nature which stands in Infidelity Faith sanctifies not as a cause, but as a part of insused grace: and such a part as goes not alone, but accompanied with all other Graces of Loue, Feare, Zeale, Hope, Repentance, &c. Inasmuch as Mans regeneration is not the infusion of one; but of the Habit of all graces. Againe, 'tis not the Vertue of Faith that iustifies vs; The grace of Iustification is from God, he workes it: but tis our Faith applies it and makes it ours. The Act of Iustification is Gods meere worke; but our Faith onely brings vs the Benefit and Assurance of it. Iustification is an externall priuiledge which God bestowes on beleeuers; hauing therein respect onely to their Faith, which grace onely hath peculiar respect to the Righteous∣nesse of Christ and the promise in him. Whereby tis manifest that this argument is vaine. Faith alone is respected in our Iustification: therefore Faith is or may be alone without o∣ther graces of Iustification. Bellar:b 1.21 would vndertake to proue that true saith may be seuered from Charity and other Vertues: but wee haue heretofore spoken of that Point: and shewed, that [true Faith, yet without a Forme:] [true Faith, dead, and without a soule] be Contradictions as vaine as [A true Man without reason] [A true Fire with∣out heate.] We confesse indeed that the faith of Iesuites (the same with that of Simon Magus) may very well bee without Charity and all other sanctifying graces; a bare assent to the truth of Divine Reuelations, because of Gods Authority. As tis in Diuels, so tis in Papists and other He∣retickes. But we deny that this is that which deserues the name of true Faith: which whosoeuer hath, hee also hath eternall life. As it is, Iohn 6. 47.

3 Argument.* 1.22 That which Scripture doth not affirme, that is false doctrine.

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

This Argument toucheth the quicke: and if the Minor can be prooued, we must needs yeeld them the Cause. For that the Iesuites conceiue that this is a plaine case:* 1.23 for where is there any one place in all the Bible, that saith, Faith alone Iustifies? They euen laugh at the simplicity of the Here∣tickes (as they Christen vs) that glory they haue found out at last the word (Onely) in Luc. 8. 50. in that speech of Christ, to the Ruler of the Synagogue, [Feare not, beleeue onely, and shee shall be made whole.]

And much sport they make themselues with Luther: That to helpe out this matter at a dead lift, by plaine fraud hee foysted into the Text, in the 3. to the Romans, the word (Onely.) When being taught with the fact, and required a Reason: He made answere according to his Modesty, (Sic volo, sic iubeo, stet pro ratione voluntas.) Tis true that Luther in his Translation of the Bible into the Ger∣mane tougue: read the 28. verse of that Chapter, thus. (We conclude that men are iustified without the workes of the Law: onely through Faith.)* 1.24 Which word onely is not in the Ori∣ginall. Where, in so doing, if he fulfild not the Office of a faithfull Translator: yet he did the part of a faithfull Para∣phrast, keeping the sense exactly in that Alteration of words. And if he be not free from blame: yet of all men the Iesuites are most vnfit to reproue him; whose dealing in the corrupting of all sort of Writers, Diuine and humane, are long since notorious and infamous throughout Christen∣dome.

What Luthers Modesty was in answering those that found fault with his Translation:* 1.25 we haue not to say. Onely thus much, That the impudent Forgeries of this Generati∣on, witnesse abundantly: that it is no rare thing for a Lie to drop out of a Iesuites or Fryers penne. But be it, as it may be; Tis not Luthers Translation; Nor that place in the 8. of

Luke, that our Doctrine, [touching Iustification by Faith a∣lone,] is founded vpon. We haue better proofes then these: as shall appeare vnto you in the confirmation of the Minor of this Syllogisme.

Whatsoeuer the Scriptures affirme, that's true do∣ctrine. But the Scriptures affirme, a man is iusti∣fied by Faith alone.

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

Our Aduersaries demaund proofe of the Minor. We al∣leadge all those places wherein the Scriptures witnesse: that we are Iustified by faith, without the workes of the Law. Such places are these. Rom. 3. 28. (Therefore we conclude that a man is iustified by faith, without the workes of the Law.) Rom. 4. 2. 3. (If Abraham were iustified by workes, hee hath whereof to glory: but not before God. For what saith the Scrip∣ture? Abraham beleeued God: and it was counted to him for righteousnesse.) And vers. 14. 15. 16. (For if they which are of the Law be heires: faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect. Because the Law worketh wrath, for where no Law is, there is no transgression.) Gal. 2. 16. (Knowing that a man is not iustified by the workes of the Law, but by the Faith of Iesus Christ: Euen we haue beleeued in Christ, that we might be iustified by the Faith of Christ, and not by the workes of the Law. For by the workes of the Law shall no flesh be iustified.) Gal. 3. 21. 22. (Is the Law then against the promises of God? God forbid. For if there had beene a Law giuen, which could haue giuen Life: verily righteousnesse should haue beene by the Law. But the Scripture hath concluded all vnder sinne: that the promise by the faith of Iesus Christ, might be giuen by them that beleeue.) Ephe. 2. 8. 9. (For by grace ye are saued, through Faith, and that not of your selues; It is the gift of God: Not of workes, least any man should boast.) Phil 3. 8. 9. (Yea doubt∣lesse, and I count all things but losse for the excellency of the Knowledge of Christ Iesus my Lord. For whom I haue suffe∣red the losse of all things: and doe count them but dung, that I

may winne Christ. And be found of him not hauing mine owne righteousnesse, which is of the Law: but that which is through the faith of Christ:a 1.26 the Righteousnesse which is of God by Faith.) Out of which places, not to name more, expresly touching this point of our Iustification, we argue thus.

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

In this disiunctiue Syllogisme, they cannot find ••ault with vs for adding the word [onely] in the Conclusion; which was not in the Praemises. For Reason will teach them, that where two Tearmes are immediately opposite, if one bee taken away, the other remaines alone. So that in euery dis∣junctiue Syllogisme, whose Maior Proposition standeth vp∣on two Tearmes immediately opposite: if one be remo∣ued in the Minor, the Conclusion is plainely equivalent to an exclusiue Proposition. As if we argue thus. Eyther the wicked are saued: or the godly. But the wicked are not saued. Thence it followes in exclusiue Tearmes, Therefore the godly onely are saued. Our Aduersaries cannot deny, but that the Proposition [A Man is iustified by workes, or by Faith,] consists of Tearmes immediately opposite. For else they accuse the Apostle Paul of want of Logicke, who Rom. 3. should conclude falsely, [A man is iusitified by faith without workes: if he be iustified either by both together, or else by neither. Seeing then he opposeth Faith ād workes as incompatible, and exclude workes from Iustification: wee conclude infallibly by the Scriptures, That a man is iustifi∣ed by faith alone. This Argument not auoidable by any sound āswere, puts our aduersaries miserably to their shifts. Yet rather then yeeld vnto the truth, they fall vnto their di∣stinctions: whereby, if twere possible, they would shift off the force of this Argument. Whereas therefore the Scrip∣tures oppose Workes and Faith: the [Law of Workes,] and the [Law of Faith.] Our [owne righteousnesse which is of the

Law] and the (Righteousnesse of God by Faith,) manifestly telling vs that we are Iustified, (Not by Workes, by the Law of Workes, nor by our owne Righteousnesse which is of the Law, but that we are iustified by Faith, by the Righteousnesse of God by Faith.) Our Aduersaries haue a distinction to salue this Matter withall. They say then Workes are of two sorts.

• 1 Some goe before Grace and Faith, and are perfor∣med by the onely strength of free-will: out of that Knowledge of the Law, whereunto Men may at∣taine by the light of Nature, or the bare Reuelati∣on of the Scriptures. These workes or this obedi∣ence vnto the law, which a meere naturall man can performe, is (say they) that Righteousnesse which the Scripture cals our owne. By this kinde of Righteousnesse and Workes, they grant none is Iusti∣fied.
• 2 Some follow Grace and Faith: which are done by Mans free-will, excited and aided by the speciall helpe of Grace. Such Obedience and Righteous∣nesse is (say they) called the (Righteousnesse of God,) because it is wrought in vs of his gift and grace. And by this Righteousnesse a man is iusti∣fied.

By this Invention they turne of with a wet finger, all those Scriptures that we haue alleadged. Wee are Iustified (not by the workes of the Law,) that is, by the Obedience of the Morall Law, which a man may performe without Gods Grace: But we are Iustified by (Faith of Christ,) that is, by that obedience of the Morall Law, which a man may performe by faith, and the helpe of Gods grace.b 1.27 Boasting is excluded, saith the Apostle, by what Law? By the Law of workes, that is, by the Law performed by the strength of Nature? Nay, For he that performes the Law by his owne strength, hath cause to boast of it. By what Law then? By the Law of Faith, that is, by faith which obtaines Gods grace

to fulfill the Morall Law. Now he that obeyes the Law by Gods helpe, hath no cause to boast. (c 1.28 Israel which fol∣lowed the Law of righteousnesse, could not attaine vnto the law of righteousnesse.) Wherefore? Because they sought it not by Faith; that is, they sought not to performe the Law by Gods Grace; (But as by the workes of the Law,) that is, by their own strength: Thus Paul desires to be found in Christ, (not hauing his owne righteousnesse which is of the Law) that is that righteousnesse he performed without Gods grace be∣fore his Conversion;* 1.29 But (the righteousnesse of God which is by faith.) i.e. That righteousnesse which he performed in o∣beying the Law by Gods grace after his Conversion. For confirmation of this distinction, and the Interpretations thereon grounded, Bellarmine brings three reasons to shew that when workes and faith are opposed: all workes of the Law are not excluded.

• 1 Its manifest; Faith is a worke: and that there is a Law of Faith as well as workes. If therefore, Rom. 3. all workes, and all Law be excluded from Iusti∣fication: then to be iustified by Faith, were to bee iustified without faith.
• 2 Its plaine the Apostle, Rom. 3. intends to proue that neither Iewes by thea 1.30 naked obseruation of the law of Moses: nor the Gentiles for their good workes; before they wereb 1.31 conuerted to the faith of Christ, could obtaine righteousnesse from God.
• 3 The Apostle shewes, Rom. 4. 4. what workes he ex∣cludes from Iustification, (viz.) such whereto wages is due, by debt, not by grace. Now workes performed without Gods helpe deseruec 1.32 reward (ex Debito:) but workes performed by his helpe, deserve wages (ex gratia.

I doubt but (notwithstanding these seeming Reasons) the fore-named distinction and expositions of Scripture ac∣cording thereto; appeare vnto you at the first sight, strange, vncouth, farr besides the intent of the Holy Ghost, in all those

fore-reckoned passages of Scripture. Let vs examine it a little more narrowly: and yee shall quickly perceiue; that in this Schoole distinction, there is nothing but fraud & shif∣ting. (By workes done, by the strength of Nature wee are not iustified. By workes done with the helpe of grace wee are iustified.) This is the distinction: resolue it now into these tearmes which are more proper, & it runs thus. (A man is not sanctified by those workes of the Mora••l Law which he doth without grace: but a man is sanctified by those workes of the Morall Law he doth by Grace.) Both Sen∣tences are squint eyed, and looke quite awry from the Apo∣stles ayme in this dispute touching Iustification. Is it his intent, Rom. 3. to proue that a sinner destitute of grace can∣not be made inherently holy, by Morality, or outward workes of Piety? or thus. That a Sinner cannot attaine to Sanctification by his owne strength: but he must attaine to it by the grace of God? Take a suruey of the Chapter, and follow the Apostles Argumentation. All both Iewes and Gentiles are vnder sinne, verse 9. therefore (euery mouth must be stopped) and none can pleade innocency; (and all the world must be guilty before God.) and so liable to condem∣nation, verse 19. What followeth hence now? (Therefore by the workes of the Law, shall no flesh be iustified in his sight, verse. 20.

How strange were this Conclusion, taken in our Adver∣saries Construction. Ergo, By Obedience vnto the Morall Law done without grace no flesh can attaine Sanctification in his sight. For neither doth the Apostle speake of Sancti∣fication, but of absolution as is apparant; All are sinners a∣gainst the Law, Ergo, by pleading innocency in the keeping of the Law, no Man can be wholy sanctified nor Iustified nor absolued from Blame in Gods sight. Nor yet will the Reason immediately annexed admit that glosse [Workes without Grace] By the workes of the Law shall no flesh be Iustified in his sight. Why] For by the Law commeth the Know∣ledge of Sinne] that is, By the Law Men are conuinced of

Sinne, and declared not to be innocent. Which reason is not worth a Rush, according to our Aduersaries Construction. He that without grace shall doe the workes of the Law: he is not thereby made holy. Why? Because the Law is the knowledge of sinne. The Law thus obserued tels him he is a sinner. In which reason there is no force, vnlesse it bee true on the other side. He that by the helpe of grace doth the workes of the Law, is thereby sanctified: because the Law thus kept tels him he is not a sinner, which is most vn∣true. In as much, as not onely those which are destitute of grace; but those that haue grace also, and by the helpe thereof, keepe the Law in some measure, are by the Law not∣withstanding convinced to be sinners. The Apostle yet goes forward. (If we be not iustified by the workes of the Law, by what then? He answeres, (verse 21.) But now is the righte∣ousnesse of God made manifest without the Law.) We are iu∣stified by the righteousnesse of God: But what is that? It is (saith the distinction) that obedience to the Law which we performe by Gods grace. A glosse apparantly false. For the righteousnesse of God here is a Righteousnesse without the Law: But obedience to the Law, though performed with grace, is a Righteousnesse (with) the Law; because tis the Righteousnesse of the Law. For tis all one, he that o∣beyes the Law by his owne strength; if he doe itd 1.33 perfectly he hath the righteousnes of the law, & he that obeyethit per∣fectly, by Gods grace, hath still the same righteousnes of the law, and no other. For so the Law be kept, it alters not the righteousnes thereof, that we keepe it by our own strength, that wee haue of our selues, or another helpe that giues vs strength to doe it. For then that strength which he giues vs is our owne. Which point duely obserued cuts in sunder the sinewes of this distinction; for tis cleare the Apostle distinguisheth the Righteousnesse of the Law and of God as different in thir kindes: these make them to be one and the same thing, [Obedience to the morall Lawe] but done by diuers helpes; one by meere nature: the other by Grace.

This is most contrary to the Scriptures, and specially to that excellent place Rom. 10. 3. 4. &c. where the Apostle shew∣ing the differēce betweene the Righteousnesse which is our owne or of the Law; and that which is the Righteousnesse of God or Faith: tels vs. The Righteousnesse of the Law is thus described [Th Man that doth these things shall liue thereby:] but the Righteousnesse of Faith speaketh on this wise [whosoeuer beleeueth on him (i. e. Christ) shall not be a∣shamed.) Can any thing be more plaine; then that the Apostle opposeth heere [Doing of the Law; and [Beleeuing] in Christ: Not [doeing] the Law by our owne strength, and doeing of the Law by [Gods grace.] These are Iesuiticall glosses that corrupt Apostolicall Doctrine, and strangely peruert the worke of Christ in our Redemption as if he had done no more for vs but thisa 1.34 (viz.) procured that where as we could not liue by doeing of the Law through our owne strength: God will now aide vs by his grace, that we may fulfil the Law, and by that Legall Righteousnesse obtaine Iustification and remission of Sinnes. We abhorre such Doctrine, and doe reiect as vaine and ima∣ginary that distinction whēce such absurdities necessarily fol∣lowb 1.35 Moreh 1.36 might be sayed in confutation thereof, were it needefull: but we haue dealt long vpon this point, and tis time to hasten forward. By the way vnto the Iesuits Argu∣ments in the defence of this Distinction We answere.

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

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

[ 3] 3 To the Last argument out of Rom. 4. 4. we answere, The Apostle there proues: that the Faithfull, children of Abraham; are not iustified by workes. Because Abraham the Father of the Faithfull was Iustified by Faith; and not by workes. Where wee affirme; That the Apostle excludeth all the workes of Abraham from his Iustification: both such as he performed when he had no grace, and those he did when he had grace. For those workes are excluded wherein Abraham might glory before Men. Now Abra∣ham might glory before Men as well in those workes which he did by the helpe of Gods grace: as those which he did without it. Nay more in those: then in these. As in his o∣bedient Departure from his owne Country at Gods com∣mand; his patient expectation of the promises; his ready willingnesse euen to offer his owne Sonne out of Loue and Duty to God, his religious and Iust demeaning of himselfe in all places of his abode. In those things Abraham had cause to glory before Men, much more, then in such works

as he performed before his Conuertion: when he serued o∣ther Gods beyond the Flood. Therefore we conclude that Abraham was Iustified; neither by such workes; as went be∣fore Faith and grace in him: nor yet by such as followed af∣ter. This is most cleare by the v. 2. [If Abraham where iustified by workes, he had wherein to glory: but not with God.] Admit here the Popish Interpretation: and this speach of the Apostles will be false. Thus [If Abraham were iustified by workes] that is by such workes as he performed without Gods gratious helpe [he hath wherein to glory▪] viz. before Men: but [not with God.] Nay, thats quite otherwise. For its euident. If a Man be Iustified by obeying the Law through his own strength: he may boldly glory before God, as well as before Men; seing in that case he is not beholding to God for his helpe. But according to our doctrine, the Meaning of the Apostle is perspicuous. Abraham might glory before Men in those excellent workes of piety, which he performed after his vocation: and in mens sight he might be iustified by them. But he could not glory in them before God: nor yet be iustified by them in his sight. So then all workes whatsoeuer are excluded from Abrahams Iustifica∣tion: and nothing lest but Faith, which is imputed vnto him for Righteousn••sse; as it is v. 3. Whence it followes. That as Abraham: so all others are Iustified without all Merit, by Gods free grace and fauour. For so it followes, verse 4. 5. [Now vnto him that worketh, the wages is not counted by fa∣uour; but by Debt: but to him that worketh not; but beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly, his faith is counted for Righte∣ousnesse.] These words runne cleare, till a Iesuite put his Foote into the streame to raise vp the Mudde. To him that worketh] that is, which fulfileth the Righteousnesse of the Morall Law: [the wages of Iustification and Life [is not coun∣ted by fauour: but by debt] for by the perfect Righteousnesse of the Law▪ a Man deserues to be iustified and saued. [But to him that worketh not] that hath not fullfilled the righteous∣nesse of the Law in doing all things; that are written therein:

[But beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly] That is relyeth vpon Christ, who by his Righteousnesse obtained absolution for him (that is) Rightousnesse in himselfe.] His Faith is imput••d for Righteousnesse] that is. He by his Faith ob••aynes I••stification in Gods sight: not by Merit of his owne, but Gods gratious acceptation of Christs Righteous∣nesse for his.

But here our Aduersaries trouble the water by a false In∣te••••retation. [To him that worketh] that is, say they that fulfil, the Law by his owne strength. Wages is not counted by fauour, but by debt,] but if he fulfill it by Gods grace, his wages is pai•••• him by fauour, not of debt. Where vnto we reply: That 1 This glose is a plaine corruption of the Text. For by workes in this fourth verse the Apostle vnderstands that kind of workes were of mention is made v 2 By which Abraham was not Iustified: and these as we haue shewed where works done by the helpe of Grace not by the meere strength of Nature. 2 And againe for the Assertion it selfe, namely [He that fulfils the m••rrall Law by the helpe of Gods grace is iustified, by fauour not by debt] we say tis e∣ther a manifest falshood or at best, an ambiguous speech. For tis one thing to bestow Grace on a Man to fulfill the Law: and tis another thing to Iustifie him; when he hath fulfilled the Law. If God should giue strength to a Man ex∣actly to fulfill the Morral•• Law that were indeed of his free fauour and grace: but when this man, that hath receaued this stre••gth shall come before God with the perfect Right∣eousnesse of the Law, pleading that in euery point he had done what was required God is bound in Iustice to pro∣nounce him innocent, and of due Debt to bestow on him the wages of eternall Life. Adams case is not vnlike to such a Man. For God gaue Adam what strength he had: yet Adam fulfilling the Law by that strength, should haue me∣rited Iustification and Life. Therefore when the Apostle speake 〈◊〉〈◊〉 all workes in the perfect fulfilling of the Law, he sai••h, that [to him that worketh Wages is not counted by fa∣uour

but: but by debt:] he speaketh exactly, and the Iesuits in excluding workes done by Grace comment absurdly. Thus much touching the third point concerning Mans Iusti∣fication by Faith alone: as also of the first generall Head promised in the Beginning. Namely, the condition required of vs vnto Iustification (viz.) Faith.

Notes

• a 1.1

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.2

  1 Arg. Bell.
• b 1.3

  Lib. 1. cap. 13.
• a 1.4

  Lib. 1. cap. 2••. Nectamen est a Deo intus inha∣bitante, per gra∣••••am Sanctifi∣cari: sidex∣trins••cus ad••••∣vante, & exi∣tonte.
• a 1.5

  Et Cap: 13. pag. 311. H.
• a 1.6

  Feare.
• * 1.7

  Feare.
• b 1.8

  Psal ••11. 10. Pro. ••. 7. Faith is radix: a part of the tree.
• * 1.9

  Hope.
• c 1.10

  Rom. 5. 5.
• d 1.11

  Heb. 6. 18.
• * 1.12

  Loue.
• e 1.13

  Rom. 5. 5.
• a 1.14

  Rom. 5. 5.
• * 1.15

  Repentance.
• * 1.16

  Reformati∣on.
• * 1.17

  Not of Ahab or Iudas.
• a 1.18

  Tom. 2. Tract. •• cap. 3. Quest. 3. Bell. lib. 1. c. 14.
• * 1.19

  2 Arg.
• a 1.20

  〈◊〉〈◊〉 antid. ••onc. Trid. Sess. 6 cap. II.
• b 1.21

  Cap. 15. eiu••∣dem Lib. primi.
• * 1.22

  3 Argu••
• * 1.23

  Bell. lib. 1 cap. 16.
• * 1.24

  [Allein durch ••en gsaubren.]
• * 1.25

  Bell. quotes Lu∣••beri Resp. ad duos Art. ad ami∣••••m quendam.
• a 1.26

  Tit. 3. 5. 6. 7.
• b 1.27

  Rom. 3. 〈◊〉〈◊〉.
• c 1.28

  Rom. 9. 31. 32 How knowes Bellarm••ne that? Bell. lib. 1. c. 19▪
• * 1.29

  ••ello. cap. 16.
• a 1.30

  Bell lib. 1. ••. 19.
• b 1.31

  〈◊〉〈◊〉. Tom. 2, tract. 4. cap. 2▪ quest. 6. §. 15.
• c 1.32

  Bell. cap. 19▪
• d 1.33

  As Adam.
• a 1.34

  So Bellarmin•• cap. 19. answe∣ring that place▪ Gal. 2. [If righ••teousnesse be by the Law, then Christ dyed in vaine] saith: Nay, see∣ing we are iu∣stified by faith▪ and workes fol∣lowing it, Christ died to purpose, that God might giue vs grace so to be iusti∣fied.
• b 1.35

  Workes with∣out grace doe not iustifie.
• h 1.36

  Why? because imperfect, or because done by natures strength. Not the later: For then Adam not iustified. Not the former forse all good works of the best are imperfect.