CHAP. I.
None can be iustified by their owne satisfaction for the transgression of the Law. A briefe summe of Popish doctrine, concerning humane satisfactions for sinne.
THus we haue the resolution of the dispute of S. Iames, together with such Cauils, as our Adver∣saries make vpon the seuerall passages thereof. By the whole order whereof it appeares suffici∣ently that Saint Iames disputing against Faith, meanes thereby that false and bastard Faith which hypocrites pleased themselues withall insteed of a true Faith: and that disputing for workes, he meanes nothing but a working Faith. And it appeares also that the drift of the Apostle is not in this place to dispute directly of Man's Iustification: but only to bring that in, as an argument to proue his principall Conclusion. That Faith without workes is dead, because it will not iustifie. In summe it's euident, that neither these Apostles doe disagree between themselues, nor ye•• either of them doe agree with our Adversaries in teaching Iustification by the the Workes of the Morall Law. Of the impossibility of Man's Iustification by which meanes, Hitherto.
The••r ex•• Proposition is,* 1.1 that [None can be iustified by their owne safisfaction for the transgression of the Law] For this is this is the only way 〈◊〉〈◊〉 for an Offender to obtaine Iustifica∣tion and Absolution: vi••: to alleage that he hath satisfied for his offence committed, by doing or suffering so much as the