Inherent Righteousness unto that perfection which Osorius describes, can no where be found in this Nature.

AND I could wish that the Integrity of Na­ture, wherein we were of old Created, had continued unto the compleat exact­ness The Plato­nick Catho­lick righte­ousness. of all righteousness: But now in this ruinated and disabled nature, why do you seek after that which we have lost? rather bring forth something, if you can, whereby we may make up the loss: What can it profit a man already dead to know the danger, whereby he perished? Verily there is more need of a medicine, if you have any, by which you may either comfort him being destroyed, or restore him to the Life that was lost: Yea, this is the thing, say you, which I endeavour in these Books disputing of righteousness. For righteousness, as you say, is the only remedy for restoring Life, and regain­ing Health; Yea, this is the very thing, Osorius, that I chiefly find fault with in these Books; not because you write of righteousness, for I commend the argument in which you are ex­ercised; I commend also your praises of righte­ousness, which are high and copious: righte­ousness cannot be praised enough by any Man-But there is another thing for which all good Men should be angry with you: What that is, if you please, I will tell you freely and openly; [Page 7] for in these Books you represent unto us a spectacle, not very much differing from that, which Origenes relates of Celsus and Antipho; who though they did write very contrary to truth, yet they recommended those very Books, that were against the Osorius in Writing of Righteousness doth greatly oppose Chri­stian Righte­ousness. Truth, with the title of (a true saying.) After which manner you do in a case not very unlike it, whilest you write indeed con­cerning righteousness, but at such a rate, that nothing can be said more maliciously against true righteousness.

A twofold and different Account of Doctrine; one of the Law, and another of the Gospel.

FOR as there is a twofold manner of Cove­nant, so also there is, of righteousness pro­posed in the Scriptures: The one consists in pre­cepts and works, under the weight whereof we all of necessity fall down to destruction. The other is that of the Gospel, which is safe-guarded, not by works, not A twofold manner of righteousness. by observance of the Law, not by any peformance of duties on our side, but by the sure and only Faith of Christ the Son of God. Verily whosoever rejecting the righteousness of Christ, whereof I speak, leads us aside unto any other manner of righteous­ness, I say, that he pleads not for righteousness, [Page 8] but against it, and doth not undertake the de­fence of the Law of God, but is a professed Enemy of the Grace of Christ, and his Cross, and therefore doth not open, but wholly shuts up all passages to true Salvation, and all Gates and Doors of Divine Grace: For I beseech you, if we are willing to confess the truth with the Sacred Scripture, what is it else, in The righte­ousness of the Law. which all the fountains and causes of our destruction are contained, unto which, as the principal head and spring, we may attribute all our calamity, but this very manner of righteousness placed in God and his Law; by whose infinite immen­sity not only our faults, but also all the Poizes of our righteousness are weighed down to the destruction of damnation. If there is nothing but the righteousness of Works, that may help our too scanty and short Obedience.

But perhaps these things, that have been said hitherto are enough concerning the Title of the Book. By which your prudence may lead you easily to suppose, what should be judged of the rest of the Work, In which, when I contemp­late the external form and countenance of the Workmanship, verily I see that it is not with­out beauty, nor unworthy to be looked upon; when I number the Books themselves, I take notice they are both many and large enough. When I look on the Words and Pages, I see whole Rivers and Sands that cannot be numbred; but when I turn to the things themselves, when I consider the Reasons and force of Arguments, when I compare the Words and Sayings of the [Page 9] Scriptures, at a strange rate quoted, with the true sense of Scriptures not rightly understood by you; and also when I take notice of the end and scope of the whole disputation, I am not willing at present to discover to you what I find here, lest in what I say, I should seem to exceed the bounds of that modesty, which here I profess.

But yet that I may say something for the sake of Truth, to which I am more obliged. because of necessity something must be said, I will speak, but in a few words; If any other Man had Published these Books concerning Righte­ousness amongst the common People, except your self, I should say to him openly, and to his face, that no Man could ever have brought in a greater plague into the Doctrine of the general Salvation of Christians, nor a filthier blot upon Religion, nor have done a greater injury to St. Paul, the Scriptures, and the Prophets, than is manifest in these Books. But in writing these things to you, I restrain my self for your sake, lest I pass the bounds of modesty, which I have set to my self: What then, should the cause of Truth therefore be deserted? You your self do not require that of me, as I sup­pose. Wherefore that I may, as much as I can, observe that which is my duty in both respects, I have laid hold on this way of prosecuting this design, which you see, and which necessity hath laid upon me, whereby I might both less offend you, and likewise perhaps more benefit the cause I have undertaken to defend.

Therefore, seeing I judged it necessary to op­pose your attempts in this matter, so I thought it most convenient, not that I should in this Book answer to all the small scraps of Reasons in the order that you observe (which indeed is none at all) in a tumultuary confusion in those Ten Books; but that I may by choice touch upon, and confute the chief of them.

How easie it is to err in the Doctrine of Iustification.

SEeing these things and others like unto them, contain the principal Heads, of all Christian Doctrine; therefore Divines should take a special care lest they err in these; which care, unless they take, there will follow a most grievous ruin and pertur­bation of all things, the foundati­ons Human Rea­son under­stands not the Doctrine of Free Iustifi­cation. being as it were put out of their places. And yet I know not how it comes to pass that error is no where more easily committed than in these Points. Neither is it so strange; for so it comes to pass, that this ani­mal nature we call Human Reason, when consulted with about the things of God, is most blind, and sees nothing, unless it be Illuminated with the better Light of Divine Knowledge shining in upon it: For the right understanding of Divine things comes by the Spirit of God, and not by Human Capacity; and [Page 11] though the Law, and the things of the Law, were in some sense born with us, and cleave unto our Nature; Yet the Mysteries of the Doctrine of the Gospel are not apprehended so easily, because the Nature of both is very different. Moreover, you may see many, who following the guidance of Nature, and her pre­cepts more than is meet, do teach and dispute of things belonging to the Gospel; just as if a Philosopher should discourse of the Principles of Nature, or a Moralist of the perfection of Ver­tues, in which they place their chiefest good; or as if a Pharisee sitting in the Chair of Moses, should dispute about the Righteousness of the Law.

But there will be another occasion of treating of these things, (if opportunity be granted.)

In the mean while, that I may speak ingenu­ously of thee, O Osorius; with how much the greater natural parts God in his bounty hath adorned thee, and heaped upon thee, it is the more grievous to me that thou art violently drawn aside with others into that blindness of error:- That though you teach us many things in your reasoning about Righteousness, yet you scarcely teach any thing that makes much to the purpose, and nothing at all that is profitable for Salvation, but rather on the contrary that which is very hurtful. For, I beseech you, What assurance can there be of Salvation, if you shut out Mercy, and send us to our own Righteousness as the only way, which conveys us to Heaven? for all your Doctrine of Di­vinity [Page 12] looks that way. To wit, when discour­sing of the hope of remedy, you affirm there is no other way, but that only, of becoming like unto God, and being united unto him; and that this is the only way of a Blessed Life, which consists wholly in Righteousness; which whoso do observe, those you affirm do abound with Divine Riches, and Eternal Glory.

As if there were no hope remain­ing Osorius de justit. lib. 1. pag. 3. for him, that turns a little aside from these footsteps. Than which what could be said or in­vented more repugnant to the Gospel? yea also elsewhere, repeating again the same thing, tho' in different Words: How should a Man be saved, say you? Is there any o­ther Lib. 10. de Iustit. pag. 232. paved way to Salvation, but what is contained in the Law of God? None at all, &c.

And again in another Book, as in all your Books reasoning about the Works of the Law; you assert, that Righteousness is purchased by these, that Men go up to Heaven by these as by steps, that eternal Lib. 2. p. 44.rewards are appointed for these; and you plead that this is the only way we have to Heaven, which is paved with renowned Works, &c. Moreover you pro­claim Lib. 6. pag. 148. yet with more open Mouth. Wherefore, say you, it must be at­tested with greater freedom of Speech, that the ascent into Heaven is given to the Merits of the greatest Vertues, and that the Mansions of the [Page 13] Everlasting Kingdom are given justly and deser­vedly to Holy and Chast Men, &c.

It would take up a long time, and be much more troublesome to rake together out of every one of your Books, every one of those won­derful sayings, which are more than Paradoxes, whereby you plead that all the safeguard of our Salvation, should be placed in nothing else but in the observance and care of Righteousness: which if you could as well perform in effect and reality, as you set them forth in Words magnificently; I should esteem that none were more happy, none more worthy of Heaven than you. But now let us suppose that, which I see you would so fain have granted, that Hea­ven is only due to perfect Men no other ways, but upon the account of Righteousness, and that there is no other way of coming to those blessed mansions, but that which is trodden by the most pure footsteps of good men, and settled in the perfect integrity of Works. Now we are not against the deserved praises of righteousness, neither do we with-hold from it its rewards: Be it so indeed. But where shall we find this Righteousness? Dic quibus in terris, & erit mihi magnus Apollo. Tell me in what Country (and I All have fin­ned and come short of the glory of God. shall esteem you to be a great Oracle,) This man of righteous life dwells, who will so direct the course of his Life according to this Idea of Vertue proposed by you, that he fails no where, who Roots out all manner of wickedness, who re­frains himself from railing with his Tongue, [Page 14] Suppresses the Haughtiness, Insolency, and mad­ness of an Ambitious Spirit, and the rashness of a Headstrong Mind; who Crucifies the Flesh with its Lusts, who suppressing ungodly lustings, by frequent meditation upon Death, brings himself over from all Impurity and Impiety to the resemblance of Christ; who separating his mind from the Contagion of the Body, ap­plies it wholly to the Imitation of Christ, who resembles the humility and meekness of Christ, his bounty and benevolence; and his excellent Holiness in all respects, and also cuts off all defilements of the mind, and all the roots of filthiness and impurity. I say, where will that man be found, who performs these and all other duties of true Piety, and so performs them, that nothing in his Life seems superfiuous, nothing is unequal in his duties, nor defective in his manners? I think he may be found in the Books of Osorius: but not in the The Idea of the Osorian righteousness, can be more easily found in his Books, than in his Mauners. Life, in the daily Confessions, or in the Holy Absolutions of Osorius. There was of Old, I confess the Image of this most perfect righte­ousness seen and known upon the Earth: But that Phoenix hath long since left the Earth, and departed hence to Heaven, and now sits at the right hand of Majesty, drawing all to himself: and I wish that at length he may draw Osorius The Son of God only was perfectly Ho­lly. Pals. 14. also to himself. What if the Lord himself looking down from Heaven upon the Sons of Men, is affirmed in the Prophetical Psalm, to have found [Page 15] all their ways corrupted and depraved: if the Mystical and Royal Holy Psalmist durst not in confidence of his own righteousness enter in­to judgment with his God, or present himself to be tryed by him, and con­demns Rom. 3. 1 Io. 1. Iacob. 3. all other mortal men of un­righteousness, without excepting so much as one. If Paul writing to the Romans in a very serious debate confirms the same, and stops the mouths of all men, that he may bring men over, having called them away from a vain trust in their own works, and convinced them of the vanity thereof, to the help of the Son of God only, which is pla­ced Oso. 1. 5. p. 21. in the faith of him: If Iohn the Apostle, yea and if that powerful proclaimer and defender of humane righteous­ness could not himself deny but that in many things we offend all, I pray you, O Osorius! Will you now rise up after them, not the eighth but the ninth Proclaimer of Righteousness, being a mortal and sinful man, who dare affirm to others, that which you cannot perform your self after this manner: That it is either righteous­ness or nothing, which obtains us the favour of God, and makes us acceptable and like unto him?

Qu. What do I hear? is there nothing else, I beseech you? What then? Is Faith nothing? Is Grace nothing? Is the Mercy and Promise of God nothing? Do the Merits of Christ profit nothing to Salvation? So that now there is no­thing which reconciles us to God, but the righ­teousness of works? What? Do you so place [Page 16] all righteousness in works, that you think there is no righteousness of Faith?

Then you think perhaps that the Osorius con­founds the righteousness of faith and works with­out any di­stinction. righteousness of faith and works is one and the same, and you make no difference between the Law and the Gospel. whereas Paul teaches you far otherwise, who openly and with great fervency of Spirit de­precates that other righteousness, which is of works, that he may be found in him, not having the righteousness, which is of the Law, but that which is of the Faith of Christ, which is of God, righteousness by Faith. Do you not perceive here Phil. 3. It is one thing to be justified by faith, and a­nother thing to be justified by the Law. a manifest opposition between these two: To be justified by the Law, and to be justified by Faith, yea and those very things which Paul removed far away from him as Dung in respect of obtaining Salva­tion, Will you pave that only way for us to Heaven? And in the mean while disputing about works, I discourse of these things with you, as if there were any such strength of so great vertues, in this life, as could deserve not only the reward of righteous­ness, but also the name thereof. What will you say, if the most holy performances There are no performances of the most perfect men, that are with­out some im­perfection in the sight of God. and endeavours, undertaken in what­soever manner by the most perfect men, in this corrupted nature, are so unprofitable to the immortality of Life, that they are rejected by Christ as things without profit, yea [Page 17] that they are despised and utterly We are all as unclean, and all our righte­ousness as a menstruous cloth. Isa. 64. contemned in the sight of God, like a menstruous cloth, as the Pro­phet Isaiah witnesseth, unless they be underproped with better Grace, and the commendation of Faith? What if in Isaiah we are all said, and that truly, to have gone astray like Sheep every one in his own way, from whom so great a Pro­phet doth not separate himself: What do you sup­pose should be judged of our virtues and righ­teousness? But you will say, this complaint of the Prophet belongs All we like Sheep have gone astray. Isa. 5. 3. A frivolous exception of Osorius. not to all in the general, but only to the Iews who in those times wick­edly forsook their duty: but by the same reason you may affirm, that all the diseases of all men and times were not healed by the Death of Christ, but theirs only, who in those times had gone astray out of the way as lost Sheep. But how frivolous this cavilling is, it appears evident by the context of this Prophetical Prediction.

Whereby you see, (Osorius,) being convinced by Sacred Testimonies, that those merits of our greatest vertues, if they be looked upon in themselves, are far from the perfection of that righteousness, which your Philology Cloaths with very beautiful Colours; Which yet I would not have to be so said by me, nor under­slood by you, as if those that live vertuosly, did nothing aright and praise worthy in this life: Or as if the Godly Works of the Saints were not acceptable to God, which [Page 18] God himself hath commanded to The Papists do not clearly enough ex­plain why Works are called good. be done; for thus you reason con­cerning Works, that they come not indeed without Faith, and the Grace of God, but yet so, that when they come, you affirm, that the Kingdom of Eternal Salvation is due to them by the best right, not only as a recompense and reward, but also as a lawful Patrimony: as if the promise of Salvation depended not on Evange­lical Faith, but on the Righteousness of the Law, and not on Christs merits only, unless a Covenant of Works be joined together with it: or as if faith it self profited nothing for the obtaining of Life upon any other What good works do es­sect accord­ing to the opi­nion of Pa­pists. account, but that it may procure Grace, which may stir us up to the praise-worthy performances of works, by which works we attain unto eternal Life.

Faith Iustifies no otherways, but upon the account of good works, according to the opi­nion of Osorius.

For so your words do manifestly signifie, where treating of Faith, and enquiring why we are said to be saved by it, you presently add a cause: because, say you, we obtain the Divine protection only by faith, and so very easily observe the precepts of the law, and obey Divine Institutions; and again concluding to the same purpose.

No man that is in his right wits shall obtain Sal­vation, [Page 19] except he keep the Law, or, which is equiva­lent thereunto, except he be ready and prepared in his mind te keept it.

And again in the same place dis­coursing Lib. 9. 233. What sort of righteousuess is that of Oso­rius. Lib. 9. p. 232. Lib. 9. p. 232. of the Salvation of Chri­stians: Do you ask how a man is Sav­ed? Is there another way prepared for Salvation, but what is eontained in the Law of God? none at all; Therefore we, miserable mortals, have a way to the Im­mortal Kingdom laid out and shewed unto us, and that a very easie one, you Osorius, be­ing our guide and teacher, which is con­tained in the Law of God: So that besides this there is no other way laid open, neither in the Gospel, nor the what way men come to Heaven ac­cording to the opinion of Osorius. Writings of the Apostles, whereby we may be brought to the Heaven­ly Countrey, and its immortality, but that which is described only in the Law of God.

Suppose these things were granted you, which you affirm, though they be in themselves ab­surd, and wholly Iudaical, but let me grant, or at least feign that this way which you shew, is the only way, and the most firmly founded, and also that the same is the most easie, and likewise that there is no other way by which we can come to Heaven, but that only which is proposed by the description of the Divine Law: Suppose we grant this, yet in the mean while see thou teach me this: how thou canst know that thou dost as many good works as are sufficient for a compleat obedi­ence to the Law. Of old our first Adam. [Page 20] Father Adam received but one command, and failed in the performance, and that in Paradise, being placed in the highest degree of Innocency. What? and thou a miserable mortal man, banished out of Paradise, com­passed about with so much infirmity of the flesh, having received the Law of God, in which so many and so great things are imposed to be performed, and they are so imposed, that he is liable to a Curse, whosoever doth not most constantly continue in them all; do'st thou stand so firmly, that no storm of temptation can throw thee down at any time?

But what if having observed all other com­mands of God exactly, so much as one tittle of the Law is neglected by thee? What will thy Righteousness say to us in this Case? Do you not see, that the Sentence of the Law be­ing pronounced, you are as much in the fault, as if you were guilty of all [...]? And yet you talk to us of no other way to the Kingdom of Life, but that which is defined by the Ministry of the Law, and the Exercise of Charity.

But now how will you teach that? by what Scriptures, by what Masters shall this appear evident to us which you assert? by Paul, I trow. What then, says he he? To wit, this is the mind and opinion of Paul, say you, that he asserts that all manner of destroying and suppressing of Lust is placed in the Grace of God, which must be obtained by Faith, and teaches that there is De justit. lib. 4. pag. 90. no other way of extinguishing and [Page 21] destroying it. And a gain elsewhere Lib. 3. p. 68. The right way to Hea­ven consists in the Exercise ofChuity ac­cording to the Opinion of Osorius. Paul was never the Man that dis­approved the Offices of Bounty, as if they were little profitable for Salva­tion, but taught that the only right way to Heaven was that, which was Fixed in the continual Exercise of Charity, &c.

I know indeed, and confess that all proceeds from the Grace of God alone, what­soever is done by us aright, and An answer to things alledg­ed. Paul a great [...] of Charity. commendably, whether in suppres­sing the Allurements of Vices, or in observing the Discipline of Vertue. Moreover that should not be denied, which you do well assume accord­ing to the mind of Paul, that we obtain this Grace from God by Faith. Likewise that is not ill said, which you add concerning Paul, that he was never the Man that disapproved Pious endeavours of Exercising Charity; seeing he every where extols those very things with wonderful praises For who knows not, that the excellent Sermons of Paul are exceeding full of very serious Pre­cepts Paul a great Preacher of Charity. and Instructions for governing the Life: and that they are not in any matter more affectionate, than in this, that all every where, who profess the name of Christ, should, together with a sincere profession of Faith, joyn a proportionable Holiness of Life [...]for necessary uses.

Suppose this to be most true, as it is indeed; yet that was never the meaning of the Apostle, [Page 22] to place our Salvation principally in the Law, as if he thought that the Kindom of God, and the Righteousness thereof should be measured by our worthy Deeds and Charity; or proposed Heaven to us as fit to be paid for, or sold for the commodities of our Works, as by a kind of Auction. Yea, when I read Paul's Epistles of a far different sense, this seems to me to be the only scope and mind of the Apostle, that he transfers all this Not Charity, but Faith o­pens a way to the King­dom of Hea­ven. Rom. 3. 4. Righteousness, which you attribute to the Law, unto Faith, and so transfers it, that he shuts out all mixture of Works; and leaves only Faith in the Son of God, which lays open for us a way into the Kingdom of Heaven.

For I beseech you, he that affirms, that we are justified by Faith, without Works, and who again says, but now without the Law the Righte­ousness of God is made manifest, being testi­fied by the Law and the Prophets? with what Words could he more evidently shut out the endeavours and merits of all our Vertues from the Divine gift of Iustification?

These things being thus agreed upon, and concluded by the weighty authority of Paul, of necessity from thence follows, That there is a twofold manner, or A twofold manner of Righteousness of the Law: and of the Gospel, or Faith. way of being righteous to be di­stinguished, as I said, according to the different conditions of both Covenants; of which the one be­longs to the Law, the other is [Page 23] peculiar to Christ. Then both the Law and Christ [...]have their own righte­ousness; for as the Law, which is wholly exer­cised in works of righteousness, endures no un­righteousness, and renders the fruits of righte­ousness plentifully to those, who persevering in that which is good, have filled up all the parts of perfect Innocency. Likewise Christ also hath his own righteousness, both much more power­ful, and also not a little differing from the o­ther; though not so much differing in respect of the matter, yet exceeding much in the manner of dispensing; for the Law communi­cates only to them that Work, but Christ com­municates to them that believe, perfect righte­ousness, and often also to the un­worthy and underserving, by a The Righte­ousness of Faith. singular grace of dispensation. Therefore this Righteousness, is properly called the Righteousness of Faith; Which is necessarily to be distinguished by us from the other, which is called the Righteous­ness of the Law: Which they who do not, verily they do a great injury to the Scriptures, and quench all light of Doctrine, confounding both their own Consciences, and the Con­sciences of their hearers, with a won­derful The necessa­ry distinction of Legal and Evangelical Righteous­ness. kind of disturbance, so that scarcely any Man can certainly know what should be hoped or feared; for they who dispute thus concern­ing the Righteousness of the Law, and draw all things to that alone, as if there remained no o­ther way to hope for Salvation, but that which [Page 24] the strict and severe observation of the Law brings: I beseech you, what else do those Men do, but leave the Souls of Men in a doubtful wavering? And by what way those Men encourage us to hope, by the same they com­pel us to fear and utterly to despair of Sal­vation: seeing there is no Man in the World, to whom the daily offences of his Life gives not much more cause to fear, than his vertues give him to hope.

And what remedy then shall remain for the perplexed consciences of Men, if the Righte­ousness of Christ being hid from their Eyes, you leave nothing for hope or consolation, but the righteousness of the Law? Or with what comfort will you raise up the Spirit of a fallen and afflicted Sinner, when the Law useth to shew what every Man should do aright, but can pardon no Man what is done amiss? must you not here of ne­cessity The Office of the Law. be compelled to leave the Righteousness of the Law, and presently to ap­peal to the Righteousness of Christ? And, I think, you will not at all deny that, but, say you, seeing this righteousness of Christ is no o­ther, but that which is the righteousness of the Law, yea and the very perfection of the Law, therefore it is not necessary that we should make a twofold Righteousness, but one only both of Christ and of the How the Righteous­ness of the Law and Christ is one, and not one. Law. But 'tis not a difficult thing, to answer to this objection. Indeed it must be confessed, if you con­sider the things by themselves, [Page 25] and compare the one with the other by a mutual relation, there seems not to be any difference between the Righteousness of Christ, and of the Law. Because there is no­thing in the Law so Holy and perfect; but it appears as evident in the Life of Christ: But if you consider the efficacy and manner of working; which the Righteousness of Christ and of the Law exercises in others; if you consider the effect and end of both, there is a great difference: For though Christ is no otherwise just in himself, than the Law it self is Holy and Iust: But yet this which is called the Righteousness of Christ, acts in us much otherwise, than that which is called the Righte­ousness of the Law, so that nothing seems more unlike or more contrary.

The difference between the Righteousness of the Law and the Gospel.

FIRST, as touching the Law, what the Nature, Vertue, and The strength and operati­on of the Law. Efficacy thereof is, it is unknown to no Man: To wit, that it is of it self a Holy and Perfect Rule, and Mistress to teach how to lead the Life; made for this purpose by the most Holy God, that Creatures might certainly know, what they should fly, and what they should follow, as it contains in it self the very Rule of all perfection in all respects compleat; so it requires perfect obedience in all respects and upon all accounts: [Page 26] upon this condition, that he that doth these things, shall live in them. But on the contrary, he that doth otherwise, and abides not in all, the Law pronounces a Curse against him, and inflicts the vengeance of Death, and heaps up anger and indignation upon him. For by the Law the Wrath of God is declared from Hea­ven, being justly kindled against all Men that are wicked and unjust upon any account.

Whereby it comes to pass, that the Law indeed, being it self Holy and Good, was not given for this, that it should bring Destruction, but Salvation; but yet the same being hindred by the infirmity of our flesh, it cannot but kill us, but cannot at all save us by its own means; not for any default, or tyranny of its own; but by taking just occasion from the refractory rebellion of our flesh, which as it naturally hath an enmity against God, so it cannot avoid be­ing contrary to his Sacred Will, and Divine In­stitutions. And hence break forth so many, and so great calamities, that fall upon this sin­ful Nature of ours; hence so many proofs of the Divine Indignation and Anger; hence also that dreadful and unavoidable necessity of dying, which when it passes promiscuously through all ages and kindreds, which none of the most Holy Men could ever drive away from them­selves, verily that one thing proves us all to be guilty of unrighteousness, and that there is not any perfection of righteousness in our most righteous works; for The Law as out of Christ is confidered what it doth. if the Wages of Sin be Death, it cannot be that there should be any [Page 27] extinction of Life there, where no unrigh­teousness is seen. Therefore, O Osorius! if the Law cannot defend thee in this Life with all thy works from Death, will the same save thee after Death, and restore thee to Life, when thou art Dead?

Concerning Evangelical Righteousness.

AND hitherto these things have been explained by us concerning the Righte­ousness of the Law, as it is considered out of Christ. Now let us again turn our eyes unto Christ, and consider, what his Righteousness without the Law worketh in us. And here first of all a wonderful and most manifest difference between the The diffe­rence be­tween the Law and Christ. Law and Christ presents it self unto us. For seeing the Law, as hath been said, can give no Life accord­ing to the rigour of its Iustice, but only to perfect Men: Therefore it comes to pass, that because it finds nothing perfect in us, it being hindered through the infirmity of our flesh, can give no help, nor work any thing in us but wrath: Therefore being repulsed by the Law, and destitute of the help of Works, let us seek another Patron Christ the only Antidote against the Stings of the Law. of Salvation, whosoever he be, who may help us: But there is none who doubts, that He is no other but Christ the only Son of God; whom we all alike profess through all [Page 28] Churches. There is therefore no Controversie remaining between us and our Adversaries con­cerning the Author of Salvation. Nevertheless there remains here another ambiguity or que­stion, perhaps not yet cleared enough by all Divines. For whereas there is no man but con­fesses that Righteousness is in Christ in its highest perfection: And we have already heard from the Law, that there is no fel­lowship of Righteousness with Un­righteousness; A question by what righ­teousness can Christ deliver the unrighte­ous. here some difficulty comes in, how it comes to pass, that the Lord Christ, all whose Iudgments are most just, can or ought against Righteousness favour those, who having forsaken their duty, have turned aside to Unrighteousness? For if the Law of God according to the nature of Righte­ousness, cannot avoid condemning of those that are guilty of wickedness, some perhaps may ask, What way Christ, who doth not any thing, but what is most righteous, can procure Salvation to those without the violation of his Righteousness, whom the Law of Righteous­ness justly condemns? Or if he do it, how, for what cause, and in what manner he does it, by Faith, or by Works? If by Faith, whether by Faith only, or by the What way, and in what manner the benefits of Christ are derived to us. help of Works joyned with it; if upon the account of Works, whe­ther before Works, or after Works, or in the very Works? But if by Faith only without Works, hence ariseth a threefold question; 1. What then do good [Page 29] Works avail? 2. What Faith that is, and of what sort it is, which is said to justifie? 3. Whom this Faith justifies? for they must be either sinners or righteous; if A threefold question. sinners, they are either penitent or stubborn; if you say both, you will speak against Righteousness, which cannot be well called Righteousness, unless it reward ac­cording to every mans deeds and merits. But if they are righteous and not sinners, whom Christ helps: What need have the Righteous of a Redeemer? What need have the whole of a Physician? Moreover, how will that saying of Paul hold true; whereby Christ being made Man, is said to have come into the World, not to save the Righteous 1 Tim. 1. 1. but Sinners.

I beseech you now, O ingenuous Man! ac­cording to your Modesty, that I may deal very modestly with you: If any Man treat with you on this manner, in disputing about the Do­ctrine of Iustification, what would you answer him, if he should ask these things of you? If any such Man should come to you, who being affrighted in his mind, and astonished at the greatness of his sins, and burdened with hor­rour of Conscience, and almost dead with the fear of the Iudgment of God, should ask the help of counsel and comfort from you? of which sort there are found not a few Examples in the Folds of the Lord's Flock; what Re­medy would you reach forth unto him? Per­haps you will send him to those Books of yours concerning Righteousness; and what will he [Page 30] find there, whereby his afflicted and cast down Mind may be refreshed and recover it self? what? will you send him to the Law? but what will he draw from thence fit for healing his wounds? especially seeing that Law of Righteousness can only bring us in guilty, be­cause we have not kept the Law, and oblige us thereunto, as by bond; at least it cannot by any means restore Righteousness that was once lost, or satisfie the Iudge. It remains then, that you should bring over the miserable Soul of a Sinner from the Law, in which there appears no hope of defence, unto Christ, seeing it is He only by whose Wounds and Stripes we are healed; and In a despe­rate conditi­on Christ on­ly can help. who hath taken upon himself all the Impieties of us all, that he might communicate unto us his own Righ­teousness. That is very true indeed, and upon that account I think you and yours are to be commended, who, though you seem not to have a clear enough sight of the genuine Office of Christ, and his Divine Greatness in pro­curing our Salvation; yet ye refuse not to pro­fess his Name, and a certain external reverence of Faith. But because at present you have to do with men that are troubled, and to whom it is not sufficient to retain only the Name of a Saviour, unless we have also a right under­standing of the Efficacy of his Death which he suffered for us, and It is not suf­ficient to re­tain the [...] of Christ only, unless also we learn the Greatness of his of­fice and his Power to save. of the Power that he hath to save, [Page 31] and the great benefits he hath bestowed upon us, and his exceeding great Love and Good­will towards us, and the infinite Riches that are promised to us in him.

Therefore you must proceed further, and help the afflicted Minds of the Godly, as much as may be, that they may know and believe not only that there is eternal and durable Life in Christ, but also that they may be taught the way, and means, and manner how that Life comes to us, and to whom it belongs, and what we must observe in attaining unto it.

What the power and efficacy of Faith is; whom it justifies, and how.

IN which matter there is great variety of Sentiments and Opinions amongst Divines. For, whereas Paul proclaims with a very audible Voice, That Man is justified by Faith without the Works of the Law: Rom. 3. Those Men by the additions of their Comments, do not explain the most evident meaning of the Apostle, but render it obscure; they do not expound, but cavil: So that some take the word Faith, not as Paul, for that Faith only which is in Christ Iesus, but which is formed by Charity and Works. Others interpret that, which Paul The various Interpreta­tion of the Papists con­cerning Iusti­fying Faith. saith of Faith without Works, to be understood concerning Ceremo­nial Works. Some interpret it of the Works of the Law in this sense, [Page 32] that those works are undertaken not by Faith, but by the command of the Law without Grace. Others expound it otherwise; with­out antecedent works only: Some think it should be understood of the first Iustification only, which they attribute to Faith alone, as in little Children that Roffen. contra lut. Articul. 31. are Baptized, but the second in men come to years, they attribute to Faith indeed, but not without Works.

The scope of all which dispute is, that Faith being adorned with Works, may do something; and on the contrary, that, if Works are not joyned with it, it may seem a kind of rude matter, void of life and form, not only un­profitable to purchase Righteousnes, but a cer­tain dead and destructive thing. Which if it be true, I would know this of them, and chiefly I would ask of you, Osorius, in what Common-wealth, in what Church, in whose Kingdom, do you coyn this new piece of Divi­nity? If it is the Church of Christ, that is not yours, It is his Kingdom, in which you are only a servant. What? Shall not Christ have a free power permitted to him of administring his own affairs, as in his own lawful Common­wealth?

And whence is this your great boldness in anothers Dominion, in a Church that ye never founded, to alter and change as you list, the appointments and institutions of your Prince, contrary to Law and Right? Or by what au­thority do you oppose your selves, but that every man may act in his own possession accord­ing [Page 33] to his own right, and freedom of com­mand? What if it seems good in the Eyes of Christ to communicate freely the glory of his Kingdom, to whom he will? Will ye forbid him? What if the most Gracious Lord will pay a full reward to those that come to work at the last hour of the day, and make all equal by making the like agreement with them all, should your Eye therefore be evil because he is good?

But now the Lord himself, the Prince and Author of the Church professes in very evident words, that eternal life shall be given to them that believe in his name. What can be said more evident in signification, or more clear to be understood? He that believeth in me, saith he, hath eternal life. And again repeating the same, in the same words. He that believeth in the Son hath ever­lasting Ioh. 6. Ioh. 3. Ioh. 11. life. And chap. 11. He that believeth in me, though he were dead yet he shall live. And lest he should seem to testifie this of himself with­out the consent of his Father, he Only Faith in Christ is proved to jastisie by ex­ample, adds, This is, saith he, the will of him that sent me, that every one that seeth the Son and believeth in him should have life eternal. Who doth no less most evidently confirm these things by performances, which he expresses in word, adding also miracles thereunto. For how great a multitude do ye meet with every where through all the Evangelists, whom you see saved and healed by no other thing but [Page 34] faith only, which relied on Christ. How of­ten do we hear from the mouth of the Lord in the Gospel: thy Faith hath made thee whole, without hearing any Mat. 11. Isa. 55. Proof by ex­amples. mention of works? And what Christ performed to faith, will Osorius attribute that to Works: Christ invites unto himself Con­sciences that are afflicted and burdened with sin: Isaiab calls all that are athirst to come without price or any exchange to the Fountains of Christ, that they may be refresh­ed. Osorius will bestow the Kingdom, which God hath promised, upon none but righteous men, and eminent good works. I beseech you, Sir, according to your righteousness, what excellent good work brought that sinful Woman with her in the Gospel, out of whom seven Devils were cast? What righteousness appeared in the Thief on the Right Hand of Christ except faith only, why he should after the commiting so many evil deeds enter in to­gether with Christ on the same day into Para­dise? what other thing did the Woman of Canaan, that was a stranger, bring to Christ, but an importunate cry of faith, so that she carried home, not Crumbs, but whole Loaves of Divine Grace? What deserved the miserable Woman with the bloody Issue, or Iairus the Governour of the Syna­gogue, Mat. 15. Mat. 9. or Zacchaeus of Matthew, or other Publicans with them? why they being perferred before the Pharisees, who seemed so much more righteous, should [Page 35] obtain the benefit of free favour, being so ob­vious and exposed unto them? There is almost an infinite number of others of the like condi­tion that may be discoursed of after the same manner, in whom you can find nothing worthy of so great bounty of Divine Grace, but faith only: Blind Bartimeus cried, the Lepers cried, Iesus, Master, thou Son of David have mercy on us, and they were heard. For nothing cries louder than faith, nothing is more effectual to prevail. Let Osorius also cry, and let us all cry with the like noise of Faith, and we shall be heard alike. I speak of that faith, which is in Christ Iesus, besides which, there is not any passage into Heaven, nor access unto God, nor way of prevailing with God. Therefore that we may be heard, let us come, and knock, but let us do it aright, to wit, by Faith and in the name of only begotten. Otherways it is in vain to cry to God, who hears not sin­ners, but drives them away, who regards not servants and guilty per­sons, How Prayers are heard. unless they come to the Son, or in the name of the Son. Now by what way we are heard, by the same we are Iustified: From whence is li­berty, salva­tion and righ­teousness to be sought. For the Divine reward is always joyned with righteousness.

Seeing then all of us, mortal men, are by na­ture sinners, and servants of sin, therefore we must see what that is, which makes us of ser­vants free men, of guilty persons sons, of sin­ners righteous. For this is the whole subject matter of the debate, this is the question, on [Page 36] which the whole controversie depends, which is not so difficult to be judged of, if the authority of Sacred Scripture may prevail upon impartial judgments. For the testimony of the Gospel remains sure and eternal, which no mortal man can weaken at any time, instructing our faith thus. As many as receiv­ed Ioh. 1. him, to them he gave power to become the Sons of God, and that he may teach what it is to receive him, he presently explains the same, to them, saith he, that be­lieve in his name, &c.

Whereby it appears evidently what it is, to which we are beholden for all that splendor and dignity, wealth and riches, yea and the possession of Heaven and Life. I know that in those excellent offices of good works, which you so much cry up, in the exercise of charity, and observance of Righteousness, there is great weight and also great Wherein consists the use and scope of the Law. benefit; as I consess also that the law it self hath great efficacy, if a man use it lawfully. Now the use of the law consists in this, that it should bring us to Christ, and be subservient to his glory. But when you have heaped all these things to­gether into one, whatsoever were by God ei­ther prescribed to us in his Law, or written within us, they are far from restoring perfecti­on to a mans deeds that are altogether imperfect, or to a mans person that is wholly destroyed and ruinated. They are far from making us of servants freemen, of Slaves of Satan, Sons of God, heirs of his Kingdom, co-heirs of [Page 37] Christ, fellow Citizens of the Saints, and Do­mesticks of the highest Father. Verily that is not the Office of the Law, but of Christ: And it is not righteousness, but grace that does this. This is not the efficacy of works, but of Faith: which relying not upon Charity is ju­stified by Faith, not Faith by Charity. works, but being strengthned only by the promise of God brings us from bondage to liberty, from death to life, adopts us being re­conciled unto God, makes us Sons of the pro­mise, which is so far from being joyned with Charity and Works, that it reconciles Charity it self, and all works of life unto God, and ju­stifies them, without which they could not have place in Heaven, in the presence of the great God.

Upon what account, and how Faith justifies Fallen Sinners.

NOW because I have demonstrated, what the power of Faith is, and what it per­formeth, I must of necessity explain upon what account, and for what cause Faith procureth unto it self so great effi­cacy For what cause the power of Iu­stifying is at­tributed unto Faith. and power of Iustifying; how it is said to Iustifie alone without Works, and what Men the same Iustifies, whether the righteous or the wicked? If the righteous, what need is there now of Iustification or Faith, [Page 38] when the Law is sufficient? If the wicked, whether those that are penitent and converted, or the impenitent and rebellious? If the Faith of Christ justifies the penitent, frees them from guilt, and makes them righteous of un­righteous, which neither you your self can de­ny: Why then do you inveigh against Luther so unmodestly and undeservedly? Does Luther either say or teach any An unjust complaint against Lu­ther. other thing? Where does he at any time let loose the Reins to sin, or promise liberty to the wicked, or preach Iustification otherways, than to those, who being reformed by Repentance, breathe after Christ, and joyn themselves to him by Faith? What? Will you shut out those from all hope of pardon? I trow not: And what remedy then will you shew them? Will you send us to the Faith of Christ, or to the Sen­tence of the Law to heal our wounds? What if the Law gives no help here, and there is not any other thing in man, that can help righteousness once violated, Osor. de justit. lib. 2. p. 29. Osorius a­gainst Luther. except Faith only placed in Christ, which neither you your self can deny: And if this very Faith brings Salvation to none, but those that deplore the sins they have committed, which together with you Luther affirms, to what purpose are those out-cries against Luther so Tragical, and raised without any cause? Wherefore then dost thou de­ceive us, O Luther? For when thou d'dst condemn pious tears, and didst cast reproaches upon wise sor­rowfulness, and didst plead that all works were [Page 39] not only unprofitable, but pernicious. And presently going on in the same stile, and waxing more violent. For when (say you) thou didst put so much in faith, that thou saidst, there was help enough in that only; the sense of thy words seems to be this: That Salvation is prepared for all without grief, without the lessening of Riches by communicating to the Poor, without the detestation of a fault committed. And after the interval of a few words. But if you think that a Wicked Man, though be flyes not at all from his wickedness, obtains righteousness by Faith only, who hath been more absurd, who hath been more out of his wits than thou since the Creation of Mankind?

That I on the other side, Osorius may answer to these things, but in An Answer for Luther a­gainst Osorius. a few words: If that were true, which you falsly say of Luther, per­haps you might gainsome praise both of a Learned Orator, and an Honest Accuser. But now seeing he never so much as dreamed of these things, neither can you bring forth one word from so many of his Sayings and Deeds to maintain your unjust accusation; I say not in your words, Who hath been more absurd, who hath been more out of his wits than you since the Creation of Man? But if I may be allowed to say this, speaking very modestly, that you are too much forgetful, not only of your duty, but also of the argument, in which you are exercised and: whilst you are writing of Righteousness, you do so far against all Righteousness most basely bespatter and shamefully lash a Godly Man, a Servant of Christ, that never deserved ill at your hands, [Page 40] with feigned Lyes and Reproaches, and all kind of abuses; either through ignorance find­ing fault with the things you have not read, or wresting those things to a wrong Sense, which you are not willing to understand in a right Sense. What if the Eternal pos­session of Salvation must not be The unjust slander of O­sorius, and Andradius a­gainst Luther. hoped for from any thing else but works of Righteousness, as chiefly you Osorius do teach, (that I may comprehend also Hosius, and your familiar Friend Andradius in the same Category! What hope can you have of your own Salva­tion from these works of yours; to wit, your most false Accusations, and reproachful Libels, in which, against Law and Right, breaking the bonds of all Righteousness, you vomit forth those lying slanders against your Neighbour, and that in the publick Theatre of the World, for no valuable cause, nor for any true reason, nor upon any other account, but because per­haps you are stirred up with your own immo­derate passion.

Luther indeed did write of Faith, I know, and confess it, but what A defence of Luther. then? What fault I pray you did he commit in so doing? What hath he deserved? Why might not he as well write of Faith, as you of Righteousness? but perhaps that displeases you, not that he did write of Faith, but because attributing too much there­unto, he refers the whole of our Righteousness to this Faith. Be it so, and you on the con­trary refer all to the works of the Law, which [Page 41] of you two is worthiest to be accused? Which comes nearest to Evangelical Doctrine? You who refer all to, and comprehend all in the observance and study of the Law, or he that re­fers unto, and comprehends all in A twofold manner of Righteous­ness menti­on'd by Paul, the one re­ceived, the other re­jected. Philip. 3. Righteous­ness of the Law, Righte­ousness of Faith, in Faith of God. the Faith of Christ? Let Paul be called for a Witness and Umpire between you, who though he him­self was very careful in observing the Law of God, in his Epistle to the Philippians, proposing a two­fold manner of Righteousness, the one of the Law, and the other of Faith, he judges the latter to be so much better, and prefers it so far before the other, that he esteemed all those other things of his own, though otherwise excellent and praise-worthy things, being placed in the study of the Law of God, yet he esteemed them all as loss, yea as dung, for the excellency of the knowledge of Iesus Christ, that he might be found in him, having on the Righteousness, not which is of the Law, but which is of the Faith of Christ, which is the Righteousness of God by Faith, &c. What then? shall you bring us away from this faith, which is placed in Christ, and call us back to that dung con­trary to the will of Christ, and the Doctrine of Paul; that by your teaching and guideance we may be found to possess a righteousness, not that which is placed in Faith, but that which is only placed in the Law? And are you upon this account so outragiously invective against [Page 42] Luther, because he chose rather to follow Pauls opinion, than yours in this point of Salvation? No, but there is some other thing in the wind, which puts you in such a heat of contending, not because Luther attributes Righteousness to faith, to which you your self use sometimes to attribute very much, but because he so shuts up our Salvation in this faith alone, that he seems wholly to exclude and despise the excel­lent works of Charity and labours after Piety, in the point of Iustification and Righteousness before God.

In Academical exercises, where arguments are examined according The Argu­ment of Oso­rius drawn from dictum secundum quid, to dictum sim­pliciter. Ma­king that to be true in the general, which is only so in parti­cular. to the Rules of Logick, those con­clusions are justly found fault with, that proceed from a thing said in particular, to prove a thing said in the general, which thing there is no man, that is in any degree exer­cised in these matters, but he may easily perceive in your Sophistry.

But if Luther had ever been a Man that had simply condemned the commendable diligence in good works, or ho­nest actions of vertues; I should not save him from your lashes, or from being accounted worthy of such Ornaments as your modesty puts upon him, that he might be judged the plague of his Countrey, a Osor. lib. 2. p. 28. turbulent Person, and disturber of Re­ligion.

Add hereunto, if you please, the other flowers of your Satyrical E­loquence, The Re­proaches of Osorius cast upon Luther. under which you expose him in such an appearance or dis­guise, as one of the most cruel, and dreadful Monsters, that ever was in the World.

An Answer to the Accusations of Osorius, in defence of Luther.

BUT now passing by your Re­proaches, let us consider the The deceit­ful con­nexion of Osorius matter it self, and the strength and finews of your Discourse. For this is your Opinion; that, for the ob­taining of righteousness the godly fruits of good works should by no means be removed from a Communion with faith, which other­wise cannot be lively and saving, being with­out charity. And because Luther does this, you conclude after this manner, that he con­demns all works of good men; that he is an enemy and destroyer of all honest Discipline, an Au­thor of prophane impurity and licentiousness, a plague of his Countrey, a troubler and disturber of all Re­ligion, yea, and a Monster, and what not?

But I beseech you, Sir, bethink your self, and have a care what you belch forth against any man with an unbridled rash­ness; the Law commands you to Exod. 23. shun leasing. And do you, who are so great an extoller of righteousness, against [Page 44] all righteousness tear honest and innocent men in pieces with false accusations? for if a Man doth not attribute unto works the chiefect effi­cacy and preemince in the point of Iustification, is that sufficient cause to suppose that therefore he utterly condemns good works? Verily it is unreasonable so to do, as if a man disputing concerning Osorius, should thus conclude, that be­cause he hath no power of governing Luther sepa­rates charity from faith, and the Law from the Gospel, not simply, but in such a manner as things should be distin­guished each by their own bounds. Where and how Faith works by love in the Kings Chamber, therefore he hath nothing he can do at home a­mongst his own family: Or because he is not at all excellent in military vertue to gain a victory, that there­fore he hath no faculty or dexteri­ty in managing the affairs of his own business. Luther separates charity from faith, and the Law from the Gospel, and does it not without cause. But it must be con­sidered where, in what place, and for what cause he does it: Not to cause the godly works of good men to be despised, nor to discourage the exercise thereof, but that the power of justifying should not be attributed to the performance of them. Not that faith should not work by love before Men, but that it should not work before God. For it is one thing to work before Men, and another thing to work before God. Therefore one and the same faith acteth both ways, but one way before God, and another way before men; for before men it works by love, that it may perform obedience to the will of God, and be serviceable for the benefit of our Neighbour; [Page 45] but before God it works not by any love, but by Christ only, that it What is the union of Faith with Charity, and again what is the differ­ence of both. may obtain the pardon of sins, and eternal life.

By which you see, what is the difference between faith and vertue, and wherein they both agree; and how different the working of both is; How faith is alone without works, and a­gain how the same is not alone; for in the mean while Godly works are not therefore con­demned, because they are not admitted to the justification of life, but the trusting in works is only overturned: Here then a wise and suitable division should be used, Trust in works is ex­cluded. that things may be distinguished each by their own places and bounds lest one thing should rashly rush into the possession of another, and disturb the or­der of its station. Therefore let the praise­worthy merits of the greatest vertues have their own honour and dignity, which no man with­holds from them: Nevertheless by their dig­nity they will never be so available in the pre­sence of the Heavenly Iudge, as to redeem us from our sins, to satisfie Iustice, to deliver us from the wrath of God, and everlasting de­struction, to restore us that are so many ways ruinated, unto grace and life, to There is no­thing can be opposed to the judge­ment of God but Christ only. unite us as Sons and Heirs to God, and to overcome Death, and the World. These things cost a far dearer price, than that we should ever be able to pay so many and so great debts by any works or merits, [Page 46] or means of our own. For so great is the se­verity of Iustice, that there can be no reconci­liation, unless Iustice be satisfied by suffering the whole punishment that was due. The wrath is so very great, that there is no hope of appeasing the Father, but by the price and death of the Son. And again, so great is the mercy, that the Father grudged not to send his own Son, and bestow him on the World, and so to bestow him, that he gives Life Eternal to them that believe in him: Moreover, so great is the loving kindness of the Son towards us, that he grudged not for our sakes to bring upon himself this infinite load of wrath which otherways our frailty, however assisted with all the help of moral vertues, had never been able to sustain.

Whence Faith hath received its efficacy.

BEcause Faith alone with fixed eyes looks upon this Son and What doth faith without works per­form, and from whence doth it re­ceive its effi­cacy in act­ing. The form of faith is not charity, but rather the form of cha­rity is faith. Mediator, and cleaves unto him, who only could bring about this Atchievement of our Redemption with the Father; therefore it is, that it alone hath this vertue and power of justifying, not with works, nor for works, but only for the sake of the Mediator, on whom it relies. Therefore that is false, and worthy to be rejected with disdain, [Page 47] which some unhappy and wicked School-Di­vines affirm in discoursing of Charity, to wit, that it is the form of Faith, and that it must not by any means be separated from faith, no more than the vital Soul can be separated from the body, or the essential form from matter, which otherwise is a rude and unweildy Mass. In an­swering of whom, I think there is no need of many words, seeing the whole meaning and drift of Scripture, if rightly understood, the very end of the Law; seeing Christ, and the instruction of the Apostles, and the whole na­ture of the Gospel seem to be manifestly a­gainst them, and wholly to overturn that most absur'd Opinion by so many Oracles, so many Signs, Examples, and Arguments to the con­trary. Now if that be form, which gives sub­sistence to a thing, how much more truly must it be said, that faith is the form of charity, without which all the works of charity are base and contemptible; as again the form of faith is not charity, but Christ only, and the promise of the word.

But what, say they, are not the pious works of Charity acceptable Objection. to God, being so many ways pre­scribed unto us, and commanded by him? Are not these also remunerated with plentiful fruits of Righteousness, and heaped up with manifold Rewards in the Gospel? I was hungry, says he, and ye fed me, I thirsted and ye refreshed me with drink; so that not so much as a cup of cold water shall want a reward, when it is given in the name of Christ, besides an infinite number [Page 48] of other things of that kind, which being ta­ken out of the Scriptures are enlarged upon to the praise of Charity.

Indeed no man denys that pious and holy works of Charity are Answer. greatly approved of God, and it is an undoubted truth, that the love of God and of our Neighbour, as it comprehends the Sum­mary of both Tables, and is the greatest com­plement of the whole Law, so it hath excel­lent promises annexed unto it. Neither is there any Controversie between us about that. But when we affirm that Charity pleases God, we ask this, how it pleases, whether simply of it self in respect of the very work, or upon the account of faith, and the Mediatour? and then whether the same Charity so pleases, that it justi­fies us before God, and obtains the pardon of sins, and overcomes the terrours of death and sin, that it may be opposed to the judgment and anger of God? Moreover, whether it hath the promises of Eternal Life annexed unto it? If without a Mediatour and the faith of him, there is nothing which can please God, and it is impossible that works should please him, be­fore the person of him that worketh be recon­ciled; it follows that Charity depends on Faith, and not Faith on Charity: But that it rather goes before Love, and is so far from being joyned with it for justification, that it also ju­stifies Charity, and makes all the works of Charity acceptable to God. Confirma­tion by Ex­amples. The matters appear more evident by Example. Suppose a Iew or [Page 49] Turk does daily bestow great gifts upon the poor with very great cost, and damage to his estate: and again, that a Christian gives only a cup of cold Water to a thirsty man in the name of Christ: in the things themselves, if merits only be valued; there seems a very great dis­proportion. But there is much greater inequality in the distributing the reward. Though a Turk bestows many thousands of Talents upon the poor, he gains not any thing at all thereby with God. A Christian by one Cup, not of Wine, but of cold Water loses not his reward, yea he finds Life. What is the cause? What should you think, O Osorius, but because those things are not valued by merits, but by faith: not by the condition of the work, but of the worker; not by the price of the thing, but by the dignity of the person.

In Iustification not so much the Condition of the Deeds as of the Persons is regarded.

SEE, I beseech you, of how great concernment it is, that a person One conditi­on of Sons, another of Servants. should first be reconciled to God, which unless he be received into his favour, it is not possible that his works should please him at any time. As in the civil and politick nature, it is of no small concernment, whether a Son or a Servant acteth upon the account of reward: in like manner in the Heavenly generation there is a [Page 50] great difference between Sons and Servants. The Heirs of God and Mercenaries. For one thing is regarded in Servants, and another thing in Sons, and their condition appears to be far different. It belongs to Ser­vants to be compelled by fear, but A compari­son of Sons and Servants. they that are Sons are drawn by love, and they do so much the more in the performance of their duties, how much the more gladly they endeavour to please their Father. They that serve, go about their business only for reward, and it is given unto them no otherways than according to their me­rits. Who when they have done all, they re­main nothing but Servants and unprofitable, they never do any thing worthy of an Inheri­tance. On the contrary, they who are Heirs and Sons, though they shew themselves no less obedient, and observe the will of their Father, yet they do not therefore obey, that they may be made Heirs by Works, but because they are Heirs, Therefore they work.

Again, they that are in a servile condition, do not come, but when called by their Master, and perform his commands by the impulse of the Law. But the case is contrariways in Sons, who have always access with boldness into the presence of their Father, and cry Abba Father, performing much more of their own accord, than by the incitement of anothers prescription. Servants, after they have done their task, have their wages paid them according to their me­rits, but they receive no reward of Inheritance. But they that are Sons and Heirs; an Inheri­tance [Page 51] is made sure to them, not according to their obedience, nor by their deeds, nor after their deeds, but by the faith of the promise, and a free donation before all obedience, con­cerning which Faith, Paul said: It is therefore of Faith, that accord­ing Rom. 4. to Grace the Promise should be firm to all the Seed. Moreover in those that are Sons, it is only the dignity of the person, and not the merits of good life; it is the birth, and not the works that are regarded: But the case is contrariways in Servants; for it is not regarded what the person is, but what the man­ner of life. In short, the Servant (as Christ wit­nesseth) abides not in the house for ever. But the Son, to whom the House is delivered wholly and for ever, is never driven out of the House.

And here Christ only is a Son by Nature, we only by the Grace of Christ a Son by Nature, we by Christ. Adoption. He by Birth, we by Deliverance, of which he himself testifies: if the Son, saith he, shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed, he being partaker of his Fathers Nature, is not made a Son by his life, but is born a Son; we being Servants by Nature, are not born Sons, but are born again, not by works, but by faith

But by Christ our Deliverer we Christ is born a Son by na­ture, we by faith are born again Sons, not by works, in the Son. are changed from Servants into Sons. Not that we cease now to be the same that we were, in this life sinners, miserable, weak, mor­tal, for this transformation from [Page 52] servants into sons, is not so much per­formed in us, or in the change of our qualities, but chiefly in the love of God to us. For he hath so high an esteem, and puts so great a value on Christ his only begot­ten, that with a fatherly love and affection he embraceth all those of mankind throughout the world, that believe in this Son of his; and looking upon them now as Sons adopts them for his Sons out of their servile estate, yea and makes them co­heirs The cause why God a­dopts us for Sons. Gal. 4. together with his Son. Whence St. Paul said; ye are not now servants, but sons: and if sons, then also heirs of God through Christ; for ye are all the Sons of God by Faith, which is in Christ Iesus.

Whosoever of you are baptized ye have put on Christ. Ye are all Gal. 3. one in Christ Iesus. But if ye are Christs, then are ye the seed of Abraham, and heirs according to the promise. Concerning which also Iohn speaks to this pur­pose; see what love the Father 1 Ioh. 3. hath given us, that we should be called the Children of God. And again pre­sently repeating the same, Dearly beloved, saith he, now we are the Sons of God, and it hath not yet appeared, what we shall be, &c.

The Absurdities that arise from the Osorian Righteousness.

WHich things, seeing they are guarded with most sure confirmations of Evangelical Scripture, hence it necessarily follows, that all this Discourse of yours about righteousness falls down from the foundation. For if there is no union with God the eternal father but to those, who by on exact observation of the law con­form and direct all their actions to theOsorius. The servile and mercena­ly doctrine of the Papists.will of God, which is the law of equity and rule of Iustice: you make us not now to be Sons, nor Heirs ac­cording to the promise, but merce­naries according to the condition of the law: Moreover by this means also it will come to pals. that the promise is sure to no man in his life time, which is directly oppo­fite not only to the mind of Paul, but also to the genuine condition of Sons. For who in the time of this life lives so exactly according to the commands of God, that hi­therto he hath never passed the limits thereof, or knows what he will do in the remainder of his life? Whereby it will come to pass that the mind must needs waver hither and thither, with a perpetual uncertainty. Moreover if that be accounted sure by the word and promise of the Gospel, that they are heirs as many as are ingrafted into Christ, then the Kingdom of God must of necessity be an inheritance, [Page 54] If an inheritance, then it is not a recompence nor a reward, but a The King­dom of God is an Inheri­tance, there­fore not a re­ward, it be­longs to Sons, therefore not to Servants. August. lib. de haeres. Patrimony, which is not due to deeds, but to the spiritual birth­right. If to the birth-right, then the bestowing of the Inheritance goes before all deeds. Afterwards Pious deeds follow, according to the saying of Augustine, which is no less true than firm: Good works follow him, that is justified, but go not before him, that is to be justified. Where­fore if that most pure and eternal Nature ac­count us for Sons, as it was proved above, in which there sticks not any stain of unrighteous­ness, upon the like account it fol­lows, The cause which makes us the Sons of God, the same also makes us Iust; but faith only makes us Sons, therefore the same also makes us Iust. The cause which justifies on God's part is his Predestination. Ephes. 1. that the cause which joyns us to God as Sons, the same also makes us just in the sight of God.

But that we may rightly examine, what that cause is, first the degrees of causes must be distinguished, of which some are related un­to God, and others to men. On Gods part in the first place comes his infinite Mercy, Pre­destination, Election, the Grace of the Pro­mise and Vocation, of which Paul speaks in more places than one: Who hath Predesti­nated us, saith he, unto the adoption of Sons by Iesus Christ, whom he hath Predestinated, that they should be conformed to the Image of [Page 55] his Son, them he hath also called, whom he hath called, them he hath also justified, &c.

In the next order follows the Rom. 8. Vocation, the Donation of Christ, his Obedience, Death and Merits, Donation of his Dear Son, his O­bedience, Death, Sufferings, Merits, Redemption, Resurrection, For­giveness of Sin: As for those things which proceed from God, there is no great controversie between us. But our Opinions differ concerning those things, which are called causes on Man's part; to wit, whether there is one cause only or more? Whether Faith only with­out What the cause of justi­fication is on Man's part. Lib. 2. de just. Osorius. Works, or Works joined to­gether with Faith? And this is the thing about which now we contend, O Osorius, for in these Books you do dispure about the righteousness of works at such a rate, that you suppose Faith, only without these additions, so Insufficient to perform any thing towards the purchasing Salvation, that it is your Opinion, That this Faith of Christ only, if it be separated from the help of Works, deserves not to be called the Faith of Chrit, but a head-strong rashness, an insolent confidence, an impudent boldness, an outragious madness, an execrable Wickedness: Which sort of Words, how little modesty they savour of, it is needless here to inquire. But how far they differ from truth, and the inviolable authority of Sacred Scriptures, it will be requisite to take notice; because at present this is the matter of debate between us.

And first, if you understand it concerning this common Fellowship of Men with one ano­ther; and Offices of mutual obedience between Man and Man, there is no man so unreasonable as to separate Faith from the operation of Charity in that sense. For thus Faith, Hope, and Charity have a Faith, Hope, and Charity in what [...] they are joyned toge­ther. necessary connexion. But if the [...] is applied, beyound the publick society of Human Life to those things that peculiarly belong to Salvation, and have a relation to God himself; That if now the cause should be erquired for, which gives us a right to the adoption of the Sons of God, and which pur­chases us righteousness before him. Herein Paul in Disputing against you, doth so far take away all righteousness from works, and leaves Faith alone, that he judges him that mingleth any thing besides for the obtaining Salvation, to be a destroyer of Faith, an Enemy of Grace, and consequently an Enemy of Rom. 4. Gal. 2. Arg. If righteousness comes by the Law, Christ dyed in vain. Gal. 2. Christ dyed [...] in vain, therefore righteousness is not by the Law. The [...] between Paul and Osorius. the Cross of Christ. For, if those, saith he, that are of the Law, are heirs, Faith is made void, the pro­mise is made of none effect. And also elsewhere: If righteousness comes by the Law, then Christ dyed in vain. Thus you hear Paul manifestly asserting, what it is, that makes us heirs of the Inheritance and Salvation, not the Law, but Faith: And that these two are so contrary in the Office of Iustifying, that if [Page 57] the Law be admitted, Faith is wholly over­turned, the Death of Christ is made void, the grace of the promise fails.

Now let us compare Osorius disputing of righteousness with Paul, He affirms, that Man is justified by Faith without Works. Your opinion on the contrary pleads that righteous­ness doth so much consist of Works without Faith, that Faith doth nothing else but prepare for Holy Works. He asserting a twofold righteousness of Works and of Faith, of Grace, and of Merit, so distinguishes between both, that he sets the one against the other, by a mu­tual opposition; as if they were things, that could by no means consist together, but the one destroys the other: And he makes that evident by the example of the Israelites, and the Gentiles; of whom those grasping at righte­ousness by Works, fell from true righteousness: These, because they sought after righteousness by Faith, solely and simply obtained it.

You on the contrary being neither deterred by their fearsul example, nor regarding the Apostolical Instruction; and making no di­stinction between these so different kinds of righteousness, you seem to comprehend all in that one righteousness of the Law, as if the righteousness of Faith were none at all. The Words of Paul are very manisest: To him that worketh, the reward Roman. 4. is reckoned to be, not of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his Faith is imputed unto him for righteousness. [Page 58] What can any Man say more expresly? After­wards he adds. freely, denying that it could be imputed freely if it were due for Works. On the contrary, Osorius seems to be of such an opi­nion, that he acknowledges no imputation of righteousness at all. He who afferts we are justified by the Faith of Galat. 2. Christ, and not by Works; What doth he else but remove Works utterly from the justification of Faith? Your assertion, which makes the Faith of Christ, if works are shut out, to be no Faith, but [...] and execrable Wickedness: What else doth it in these words, but bring a Gospel not from Heaven, Lib. 2. pag. 46. but from Portugal, wholly differing from that which we have received from Paul. Which seeing we are command­ed by the Apostle not to suffer, so much as in an Angel, without wishing him accursed, what may be answered to you in this case, I commit to your self to consider. Paul reasons thus: If of Grace, then not of Works, other­ways Grace is not Grace: If of Merit then not Freely: For in that which is free, there can be no merit or debt.

The Arguments of Osorius, whereby he attri­butes Righteousness to Works, are an­swered.

NOW it must be enquired, by what ar­guments Osorius pleads for his opinion. [Page 59] And first he brings that out of the Psalms: The Lord, saith he, is Righ­teous, Osor. lib. 2. p. 39. and loveth Righteousness, his countenance beholds the upright: And again, The Wicked, saith David, shall not dwell with thee; the Unrighteous shall not remain before thy eyes: and thou hatest all those that work Ini­quity; thou shalt destroy all them that speak leasing, &c. And now what is gathered from these testimonies? To wit, That the Wicked have no society with the goodness of God. For see­ing God is himself the very Law of Equity and Rule of Righteousness, according to which all our actions should be directed, therefore it is his opinion that it is not possible, that he who puts away the rule it self from him and hates it, should be joined to the same. But what do you drive at in all these florid expressions? it is this; He then that asserts it to be possible that God should approve the wicked, and join them to himself, asserts it to be possible for God not to be God.

These things need no prolix an­swer: Answer. For though we grant this to be very true, which you mention from the Scriptures, that the rule of Divine Iustice is perfect, and that eternal light cannot endure any thing that is wicked, or not agreeable to equity: but you have not yet proved that those should be called wicked; who flying to Christ by Faith, receive from him the Pardon of their Sins, who having their Sins blotted out, and all Iniquity forgiven, are written by the same Psalmist among the number of the bles­sed [Page 60] whom God himself purifying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, &c. Psal. by faith, and pouring his holy Spirit upon them, of ungodly he hath made them godly, and gra­ciously received them into his fa­vour, for the sake of his dear Son.

And such we were all formerly, as your Oration describes, wicked sinners, and all void of the glory of God, before Christ washed us with his blood: but 1 Cor. 5. now after we are washed from our former filthiness, sanctified and justified in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ, and by the spirit of our God, Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's Rom. 8. Elect? Those whom God Iustifies, who shall condemn? Then you go on, and deny that it is possible, that God should be unlike himself, to favour wickedness, or make friendship with wicked men of an unclean life. And therefore you conclude we must needs be first righteous, before we are re­ceived into the favour of God. Right, but who are they, whom you call by the name of Iust? You must teach us that.

If you judge they are such, as are defiled with no pollution, or can Whence this righteousness of Osorius shall be found. say with Christ: Who amongst you will prove me guilty of Sin? Verily, I confess it seems not un­like to truth; what you prove con­cerning the conformity of the Righteous unto. God, and that we must needs be all of us such, if we would with acceptance have to do with that most pure Nature of the Divine Righ­teousness, [Page 61] without a Mediator and Redeemer.

But if you take those for Righ­teous, Who are cal­led righteous in a Gospel sense. who are Righteous by Faith not by Life, that is, those whom daily forgiveness received by faith, brings as righteous in the Presence of God, in that sense this debate of yours about Righteousness does us no diskindness: For by this means it comes to pass, that whom Faith dayly absolves, you your self cannot hold them guilty of any crime: Therefore if they are not unrighteous, nothing hinders them from being admitted with bold ac­cess Osor. de just lib. pag. 39, & 40. into the presence of the Divine Majesty, through the benefit of their Redeemer.

But you deny that it is agreeable to the nature of God, to account any man worthy of his approbation, except him, whom his countenance beholds to be righteous: Therefore it is necessary Of what sort is the Osorian righteousness. that our righteousness should go before the favour of God. But whence that righteousness should come to us, herein is all the contention between us. You seem to acknowledge no righteousness but that which the perfection of life procures. We place all our righteousness in Christ, not in our selves, in the faith of him only, not in our own works. What? say you, can any man obtain favour from that highest goodness as long as he hates not wick­edness, as long as be puts not away Ini­quity from him, which hath a perpetual A false and lying accusa­tion of Osori­us. War with Divine Equity? Who is igno­rant of, or denies that? For how can it be, that that everlasting Law should not [Page 62] hate sin and wickedness with the greatest abhor­rency? Well, and what do these Mountains of Gilboa bring forth unto us? at length he concludes: That it is therefore necessa­ry, that whosoever thinks to be receiv­ed Dejust. lib. 2. into the friendship of God, must first hate wickedness. Verily there is no man that denies it. For though we should grant that a wise and whole­som Repentance. Repentance proves a man to be a sinner, but takes not away sin, it causeth not remission, nor satisfies ju­stice. (or) sound sorrow, whereof you speak, makes the first part of our conversion, and that the true righteousness of faith, doth not fol­low, except some trouble of a pe­nitent mind go before, it doth not therefore come to pass, that the very cause of justification should be attributed unto repentance; for if repentance be nothing else, but a grief of mind at the remembrance of sin, it proves indeed that sin went before, but takes not away that which was committed. It declares perhaps some change of mind in him that committed it, but takes not away the punishment, that is due to justice. Moreover repentance testifies that justice is lost, but repairs not the loss thereof: As pain com­ing of a wound inflicted makes not a medicine to it self, but receives it from some other thing. In like manner, repentance goes before the re­mission of sins, but doth not cause it, just as Seryphius did not cause the recovering of the City of Tarentum, who unless he had first lost it, Fabius had not recovered it. How many may you see in a common-wealth, who having [Page 63] violated the publick Laws, or been guilty of Treason against their Prince, being overwhelm­ed with grief and shame, with all their heart lament the wickedness of their crime, and they do not wickedly that they are ashamed and re­pent. But yet they do not escape the due pu­nishment of the Law. Therefore the detesta­tion of their sin proves them guilty, but doth not free them from condemnation. But if there is so great severity of Laws and Iudgments in humane offences, which no deploring of ill life can wash away, what then should be judg­ed of these that are committed against the high­est and infinite Majesty? Which Angels offend­ing in one thing were not unpunished, having been thrust out of Heaven, and whom no sor­row could restore again, what should be said to us in this frail condition of sinful nature, in which dwelleth no good thing, who offend by a daily, either negligence of duties, or filthiness of deeds? Is it sufficient to turn away the ven­geance of so great a God, to say, I have erred, unless there be some other thing besides the sense of grief to help guilty and wounded na­ture, which may defend this weak part of our re­pentance with a stronger safe-guard, and may be sufficient to appease The violation of Infinite majesty can­not be expia­ced but by an infinite price. and reconcile offended justice with a proportionable price, and, (so to speak,) can contend with Divine Iustice by opposing a righteousness equal thereunto? For as the wound is infinite, that is inflicted on our nature, so it is just, that a remedy of the like nature [Page 64] should be applied, the strength and greatness whereof being infinite, may by proportionable greatness be suited to the Majesty The death of Christ [...] none but be­lievers, and hence arises the diguity of Faith. offended; which verily consists not in repentance, or charity, or any offices of ours: but is contained in Christ only, who is the only be­gotten Son of God. And because our Faith only lays hold on him, and he cannot profit any but Believers, therefore it comes to pass, that faith only with­out works, that is, without any merits of works, compleats all our Righteousness before God.

Concerning the Praise of Repentance, the Dignity, and Benefit, and Peculiar Office thereof.

BUT you will say, to what purpose then is it to repent, The benefit and necessity of Repent­ance. and to amend evil deeds? or what shall be answered to these Scrip­tures, which promise in more pla­ces than one the pardon of all sins to those that lament their sins, and are converted unto a bet­ter life? That I may answer these, I would have you take notice of this in the first place: When we attribute the The lying calumny of Andradius, a­gainst Chem­aitius. vertue of justifying to Faith, and in this case place it alone, being helped by no addition of our works: Let no man so mis-understand, as if we [Page 65] did drive away and [...] all saving Repent­ance, and other holy Offices of Duty and Cha­rity from every action of life, as Andradius falsly gathers against Chemnitius.

For, that we may openly confess the truth, what else is this whole life of Godly Men, but a continual repentance, and a perpetual detesta­tion and condemnation of sin, whilst we are forced by the Gospel with daily groans to breath forth this Petition? Forgive us our sins, as if we were conflicting in a continual place of wrestling, in which sometimes we stand by the Spirit, sometimes we fall through the infirmity of the Flesh, and sometimes we again make new repentance, yet we always overcome and triumph by Faith, to wit, obtaining the pardon of our faults, and we obtain true righteousness for ever. Therefore away with impudent slanders; let just judgment be exercised, and let things be comprehended each in their own places and bounds.

Pious tears, a serious deploring of former de­struction, and a just care of living a better life, with all other pious exercises, are things, which we do not thrust away, nor put out of their place, only we search what is the place, what is the peculiar office of those things. And in the first place this is a thing that What Re­pentance doth by it self, what to­gether with Faith. should not be doubted of by any Man, that Repentance, as it is an excellent gift of God, so it brings forth fruits not to be repented of, according to its Office; the Office [Page 66] or duty whereof I reckon to be Repentance consistsof two parts. twofold. The first is, that which duly detests the sins committed. The other, that which diligently endeavours the Reformation of the life, from which follows both great praise, and greater fruits, and also very great incitements to vertue. For he that being weary of his former wicked­ness applys his mind wholly to amend his ungod­ly Life by a future reformation; verily he hath made a great progress towards Salvation, but he is not therefore as yet put into a certain possession of Salvation, or because of that, ta­ken up with the Penitent Malefactor into Pa­radise. For it is one thing to weep for the things that one hath done amiss, and another thing to obtain the pardon of them. Verily he that seriously purposes with himself to a­mend his life, I judge that he ought justly to be praised; but yet that is not enough, as I suppose, to turn away the anger of an offended God, to put away the heinous nature of Sin, to procure a clear tranquility of How far the fruit of Re­pentance [...] Conscience, and to shake off the tyranny of death; for to obtain that Victory, we will need another Panoply, or compleat Armour than Repentance, or the forces of our vertues; for nothing that we can do is sufficient to bring this to pass, but only faith in the Son of God. And therefore Repentance with Charity, and other Offices of that kind, have a necessary con­nexion with faith; not that they may give form [Page 67] to this as to a dead matter, but that ra­ther they may receive life and Spirit Faith in Christ justi­fies Charity, but Charity doth not ju­stifie Faith. Augustin in quinquage, Prolo. Psal. 31. from it: not that Faith hath need of these for justification, but that they themselves may be justified by the value received by Faith in Christ, which unless they were re­commended upon the account of that Faith would all be abomina­ble in the sight of God; and though they may be call'd works, yet cannot be call'd good works in Gods account, unless they are sup­ported by Faith. Whence Augustin admonish­ing, not without cause, commands us to be­lieve in him that justifies the Wicked, that our very good works may be good works; for those deserve not to be called good, as long as they proceed not from a good root, &c. But here you object approved Testimonies and Ex­amples, rehearsed out of the Sacred Oracles of Divine Scripture, in which, without any men­tion of Faith, Salvation is assuredly promised to them that Repent, as in Ezekiel, I de sire not the death of a Sinner, but Ezek. 18. that the wicked should turn from his way and live: There are set before us the Ex­amples of the Ninivites, of David, Ionah 3. 2 Sam. 12. 2 Kings 21. Osor. lib. de just. p. 42. An [...] of Osorius. An Answer. Manasseh and others; and lest I should weary you with Rehearsing of every one of them, which are infinite, I will make a short Col­lection of the whole inatter. You say that thus the Prophets proclaim, and openly avouch this thing, that [Page 68] there is no hope of Salvation shewed unto any, but only those, who are with their whole heart brought back from an unclean and wicked life to the practise of Holiness, &c. And presently concluding with this Opinion, you teach us that there is no other way at all either to avert destruction, or pro­cure salvation.

Lest I should speak many things in vain, there is one Answer abundantly sufficient for all such Objections; that there is indeed ne­cessarily required a sincere reformation of heart and life, in these who are to obtain life; as in an Heir, for whom there is appointed the possession of an Inheritance to be enjoyed, there is necessarily required dutifulness towards his Father, which dutifulness, nevertheless, when it is most exactly performed, is not any cause of obtaining the inheritance. And in like man­ner there is nothing that can be more certain, than that Repentance and Renovation do much commend the life of Christians to God; yet it makes them not Christians, neither doth it so much commend the person of the Penitent, as it is it self commended by the dignity of the man: who, if he is a Christian, his Repent­ance is approved. But, if he be an Alien from the faith, the lamenting of sin doth not at all profit for the obtaining of Righteousness, neither doth it take away Sin. But as you Ier. 11. Ezek. 33. Ezek. 18. say, Repentance hath Divine Pro­mises, and indeed I am not against your Opinion in that, for God doth not desire the death of a Sinner, promising also life to him that repents. That's right. But let [Page 69] us see how he promises it, and by pondering the Circumstances of things, times, and per­sons, let us consider what is promised, and to whom, and what is the true cause of promising. Indeed the old Law hath dark promises, the Gospel also hath its own promises, as both Co­venants have likewise their own atonements. I do not deny it, but this I ask what manner of promises hath repentance in the Old Law? God promiseth life to them that return from their wickedness. What? doth he signifie an eternal or a temporary peace and felicity of this outward life? If you answer an eternal, I would then know what difference there will be be­tween Legal and Evangelical Promises? but when I do stedfastly contemplate upon the na­ture and kind of both times and testaments in the holy word of God, and compare the vertue of one Kingdom with the other, this seems to me to be the difference between Moses and Christ; that I suppose all his Bles­sings and Rewards promised by God Legal Promi­ses. to those that lead their life accord­ing to the prescript of the Law, go not beyond the bounds of a certain earthly blessedness and recompence. In which, not­withstanding we think there are contained no small benefits of God. For what could happen to any man in this mortal state, to which we are all of necessity subject, not only more desirable, but also of a larger extent by the wonderful power of God, than when you are by the singular gift of God placed in such a Commonwealth, which by a wonderful fruit­fulness, and plenty of all good things, excells all [Page 70] other Nations whatsoever; you should then pass your life in it, being compassed about with the Divine Protection, that you may not only your self live long in the Land, which the Lord your God hath given you, but that it should also be well with your Sons after you, through all Ge­nerations: that you may maintain your state with dignity, and abundance of all the best things, that the adversity of common fortune may have no power over you, that no Enemy may annoy you, no tempest may cloud your tranquility, that no storm of evil things may shake you: that at home and abroad, whether you are in the field, or in your house, going out or coming in, all things may happen suc­cessfully to you, according to your hearts de­sire; and moreover, that God should so bless all your wealth and works of your hands, and that at no time the powerful providence of God should forsake you unto the utmost bounds of the most aged life; unto these add the plen­teous fruitfulness of the Land, the incomes of Fruits and Corn, the continual in­creases Blessings proposed in the Law. of wealth, the constant fruitfulness of Cattle, besides other very plentiful Promises and Bles­sings of the like kind, whereof there is a long Catalogue described in the Law, which are appointed for those, who inviolably obey the most holy Precepts of God, and turn from their Sins to Righteousness. All which Promises being by the Prophets set before the Penitent, seem to me to be of such a sort, that they either signifie temporary Re­wards [Page 71] in this World, and mitigate outward punishments in this Life; or if they be referred to eternal Life, they do The Preach­ing of repen­tance belongs to the Gos­pel. at least imply the faith of a Media­tour, by a certain silent condition. And therefore among Divines there are learned and famous men, who do rightly and learnedly prove, that the Preaching of Repentance belongs peculiarly to the Gospel and not to the Law. For the Law Preaches Damnation to Sinners. The Gospel Preaches Salvation to the Penitent. There­fore when the Lord says, return and ye shall be saved, I desire not the death of a sinner, &c. It is not the Preaching of the Law, which pro­nounces the Sentence of Condemnation without mercy: but it is the very voice of the Gospel.

And this seems to me to be the chief difference between Moses and Moses was a certain earth­ly Christ, Christ is a certain hea­venly Moses. Christ, that like as he being as it were a certain earthly Christ, pro­cures an earthly liberty to the peo­ple, and sets before them the duties that are incumbent upon them in leading their lives; so all the doctrine and bene­fits of Christ are peculiarly and chiefly directed unto life eternal, and calls us thereunto espe­cially from this world. But if we suppose that these legal promises should notwithstanding be referred to eternal life, yet when they did not pass the bounds of that people only, and reached not to other Nations, but to those peculiarly, who waited for the Seed promised to them, therefore the promises of the Law [Page 72] included faith at least by a certain silent condition. Wherefore as touching those le­gal promises, in which the holy Prophets held out unto them, that repented and were con­verted, pardon and many other benefits, in these must be considered, not only what is promised, but also, to whom the promise is made, as being such, as belonged not to others, but those only, who being descended from the Seed of Abraham, were contained in the Convenant, and had a right to the Lamb slain from the beginning. Therefore according to the authority of Augustin, we ought always to look to the root in such promises, and the mind should always be raised up to the Media­tor of the New Covenant, in whom alone all the Promises of God are yea and Amen. Which seeing it is so, and seeing all the Pro­mises of Eternal Life are contained in this only Mediator Christ, as in the only Ark of the Covenant, neither is there any faculty given us by God, which attains to the knowledge of Christ and the understanding of his benefits, but faith only; therefore it is, that this illu­minated faith, which only leads us to the know­ledge of Christ, claims to it self only The object of Faith. We are justi­fied in the New Testa­ment after the same manner, that the Hebrews were healed, when they were stung by the Serpents. all power of Iustifying without any other means, not so much because of the dignity of its act, or upon some account of charity joined with it, whereby it should be formed, [Page 73] but only upon the account, and by the vertue of its object, unto which it is bent, from whence it receives all this power of healing, just as the Israelites of old, when they were en­venomed with deadly Poison, regained their health, not because they had Eyes and a power of beholding, but because they fastned their Eyes at the command of God upon the Serpent, that was set up before Ioh. 3. That every one that sees the Son and Be­lieveth in him may have e­ternal life. Ioh. 8. Unless ye believe that I am he, ye shall dye in your sins. their Eyes. In like manner also it comes to pass to us, that whereas it is Christ only, that bestows ever­lasting Life and Righteousness on them that behold him, and he be­comes not a Saviour, unless he be received by Faith, hence the inward sight of Faith being fixed upon him, brings Salvation. Whence by evi­dent demonstration, an argument is framed from principles and causes, issuing into conclusions by necessary consequence ac­cording to Scriptures. As this,

Ma. The only beholding of the Serpent set up, without any other condition being added, healed the wounded.

Mi. Christ is the Serpent set up for us; Therefore,

Concl The only beholding of (that is, faith in) Christ set up for us, without any additions what­soever brings healing to our wounds.

And I know the adversaries will The Papists deny not Christ to be a Saviour, but they do not well agree in the manner how he Saves. The Council of Trent, Hosius, Andradius, Canisius. not deny that Christ is the only [Page 74] Serpent, who being made a Curse for us, makes a Medicine for our Wounds. But if you ask, how? They will answer one thing, and the holy Scriptures another: they affirm that this is performed on this account, because Christ be­ing punished for us on the Cross, hath by his Merits obtained for us the infusion of Charity. Which because it is the perfection of the Law, therefore being acquired by the Merit of Christ, and received by our free-will, it brings forth righteousness, not that, A typical si­militude be­tween Christ and the Ser­pent healing wounds. Ioh. 3. Isa. 53. whereby we are accounted for just, but whereby we are both truly just, and deserve life. But verily this Sophism neither agrees with the History of the Israelites, nor satis­fies the argument propounded. For if those that were then wound­ed by the Serpents, by only behold­ing the Serpent without any other intermediate cause, received present health: verily either this type bears not the similitude of Christ, or Christ heals us by faith in his name only without interposing the remedy of Charity. Otherways the mutual proportion of similitude between us and them, between Christ and the Serpent, will not rightly agree. They lifted up their outward eyes, we our inward, they to the serpent, we to Christ. Both by beholding obtain health through the Promise of God; they the health of their Bodies, we of our Souls. They presently in beholding at the first sight, were healed in the same moment, by no en­deavour of their own, but only upon the ac­count [Page 75] of the Object, and by vertue of the Promise. And what other thing doth this mysti­cal adumbration signifie, but Iustification freely prepared and promised to us, by the sole con­templation of the Object, whereby we appre­hend Christ by Faith? Will you hear the Promise? That every one who seeth him may not perish, but have eternal Life? And elsewhere. And this righteous servant of mine by his knowledge shall Iustifie many. But what is it to see him, but to believe in him? What is the knowledge of that righteous one, but the Faith of Christ, which Iustifies from sin? There­fore what external aspect was to them, that the light of Faith is to us. What Health was to them, Iustification is to us, whereby we are delivered from the Curse of sin, and are ab­solved without punishment. But if you ask, what way? There is an answer in readi­ness to wit, according to the very simili­tude of the Serpent, not by any labour of ours, but by contemplation of the Object only, and by vertue of the Promise. I pray you what is more evident? What more agreeable? And what then should be said to those ill-employed men, who by their new doctrine translate Free Iustification, which is due only to Faith by vertue of the Promise of God, unto works of Charity.

Of Sin and the healing thereof by Christ.

FOR Andradius, Hosius, Vega the Spaniard, and those others of the same Faction con­federate with these, seem so to contend about the Righteousness of Charity, that having al­most banished Faith out of the City of Rome, they place all the parts of our Salvation, or at least the chiefest in Charity and Sanctification. And now by what Scriptures will they demon­strate that? What, say they, doth not Christ heal us just as the Brazen Serpent healed the Wounds of those that were hurt? Were we not all healed by his stripes? Is not Isa. 53. An objection of the Adver­saries. he the Lamb that takes away the sins of the World? Is not he the Life-giving Serpent, who gives cure for our wounds? And what are our Wounds, say they, but Sin? What is the healing of Wounds but the puting away of Sins? What then, shall the Serpent be more power­ful in fixing his sting, than Christ in taking it out? Shall Alam be more powerful to infect Nature, than Christ to cleanse it? But how is nature purged, if yet the contagion of sin re­mains? As in a diseased body, unless the hurt­ful humours are purged off, health is not re­covered, and as the Air being surrounded on every side with black darkness, begins not to shine, before the brightness of the Sun being returned the darkness vanishes: In like man­ner [Page 77] in the inward diseases of minds, the causes of maladies must first be taken away, before health is restored. But the causes of evils are sins, which if they are taken away by Christ, how can they remain in the Saints? But if they abide not, by necessary consequence then it follows, that the roots of all sins being cut away, they are righteous Inherent righteousness. in the sight of God by that righ­teousness, not which is imputed, but which properly inheres in them, which is free of all spot of sin, which carefully observes the Law, which informs the mind with Cha­rity, and beautifies it with Divine Ornaments, and makes us partakers of the Divine Nature. But let us put all these together for brevities sake into the exact form of an argument.

Sin abolished doth not remain. Argument.

In the Baptized, and in those that are come to years, who are converted, sin is abolished. Therefore,

After Baptism and in those that are come to years after true conversion, there remains no more sin.

This argument having a bad con­nexion, Answer. doth evidently destroy it self. First, there is no man that denies that actual sin is not abolished in Baptized Infants, in whom it is not committed. In those come to years, if all sins are so extinguished, that no relicks remain, what need is there of any con­version? [Page 78] For what place is there for repen­tance, where nothing is committed contrary to duty? What if the Life of the Saints is no­thing else, but almost a daily conversion and mourning for sin, how can a daily frailty of sinning be wanting there? But let us look upon the parts of the Argument. Sin abolished, say they, doth not re­main. The Material of Sin. The Formal of Sin. That is true indeed if per­fect and compleat abolishment of sin be understood, both as to the Material of Sin, and as to the Formal, as the Schools speak. Therefore as touching the Major, in so much I acknowledge, sin doth not remain, in how much it is abolished in the Saints. But after what manner, and in what order it is abolished in the Baptized and in the adult, it follows next that this should be en­quired into in the Minor.

Therefore I answer to the Minor with a di­stinction, that sin is said to be abolished in the Adult that are Regenerate, it is partly true and partly false, with How sin in this Life is a­bolished, and how it re­mains. a different respect had to divers circumstances; But how that is un­derstood it must be explained, first; as touching the death of the Me­diatour, which brings Salvation, there is no defect in that, but it hath abundantly recover­ed whatsoever perished by Adam: yea it hath brought us much greater benefits, than the evils which Adam procured unto us. But if it be asked how, and in what order the Death of [Page 79] Christ effects this? I answer, not The guilt of sin. The frailty of sinning. by denying, but by distinguishing. For seeing two things are conside­rable in every sin, the guilt oblig­ing, or the punishment of damna­tion, which Lombard calls passive corruption: and then active corruption, or the very act of sin, or the infirmity of corrupted nature. Therefore there is again a twofold remedy prepared for this twofold evil, guilt Obliging to eternal punishment, is not only taken away in the life to come, but also in this life, by the holy laver, and continual re­mission of sins for the sake of a Mediator. But the infirmity of sinning, which is con­cupiscence in the flesh, and ignorance Hugo. in the mind, (that I may speak with Hugo) it also is abolished in the regenerate, but yet after its own order, and by its own degrees. For it is daily diminished in this Life by the renewing of the Spirit, and it shall be abo­lished in the Life to come, by the Resurrection of the Flesh. In the interim the relicks of in­firmity stick yet in the Flesh, as both Death and Temporal punishments stick yet in the Flesh, to exercise the Saints unto Combat; not to condemn them to destruction. Iust as the Land of Canaan was promised to the Hebrews a great while before, which yet they did not suddenly take A similitude. possession of: Neither was the frame of this World made immediately in one moment, but the Works of God were per­fected in distinct intervals of Days: So nei­ther [Page 80] is the whole Flesh suddainly renewed, but by degrees, and daily increases, it is going on unto perfection.

An example may be conveniently taken from him, whom being Wounded, the Samaritan, cap. 10. Luc. doth not suddainly cure, but first pours Wine into his Wounds, washes off the Blood, afterwards he adds Oyl, that he may mitigate the grief, and the Wound may be­gin to cleave together: Afterwards the Wound being bound up, he puts the Sick-man upon the Beast, and afterwards commands him to be cured in the Inn. Iust so Christ suffer­ing the punishment of our Sins in his Body, by remission immediately takes away the guilt from us, pouring into our Wounds the gladning Oyl of the Gospel, joined together with the Wine of serious Repentance; whereby what­soever is deadly in the Wounds, is washed away with a health restoring Pardon: But the Wounds are not yet altogether healed. But health will be compleat in Eternal Life. In the interim he will have diseases cured in the Church by Godly Exercises, the Cross, and constant Prayer. Briefly, if those Men desire to know what that is, which Christ hath abolished in us by Argument. his Death, I will say it in a word.

Whatsoever was laid upon Christ on the Cross, to be carried away for our sakes, that is taken away from us in this Flesh.

Only the guilt and punishment of Sin, not the matter it self of our actions was laid upon Christ to bear upon the Cross.

The act or substance of sin, is not wholly abolished by the Death of Christ in this flesh, but only the guilt and punishment of sin.

Or more briefly let them take it thus: What­soever Christ by dying did bear for us, that only he took away by Christ by dy­ing upon the Cross did bear only the punishment of Sin, but not our Sins: and after­wards by raising us up again, he will destroy both the punish­ment and the whole matter of Sin in due time. his death in this Life. Christ by dying did bear only the punish­ment of our Sins, not the Sins themselves in his Body, whereof he had none. Therefore Christ in this Life took away only the punishment, not the matter it self of sin by his Death. But after­wards by his power he shall also take away the whole matter of Sin in the Glory of the Resurection to come.

Concerning the necessity of the practice, and care of good Works.

THerefore in this place something hath been said of Faith, and all that manner of Righteousness; which the Divine Authority attributes to Faith only without Works. More things elsewhere have been explained by us in other Books: From which things just con­clusions being drawn, it evidently appears, if I am not mistaken, wherein all our righte­ousness consists, not in Works without Faith, nor joined together with Faith, but wholly in [Page 82] Faith without Works; that is, without the merits of Works, or any condition of meri­ting. For if Faith, which is nothing else but an internal and illuminated contemplation, and receiving of Christ the Son of God, receives a free promise of Life in him; I do not well see what the good deeds of our Life, thought ex­cellent, can perform in this part of justification. Yet it doth not Works, tho' they do not justifie, yet are not de­nied to be ne­cessary. follow from hence that the Holy practice of good Works for necessary uses, that I may speak with Paul, is not upon any account necessary. Neither is it a reason forcible e­nough, if any Man teaches that no trust should be put in Works, that therefore there is no need of any care to do good: For what Logick is this? Works should not be trusted in when they are performed: There­fore there is no need to endeavour The calum­nies of the Adversaries against Pious Doctors. to perform Good and Holy Works. We are no other ways justified but upon the account of Faith which is in Christ Iesus: Therefore Offices of Piety are not necessary in those, who are justified by Faith. Faith only, not upon the account of Love, but of the Mediatour, pro­motes us to righteousness; There­fore, Luther is un­justly reviled as a despiser of Good Works. it profits nothing, to repent, and to weep and mourn for sins committed: It is of no concern­ment after what manner every one leads his Life; for so you seem to gather, and not you only, O Osorius, but also as [Page 83] many as being like to you, bear It is fatal to the Gospel to suffer vio­lence, and un­dergo calum­nies. an enmity to Luther. And hence such fierce out-cries of yours a­gainst him, such odious and bitter ragings, reproaches, evil reports, and outragious invectives, being filled not so much with Evil Speeches, as most filthy Lyes. But this is no new nor strange thing, either because you are of your old temper and dis­position, Mat. 2. Mat. 26, 27. Act. 8. Eusebius, See the History of Huss. or because it is, and always was the condition of the Gospel, which hath already been accustom­ed enough to such like Enemies and reproaches. So Saul persecuted David a most moderate Prince, by whom he had never been hurt. So when Christ was born, Herod was troubled, and all Ierusalem with him: By the like fury Christ himself, the Prince of the Church, was slain. So of Old, Stephen was Stoned: The same also did the Ancient Mar­tyrs of all Times, hear from their own People, which Luther now and other Ministers of Gods Word are forced to hear, [...], take a­way these Enemies of the god's; yea also that Divine Martyr, Iohn Huss, of latter memory, was brought forth to Death in a manner not unlike that, whereby Luther is brought forth by you after his Death: For they Cloathed him with odious Pictures of Devils, and abo­minable Titles. Neither is Luther here handled much more handsomly by you; being Cloath'd with most vain Lyes, and set forth by you in such Colours, not as he really was, nor as his [Page 84] Writings had persuaded you concerning him, which it seems you have not read, but as other accusers, to whom you use to give too much credit, have described him: For what other thing declares this your narrative which is curi­ously fitted for calumny, whereby you make him liker a Monster, than a Man, The shame­less reproa­ches of Osori­us, cast upon Luther. Osor. lib. 2. de justit. as if he brought in a certain new kind of Faith, that was not heard of before, and was unknown in former times, as if he were an ex­ample of Wickedness, an encou­rager of Slothfulness, an Turbulent Person, and disturber of Religion, and trampled upon all Actions worthy of Praise, and exercises of Eminent Vertue; as things of no worth, and condemned Pious Tears, and judged those Men abominable and Wicked who wept and mourned for their Ini­quities; or upon any account lamented the Sins they committed.

And as if he taught a certain new way of Sal­vation, and such a one, as neither requires works of vis nor any sorrow, neither occasions any trouble to sinners, but teaches that confidence alone is sufficient, to wit, such a confidence whereby every Wicked and Ungodly Man may be supposed acceptable to God, tho'he himself do not at all endeavour to restrain his wickedness, or pretend to any desire after Piety, but only so supposeth in his own mind, that he is dear to God. That the favour of God is prepared for all, yea for the unclean and Wicked, though [Page 85] sin rules and reigns with an universal dominion over them. Moreover that Luther Pag. 30. Pag. 43. should think it a great Wickedness to lament Mans first ruine, or fall, and to fear punishment, &c. Besides other things also of the like sort, no less absurd than false, which being wrested by you to a wrong sense, you use to lay to his charge, not that they are really true of him, but they are puposely feigned by A defence of Luther. you, that by any means possible ye may render him odious to the igno­rant People! But these cunning attempts of yours avail nothing; for the Writings and Ser­mons of Luther are publickly known. There are also extant the publick Confessions of the Saxon. Churches, first presented unto Carolus Caesar, in the Assembly The Con­fessions of the Saxon Churches, presented at Augusta, Ann. 1530. offer­ed after­wards Trid. Coun. 1551. of Augusta. Anno. 1530. And after­wards Anno. 1551. Shewed and offered to the Council of Trent, in which what they teach concerning the true way of Iustification, ac­cording to the Word of God, what they Iudge and Preach of repen­tance, and the Holy Fruits of good Works; by all which they do sufficiently de­fend themselves against your frivolous calum­nies, and most vain accusations, that there is no need of any other defence besides.

The opposite Assertions of the Adversaries, against the Free Imputation of Righteous­ness produced and examined.

WHich things, seeing they are so, and sufficient defence hath been made for those of our Profession, let us proceed to that which remains.

We will then first declare the opposite asser­tions and decrees of the Adversaries, what they say and judge concerning Righteousness, Faith, Grace, Repentance, and Works; and next we will compare their Opinion with ours, and both together with the holy Gospel of God, that it may be the more evident to the Reader, what should be judged of both. And here first come forth unto us Osorius, none of the meanest Champions in this Cause, all whose contention against Luther drives at this, to destroy all im­putation of Righteousness, and to leave no other way of Righteousness but that which consists in works, and observation of the Law, and which might maintain according to the Decrees of Trent, that we are not only esteemed righteous, but also are really or inherently Righteous in the sight of God even unto justification. In which way of justifying he doth not exclude Faith and Grace, but he so mingles these toge­ther, that the praise it self of Righteousness is founded on works, and all else so subservient, that Faith first goes before, that it may [Page 87] only prepare and make way for the obtaining of Grace. And Grace afterwards follows, which brings forth good works in us, and then works themselves perfect, and compleat Righteousness. For after this manner doth Osorius dispute in his Third Book. And this is the sum of what he Osor. lib. 3. de just. num. 70. says, therefore seeing the Law either written on Tables, or received by Re­velation, cannot take away the un­bridled lust of the mind, and whilst lust re­mains in its vigour, no man can by any means obey the precepts of the Law, which are given for our at­taining Righteousness: Therefore it is that no man relying only on the help of the Law can be holy, unless he be furnished with the immediate help of the Holy Spirit against lust; and farther, because we obtain this Divine Why works are said to be not of the Law, but of Faith. help not by the Law, but by Faith. Therefore it is, that all actions of Cha­rity are called works of Faith, not of the Law; both by other Divine Wri­ters, and also by Paul; who frequently by the name of Faith understands all Offices of Charity, &c. You have here a Specimen of the Osorian Righteousness, so described A description of the Osorian Righteous­ness. by him, that Righteousness seems to consist not at all in Faith with­out Works but in Works, which are called Works of Faith not of the Law. Which Righteousness whoso wants, he denies that it is possible for him to be re­ceived into the favour of God, [...] chiefly upon this Argument; Because that Divine Na­ture [Page 88] being most holy, and most pure, and which can endure no filthiness of Iniquity, it behoveth him therefore that would enjoy the presence thereof, to conform himself unto the same Image: for there is no Communion between light and dark­ness, there is no union between the ho­liness Osor. l. 2. p. 31. of righteousness, and the wicked­ness of unrighteousness. Which seeing it is so, he therefore concludes that Luther, & they of Luther's Party do err, first in this, that they dare assert that sin in those, whom that infinite Lib. 2. p. 34. purity hath united unto it self, by a most Holy Love, is not wholly removed, nor altogether abolish'd and pluck'd up by the roots, nor all its fibers quite extirpated. And also that they affirm that a Law is laid upon us by God, which cannot be kept. In the one of which the Divine Clemency and Bounty is Pag. 39. b. distrusted: In the other, abominable reproach is cast upon his Infinite Power and God­head.

Concerning Righteousness, and its definition given by Osorius, and others.

THou hast, ingenuous Reader, the whole Model of Osorian Righteousness described in a short compend: in which, what is true and what is faulty, it remains that we should exa­mine with like brevity according to the Rules of Evangelical Doctrine, beginning first at the [Page 89] very definition of righteousness, because there­upon depends the substance of the whole Con­troversie. For so Osorius defines Righteousness, that it is a state of Soul founded on the Law of God, and that bears a clear resemblance to the immutability of the Divine Vertue. In like man­ner also Andradius not much differ­ing from him. Righteoufness, saith Andrad. lib.6. de just. p. 459 Andrad. ibid. page 461. he, is an unmoveable equity, and go­vernment of mind, which measures all its actions and counsels by the Law of God. And the same again presently: Righteousness is a habit of mind fashioned by the Divine Law to obey that Divine Law and Will, as it perswades to perform the Offices of every vertue, &C. So that I need not here gather together the de­finitions of others of the Party, of whom I find so many to be of the same Opinion, that they think a Righteous Man should be defined from works of Righteousness, just as a wise Man from Wisdom, a Musician from Musick; and other Artificers are formally denominated from the internal Skill they have in those Arts, and wherewith they are endued, as saith Tapperus; which would not Tapper. Artic. 8. de justit. pag. 18. seem very blame-worthy to me, if they understood this of the Divine Righteousness, whereby God is Righteous, or wherewith Angels are accom­plished. But as touching our Righteousness, who are Men, and Sinners, this definition hath no place here at all.

Therefore that I may answer you, An Answer whereby the definition of Osorius is con­futed. Osorius, and yours to these things, first I think you are not a little de­ceived in examining the nature of Righteousness, not that any thing is put in the definition that I call false, or that it doth not agree to the thing de­fined. For he that governs all his actions with such constant reason and equity, that in no part of his life he starts aside from truth and righte­ousness, him I do esteem to be truly Righteous, yea to be God rather, or next to God; ve­rily I find no mortal man such. Therefore herein is your errour, A two-fold sort of righte­ousness. that whereas there is a two-fold and divers sort of Righteousness set before us in Scripture, the one which is of the Law, and peculiar to God; the other which is of Faith, and peculiar to us; you are only so taken up in defining the one, that you do not at all touch upon the other, a­bout which the chiefest matter of Controversie is here: And so you proceed in setting forth the perfect excellency of the Divine Righte­ousness, and justly so indeed to be accounted of, that in the mean while you leave no Righte­ousness to Man at all. For what Righteousness shall Man have, if Righteousness be so strictly defined, that it cannot consist, but of works of perfect Righteousness, nor be communicated but only to perfect men? For now seeing no men are so perfect in this World, but that this miserable depravation of our Nature [Page 91] is far from this exactness, and there is none (as Augustine witnesseth) as long as he is in this life, who pretends Aug. de tempore Serm. 49. himself to be just in the sight of God. By necessary Consequence it follows, that either there is no Righteousness of ours at all in this life, or it must be another than that which your defini­tion thus circumscribes to us; for thus you de­fine it.

That it is an excellent state of mind conformed by the Divine Law, founded Osor. lib. 5. pag. 114. a. b. upon Divine Prescription, free from all wickedness, and coming near in its re­semblance to the Divine Nature, &C. And in­deed in that state we were Created in the beginning. But we have lost it long since, neither are we yet perfectly restored, but we shall be restored at length by the Divine power and bounty of Christ, on the day that this our corruption shall put on incorruption, and this mortal body shall rise again to immortality. In which state of Aug. de tempore, Serm. 49. Resurrection we believe with Augustin, that we shall fulfill Righte­ousness, that is, we shall have com­pleat Righteousness. In Comparison of that Resurrection, saith he, the whole life, that we now live is but dung, &c. And where now is that excellent habit of mind, coming so near in its resemblance to the Divine Nature? Where is that constant equity of reason, and moderation of mind free from all sin? Or what do you think [Page 92] of this life, which Isaiah calls a menstruous cloth, and Augustin Isaiaeb 1. 64. calls dung, if it be compared with that which is true Righteousness.

Whereby you do evidently discern, as I sup­pose, what comes of this your famous Theolo­gical Theory of Righteousness; for if there is no way of entring into the Kingdom of life but by Righteousness, and no Righteousness (ac­cording to your Opinion) can consist but of a perfect observance of the Divine Law, and dignity of works, what follows then? You must either deny that we are sinners in this life, and assert that we are righteous by works; or if according to Scripture you confess us to be sinners, you must despoil us of all righteousness, and shut us out of the Kingdom of God? And what will you say to Augustin, who esteems all the Righteousness of this life as dung? What will you say to Isaiah, Isa. 64. Phil. 3. who says, it is as a menstruous cloth? What will you say to Paul, who accounted it as loss? What will you say to Christ, who calls them that acquit themselves most righteously, not only Servants, but also unprofitable Servants, if Luke 17. Psel. 115. Romans 3. Iohn 1. Iames 3. the Scripture evidently testifies that every man is a Lyar: If the belo­ved Evangelist condemns him for a Lyar, who would seem to himself to be free from sin: If (according to the Te­stimony of Paul) we have come short of the glory of God. If, as Iames testifies, in many things we offend all; if most holy Men in [Page 93] Prayer cry daily, forgive us our sins; if Augustine doth manifestly Aug. de perfect. ju­stitiae. deny that any man, after he hath obtained the remission of sins, hath lived so righteously in this flesh, or that he doth live so righteously, that he hath no sin at all: If with one mouth the publick consent of the most approved Fathers testifies the same; if moreover continual private con­fessions, if Conscience it self, which is as a thousand Witnesses, convince even thy self to be a perpetual sinner, darest thou, who art a sinful man, confuted by thy own works, dream yet of the righteousness of works, and promise Heaven to thy self, and others by works? And doth not Luke 18. the example of the Pharisee in the Gospel affright you, who having been deceived by a false Opinion of his own Righteousness, and who whilst flattering himself, he thought he was not like other men, &c. He was yet so far from that which he perswaded himself concerning himself, that he went away worse than those whom he most despised in Compa­rison of himself. But how much more mo­destly would you behave your self, if with a humble meekness restraining that insolency of Spirit, you would either frame your self to the Example of David, who durst not come forth into the presence of God, or would put on that most humble mind of Tertullian, who comparing his Life with another Man, thou art a Sinner, saith he, like me, yea, a less [Page 94] Sinner than I, for I acknowledge a pre-eminence in my sins, &c. At Tertul. lib. de paenitentia. least you might and ought to be admonished by the sharp rebuke of the Laodiceans, who when they had highly flattered themselves with a false perswasion of their own righteousness, which they took upon them by works; They did not in any other thing more displease the Apoc. 3. Divine Iudgment; therefore Au­gustin said right, let no man flatter himself: Let Man take Sin, which is his own, and let him leave Righteousness to God, &c.

But what is that, let him leave Righteousness to God; but aban­doning August. in Iohn, Hom. 48 all Righteousness of works, to confess our selves to be that which we are, sinners, and God only to be just? Which also Saint Paul doth more evi­dently confirm in these words; to declare his Righteousness, that he may be just, and the justifier of him who Romans 3. Believe in Iesus. In which a two­fold manner of Righteousness presents it self unto us; of which the one is Divine, and is attri­buted to God only; the other is only referred to men. That therefore is peculiar to God, this is called our Righteousness; but what dif­ference is between this and that, there is no great difficulty to discern. For that which is the Righteousness of God, appears evident in all his works, and the perfect exactness of his holiness. But that which is the Righteousness of men, is received by Faith only; not that [Page 95] faith in acting is wholly without works, but because in justifying, works do nothing before God, and that is it which the Apostle seems to to intend in these words: saying, for this pur­pose that he may be just, and the justifier of him, that is of the faith Rom. 3. of Iesus Christ, &c. For this purpose, saith he, that he may be just; how is he just? by faith? no, but by works; that thou mayest be justified in thy say­ings, Psalm 51. Rom. 3. God is justi­fied one way, and men are justified be­fore God a­nother way. and mayest overcome when thou art judged. But now what way are we justified? by works? not at all, but by Faith. Concern­ing which the Apostle: A justifier of him who is of the faith of Iesus Christ, &c. He said not, him that behaved himself well by working, but him that is of the faith of Iesus Christ Whence a Disciple being witness, whosoever shall believe in Christ with a direct and intent faith, it follows by necessary consequence that this Man is esteemed Righteous, and is justified before God. For otherwise, to what purpose should God be said to justifie us by Faith, or what need would there be here of any mention of faith at all, if holy works of themselves were sufficient to make up a Righteousness?

By all which, things being thus deduced and confirmed, it is easie to understand what should be judged of this your definition. For if there is no other Righteousness, but that which by your definition is placed in holy works, and a [Page 96] perfect obedience to the Law of God: it thence follows, that either Nothing hin­ders us to be both Righte­ous and Sin­ners insa dif­ferent ac­count. Sinners in our selves. Righteous in Christ. we are not tainted with any sins at all, or that we must necessarily confess that we are excluded from all possession of Righteousness. Both of which are false; for though Sin and Righteousness, in respect of one and the same thing, through a mutual Antithesis, whereby they are opposed one against another, cannot come together, yet nothing hinders, but we may be both Sinners, and also Righteous upon a different account. You will say, how can that be? If you know not, (my good Friend,) I will tell you, and in a word, that you may understand the more expeditiously. We are Sinners in our selves, we are Righteous inChrist. Hereunto belongs the Mystery of Christ the Son of God given to us by his Father, that he with all his works and benefits may become wholly ours, for our right, and for our advantage. So he is said by the Isaiah 9. Prophet to be born; so he is said to be given, not to himself, but to us: So he was Righteous, so he fulfilled the Law, so he died and rose again, that his life might be to us Righteounsness, his death might be Redemption, and his Resurrection might be Life and Glory. Moreover, whatsoever is Christ's, yea, whatso­ever Christ. is, is not so much his own as yours; O Osorius! as mine, Whole Christ is ours. and as it is all ours that by Faith are Iesus Christ's. Therefore our [Page 97] Salvation consists of the Redemption purchas'd by another, and not of our works. For herein shines forth the more than stupendious mercy, and un­speakable Grace of a most tender hearted God, that he even dedicated his only begotten Son wholly to our advantage, that so whatsoever was performed by him, was performed not for his sake, but for ours; neither had it respect to him who had no private need, but it re­dounds as a publick good to us all, Christ bears our publick person before the Father. because he sustains the publick per­son of All before his Father. Where­fore if you desire to know, what is our Righteousness! Paul and Peter will shew it to you much better than it was defined by you. For our Righteousness is Christ, our righ­teous Lord, through whose name, as What is our Righteous­ness accord­ing to Paul. many as believe in his name, receive Remission of sins. What more, I pray you, would you require unto perfect Righteousness, than that sins may never be imputed, and that the punish­ments due to your sins may never be inflicted on you?

Concerning Inherent and Imputed Righ­teousness.

BUT perhaps it is not enough to you, that the sins you committed are not imputed to you, but that nothing may be committed, which may be justly imputed. And for that [Page 98] cause you think no man should be reckoned among the Iust, but he, whose life being upon all accounts untainted, is conformable to the perfect rule of the Law, having abolished the foot-steps of all sins. And indeed Osor. de just. lib. 2. lib. 7. p. 187. lib. 9. p. 228. that should be wished for, if wishes in this case could do any good: But you will say that it is not difficult to the Infinite Power of the Almighty God, to give strength to perform it to those that ask it of him: And again there is not any thing more unsuitable to his Infinite Equity, and less Osor. de just. lib. 2. lib. 7. p. 187. lib. 9. p. 228. honour able to his Infinite Goodness, than that he should command his Ser­vants those things, which he knows cannot be observed by them.

But in answer, First, If those things cannot be kept by us, which are commanded by God, that comes not to pass through any default of his, but through our default: who being at first created by him, God com­mands not any thing which cannot be observed by men, ac­cording to the opinion of Osorius it is no fault in God, if he command those things which cannot be kept by us. very good, brought this disability upon our selves, and threw our selves into that necessity of sinning. And then what if it so seemed good to his Omnipotent Wisdom, to do thus for a Declaration of his own Righteousnes, as St. Paul teaches, for this purpose that he should be Righ­teous? that is, that his Righteousnes might by this means become the more evident through our unrigh­teousness, which could not other­ways have been, unless he only had, Rom. 3. [Page 99] been declared to be Righteous, and we upon the same account Unrighteous according to Works. Which if it had not been so, what need had there been, why There had been no need for God to Iustifie us by Faith, if we could be justified by works, de justit. lib. 4. pag. 90. he should justifie us by Faith, whom he had seen to be righteous and perfect by Works?

Yea, you say there is very great need of faith, and you add a reason: Because all the means of destroying and restraining Lust consists in the Grace of God alone, which must be obtained by Faith: and there is no other way shewed to extinguish and destroy it. There­fore Pag. 105. Preparation for Righte­onsness. Faith, as you say, prepares the Mind for Righteousness, and makes it fit, that the great author of all good things should bring into it the seed of righteous­ness.

What? And does Faith nothing but prepare us for Righteousness? But now, what way does it prepare? Because, say you, the Grace of God is obtained by Faith and the merit of Christ. But proceed; what follows after? For it is God only, by whose Almighty Power and Bounty we break the force of Lust, and restrain all its importunity, and maintain the perfect Offices of Vertue, &c. Who ever denied, that it is God only that can do those things? But what say you. O good friend? Is our whole Salvation and Righteousness in the sight of God, contained in that only, in driving out of the Mind those little Heats of all evil Lusts, whereof you speak, [Page 100] in abolishing the roots of all vices, and in main­taining duely and constantly the office of perfect Vertue.

How far the Works of Human Life are from the perfection of Righteousness.

But now, do you your self perform all these things, which you require in us for the perfection of righteousness? Hath the great Husbandman watered the happy ground of your mind, with so great a vigor and ver­dure of his bounty, that no wild Vines nor Briars do any where appear in all your life? That no Lust draws you aside from your duty? No perturbation of affections throws you down from your state of constancy? No concupisence of the eyes defiles the purity of your mind? He that seeth a Wo­man, Mat. 5. Whatsoever things the law [...] it saith to those that are in the law, that every mouth may be stop­ped and all the World may be guilty before God. saith he, to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his Heart. What if a man is accounted unchast before God, if so much as his Eyes are Adulterous, if he is next to a Mur­therer that is so much as rashly an­gry at his Brother; if he that calls his Brother Racha, or bespat­ters the name of his Neighbour R. 3. with the smallest reproach, is in dan­ger [Page 101] of the Council; what shall be said to him, who hath poured forth, not only volumes of reproaches, but Cart-loads of spiteful speeches against his Brethren and fellow Servants, with so much virulency and gall of bitterness? So that I need not here go through all the Precepts of the Divine Law, as concerning loving God above all, concerning the strictest love to our Neighbour, concerning shunning offences, put­ing up injuries, praying for enemies, the abdi­cation of this World, the framing the Life to a Dove-like simplicity, and other such like things. Which things, seeing they are so various in kind, and so difficult in the observation; I would know of you, not what ought to be done, but what you your self do express in deeds: Not what the Divine Grace is able to do in you, but what it does in effect: Whether he heaps you up with so many and so great gifts of his, that you are able to perform all things, that are written in the royal Law. Which if you can avouch so to be, I willingly congratu­late your happiness, and I am not at all against your obtaining by way of merit, that which your works do merit, but that you may go up to the Kingdom, and may take your self Un­pinioned Wings, as Arnobius saich wherewith you may go happily to Heaven, and 'may fly to the Stars, where you may reign with Christ, and you only, all other sinners being shut out, may with God overcome, when you are judg­ed. But in the interim here it comes into my mind to ask you a thing, How will this [Page 102] consist with that which the Church Rev. 15. 4. The Ecclesi­astical Hymn, thou only are holy. Hierom. ad Ctesiphon­tem. Dial. 2. sings in a holy Hymn, and sings so aright: Thou only art holy? For how shall he only have the praise of that thing, as saith Hierom, which he hath common to himself with many? What if you think there is no difference between his Righteous­ness and ours, and you suppose there is no Righ­teousness but what proceeds chiefly from Works; either let your life shew to us the same Works, which Christ wrought, or if you cannot, let him only have the honour of this Ti­tle, that Christ only may be righteous, and Oso­rius may confess himself to be unrighteous and à sinner, that now that saying may truely have place here, which just now I cited out of Augustine. Let man take sin, Aug. in Io. Hom. 49. to himself, which is his own, and leave Righteousness to God.

But, you will say, what then, is there no Righteousness which belongs to men? I do not deny that there is, but it is such a righteousness, as must be sought elsewhere than in works. But you may say, where then? Not only I, but also St. Paul will tell you, the Righteousness of God, saith he, to all, and upon all that believe. And again in the Rom. 3. same Epistle: The Gentiles which followed not after Righteousness, laid hold on Righteousness, to wit, the Righ­teousness of Faith: On the contra­ry, Rom. 9. Israel which followed after the [Page 103] Law of Righteousness, attained not unto the Law of Righteousness. Why so? Because they sought it not by Faith, but as by the Works of the Law. And writing to the Galatians, knowing, saith he, that a man is not justified by the Works of the Law, but by the Gal. 2. Faith of Iesus Christ, we also believe in Iesus Christ, that we may be justified by the Faith of Iesus Christ, and not by the Works of the Law, because no flesh shall be justified by the Works of the Law, &c. who is so dim­sighted but he may clearly see what the mean­ing of the Apostle is in these words? Where­fore I the more wonder with my self, how great a stupidity darkens the minds of some of our own Country-men, and especially those Iesuits, who in a thing so perspicuous yield not unto A­postolick Authority, so that they seem to have sallied out of some Trophonian Den, for no other purpose, but that waging War with St. Paul, they may differ wholly from him in their opinion. For what things can more fiercely encounter than such 1 Cor. 1. Rom. 4. Rom. 11. Hab. 2. an opposition as this, Christ is our Righteousness? Faith is impu­ted for Righteousness: If of Work, then Grace is not Grace. The Iust lives by Faith. And after this manner doth the Apostle and Prophet instruct us. What, say they? We are Iustified by Rom. 4. Gal. 3. 2 Tim. 1. Ephes. 2. Works, and yet Grace is no less Grace. The Iust doth not live by Faith, but the Believer Liveth by the righteousness of [Page 104] Works. And whereas Paul doth so attribute our Righteousness to Tit. 3. Rom. 11. Phil. 3. Rom. 4. Rom. 9. Faith only, that he attributes no­thing to Works, so often repeat­ing these exclusive words, without works, apart from works, not ac­cording to works. If it is Grace, then it is not of Works: That I may be found in him, not having my own Righteousness, which is of the Law, but that which is of the Faith of Iesus Christ: To him that believeth in him that Iustifies the Ungodly, Faith is imputed unto Righteousness: also placing Iews and Gentiles as in a Scheme, that by experience it self it may be evident how hazardous it is, to seat the hope of Salvation any otherways than in the Faith of Christ only. On the contrary, those men overthrowing all these sayings of Paul, endeavour this only by all the means they can, that they may measure the whole sum of our Iustification by the performance of Works, and not by Faith; that they may take away all imputation of the Righteousness of another from us, that Faith may no more contribute any thing to Righteousness, but that it may render us worthy and fit, on whom the Divine Grace should. confer freely for the Merit of Christ, the first infusion Concil. Tri­dent. Sess. 6. of inherent Righteousness. By which new qualities being received for the Merit of Christ, now man himself by that inherent Righteousness (as their words ex­press it) merits a greater and fuller righteous­ness, reconciliation and adoption, and at length [Page 105] Life Eternal. Moreover, they proceed so far, that they assert, there is no Righteousness at all, but that which is peculiar to every man, and they so define it, that in all the nature of Righteousness there is no place at all for faith, and there appears not A definition of rig hteous­ness accord­ing to the Ie­suits of Colo­nia. Censur. Coloniensis 186 frat Alpbonsus Philip 4. p. 34. so much as any mention thereof. For thus they define it, the righ­teousness of God, which is reveal­ed in the Gospel, is a vertue in God which distributes to every one according to their deserving. Al­phonsus adds, Evangelical righteous­ness is an equal proportion of merits to re­wards.

I beseech you, Pious Reader, those that pro­fess such vile and absurd things, will any man suppose that they have been exercised with se­rious meditation at any time in the holy Scrip­tures, or that they have not rather bestowed their whole age and wits in Heathenish and Ari­stotelian trifles? But now it will not [...] amiss to take notice with what props of reason they confirm these their opinions.

Against the Iesuits and their Topick Argu­ments, whereby they confirm Inherent Righ­teousness out of Aristotle.

WHAT, say they, have you not at any time read that form of Argum. ex Topicis Aristot. 1 Cor. 1. 2 Cor. 5. Rom. 4. 3. reasoning in Aristotle? He is righ­teous, therefore he is endued with righteousness; Such a man is learned, therefore he hath learning? We have read it, Say they, in the Topicks of Aristotle. That is true indeed. But have ye not also at any time read in the Epistles of Paul, these forms of speaking, Christ is our Righteousness? We are made the righteousness of God by him? faith is imputed unto righteous­ness? Answer to the Iesuitical quibbles. the Iust shall live by faith? What then? Shall we believe Ari­stotle more than Paul? We believe Fishermen, Saith Ambrose, not Logicians. And should we translate our Faith, which we owe to God with faithful Abraham unto men that are Sophisters? But now, lest those Iesuits should say, that they are not answered, let us look more nearly into the force of their argu­ment, and pierce them through with their own Dart. They deny that ever this external attribu­tion was heard of since the World was; that a thing should receive a name extrinsically from qualities, that can be within, so that they should be accounted righteous before God, not by inherent qualities, [Page 107] but the righteousness of another, to wit, Christs, which is applyed to us by Faith, &c. And in­deed this Reason taken out of Aristotle, might perhaps be of some force, if they had omitted these words (before God.) But now seeing there is a twosold and divers righteousness, the one which is called the righteousness of the Law, the other which is called the righteous­ness of Faith; and seeing the judgments of God and the judgments of men do differ, they do foolishly and ridiculously argue from hu­mane things to divine, from the righteousness of the Law, to the righteousness of Faith; for men are not justified in the sight of God upon the same account that they are esteemed righ­teous before men. Yea, oft-times it happens otherways, that those whom this World does most cry up, and judges just by their inherent qualities, God condemns the same men chiefly of unrighteousness out of those very same qua­lities: and so on the contrary part, Men judge by qualities, but God judgeth o­therwise. This may easily appear evident by the Example of the Pharisee and the Publican, either of which if they were to be valued according to the inherent merits of their life, what cause was there, I beseech you, why the Publican should go home more righteous than the Pharisee?

Even as with a like diversity the Scripture sometimes names them dead, whom humane Philosophy would judge to be alive, and in perfect health. Suffer ye, Saith he, the dead to bury their dead. But pray how dead? who, [Page 108] unless they were alive, they could not bury their dead? What shall we then say? that the Scrip­ture lyes, in calling them dead, which were alive? Or does that Iesuitical Rule rather lye, which judges those alive by reason of their in­herent qualities, whom the Scripture calls dead? How shall these things, so contrary to one ano­ther, agree together? But that it is one thing to live, to be dead, and to be righteous be­fore God, and another thing before Men. The Books of Holy Scripture are full of such Ex­amples, and they have been often heard of and seen by Men; and yet after all these things, those pleasant Gymnosophists deny, that this external attribution was ever heard of since the World was, that a thing should receive a name extrinsecally from qualities, whose nature is to be within. Is it so indeed that this was not heard of since the beginning of the World? what do I hear? have ye not then, good men, read these words of the Apostle in the Holy Scriptures of God? By the disobedience of one man many were made sinners; and again, by the obedience of one man many shall be made Righteous. I pray you, what is the meaning of these words, by the disobedience of one many are sinners? Again, by the obedience of one many are righteous? Does this attribution seem internal to you, or rather external? was that rebellion peculiar to Adam, or was it ours? If it was ours, how was it ours, but by external impu­tation? What? when you hear these words of the Apostle: He made Christ to become sin [Page 109] for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God through him, 2 Cor. 5. &c. Did either of us receive from qualities that can be said to be within; he, that he was made sin, or we, that we are called and made righteousness through him? Moreover, what is that, when the Publican in the Gospel is said to have gone to his house justified rather than the Pharisee? what was the cause why the one went away justified, and the other went a­way unjustified? I think it came not so to pass by a habit of inherent righteousness, but upon this account rather, because the Publican con­fessed his own unrighteousness, therefore of wicked he is made righteous; the other, be­cause he seemed righteous to himself, through a false opinion of his own righteous­ness, was manifested to be unrigh­teous Prov. cap. 8. according to the testimony of Holy Scripture: The Righteous Man no sooner speaks than he accuses himself; and in another place, confess thy sins, that thou mayest be justi­fied; therefore that aying of Augustine seems wor­thy of Praise; this is the true way to perfection, if every man acknow­ledge Aug. ad Boniface, lib. 3. cap. 7. in truth, and confess in humi­lity his own impersection. And Bernard spake no less to the purpose, who bids us consider the Pharisee praying; he was no Robber, said he, nor unjust, nor an Adulterer, nor careless of Fastings, nor un­mindful of the poor, nor unthankful to God, what then was wanting?

This one thing was wanting, that Bernard in Dominic. Serm. 3. he took no care to know what was wanting to him, but made the most of his own merit, and therefore re­turned empty. On the contrary, the Publican, who emptied himself, and took care to bring an empty vessel, received the more plentiful grace.

By these things I suppose it is By what Righteous­ness they are justified be­fore God, by Christs, or our own. sufficiently evident, what this Righ­teousness is, and of what sort, which makes us righteous before God, whether it is Christs or ours? If it is Christs, it is not ours? How then of works of our righteousness? If it is ours, it is not Christs: how is a man of wicked made righteous? If of wicked he is made righteous, that I may speak in the words of Augustine, what are the Aug. in Psal. 31. works of wicked men? Let the wicked man now boast of his works, I give to the Poor, I take nothing away from any man, &c. then thou art in this thy boast wicked, and thy works are none. These things said he, therefore it is a false Opinion, which men plead for, to wit, that a man cannot be cal­led righteous by an external righteousness. Nei­ther is it less Ass-like which those Balqamites do bray, who say, that it is the same thing for a man to be thus Righteous; as if a man should say, an Ass with the form of an Ass is a Mon; for by Faith we are called faithful, and by righteousness weare called righteous, &c. Be it so indeed, that no Man should rightly be called righteous, but upon [Page 111] the account of Righteousness; what then, see­ing Christ is our righteousness, is there not sufficient cause upon that account why we should be called righteous? should any man require a better righteousness than that which is Christs? And what form of expressing, though external, can hinder, but that the righteousness which is peculiar to Christ, may also be called ours, and may be common both to him and us, especially seeing he is wholly ours with his merits, ver­tues, benefits, and all his goods? Christ is wholly ours, with all his good things. which qualities, though they are not properly in our selves, yet being received from him, they pass like­wise into our possession. As the Bodies of the Stars and Planets, though dark of themselves, yet they shine and are made bright, not with their own, but anothers light, to wit, being inlightned with the light of the Sun; just so it comes to pass to us, that we are made Righteous, Kings, Priests, Sons and Heirs of God, not by any property of our nature or condition of works, but because the Son and Heir himself is said to be made Sin and a Curse for us, not for any sin inherent in him, but im­puted to him.

Argument. But here again, and a­gain those impure Sophisters object, As Christ was made sin, so we are made righ­teous. But Christ was not made sin by inherent sin. Therefore we also are not made righteous by inherent rightcousness. that this was never heard from Ari­stotle, and that it is not agreeable to reason, that he should be called [Page 112] learned, that hath no learning, or righteous, that is not endued with righteousness. And perhaps that may seem true in moral vertue: Now seeing there is a twofold righteousness, as I have said, one which they call Ethick, a­nother which is Theological, that consists in manners, this in faith; we must judge far other­wise of this than of that. For the righteous­ness of which Aristotle treats, as it is a moral vertue distinguished from prudence, courage, and temperance, thus it is referred to the ha­bits of the mind and internal qualities, accord­ing to which men are denominated of what sort they are by Philosophers.

And though we confess this to be true in some respect, it doth not at all hurt our cause nor discourage our enterprize in clearing this point.

For all this Controversie undertaken by us drives at this, that we should search for a righ­teousness, which is no moral humane vertue, but which is a Spiritual Grace and gift of God, which is not ours, but which is proper to Christ; whence he only is called holy and just, and we are called justified in him, not upon the account of works, but faith, which God im­putes for righteousness unto them that believe in his name. And hence it is rightly called the righteousness of faith, and there­fore The Righte­ousness of Faith. faith it self is righteousness; whereby we are accounted righ­teous before God, being endued not with that external righteousness, about which those men Philosophize, but being beau­tified [Page 113] and adorned with a peculiar and most in­ternal righteousness, which being so, who sees not that it is false and sophistical which those men take out of Aristotle; that we are justified by works, or should upon no account be called just? why so? because no man can be called just but upon the account of the righteousness, which every man possesses for his own in himself. For thus do those sharp-witted Men argue, who cannot endure the free justification of Faith. To whom, that I may make answer, let us hear this first from them: Whether faith, whereby we believe in Christ, seems to them a vertue or not? If they judge so, Internal and inherent righteousness whereby we are justified according to the Gospel. I ask whether it is a moral vertue, or a theological? And then whe­ther it is internal, and inherent, being inwardly placed, or whether it should be called external? If faith is an internal thing, and the same is our righte­ousness in the fight of God. Why then should not this seem an allowable form of arguing a­gainst the Iesuites, who deny that we are other­wise justified than by internal and inherent righteousness?

It is [...] by the Example of Adam, that Christ's Righteousness is ours.

PErhaps the thing will appear more evident by Example. Let us look upon Adam, and in him let us behold the publick calamity of our Nature: And also let us contemplate Salvation restored again by the second Adam, from the ruine received by the first.

For, if the Doctrine and Force of contra­ries be the same, according to Philosophers, it will be more easie by that means from the Evil of the one, to judge of the advantages of the other. Then let us compare both Adams with one another, The first Earth­ly A compari­son of Adam and Christ. of the Earth, with this second Heavenly from Heaven! Who though in their whole Nature they are most different one from another: Yet by the singular Wisdom of God, it so comes to pass, that there is a wonderful resemblance between things that differ very much and the reason of our Salvation being restored, [Page 119] agrees most aptly with the reason of the ruine received.

First, in this, that both were Originally Princes, and Authors of our Propaga­tion, one of the Earthly and the The former Adam, a Type of the second. Rom. 5. other of the Heavenly. And then afterwards there was added another thing in which he was a wonderful Type and Image of Christ who was to come a long time after. How that came to pass we shall very well learn of Paul himself. As, saith he, by the Disobedience of one Man many were made Sinners: So by the Obedi­ence of one, many shall be made Righteous: and doubling the same again and again in many words: As, faith he, by one Man Sin entred into the World, and by Sin Death came upon all Men, in that all have Sinned, &c. And presently: If therefore by the Sin of one Man, Death came upon all Men to Condemnation; in like manner by the Iustification of one Man, good is propagated unto all Men to the Iustification of Life. What is more clear than these words of the Apostle? The whole force and summ of the Argument drives at this, that the true Nature of our Righteousness is not due to our Vertues, but we must be beholden for it to the merit of another. Setting before us such a sense as this by Argument.

The Objection of Osorius is Answered, where the Imitation of Christ is discoursed of at large.

Who denies or is Ignorant of that, O Osorius? Who is so void of all Religion and Object. Osor. pag 180. Answer. Sense, but is ready of his own ac­cord, and with his whole Heart to confess that very thing to you; which that you may persuade; you do not only explain, but also draw forth all the force and efficacy of Speech that you can upon it with so much earnestness and vehemency? First, who is so Ignorant, but knows what we received from both our Parents, of which you dispute so prolixly? The thing it self, and the experience of all things does abundantly make it evident into what deceits and straits, into what a gulf of miseries the former hath brought us into: So on the contrary, how many, and how great good things have proceeded from the other [Page 136] Father; I think it is unknown to no Man. Whose acts for us if we consider, what is more excellent? If the greatness of his bene­fits, what more Divine? If his Life it self every way perfect with all purity of the greatest Vertues, what more admirable? Unto whose example, as the most perfect rule for imitation, seeing you invite us so earnestly; I must needs both willingly approve of your Piety therein, and also give you thanks upon this account for your diligence. And so much the more, upon the account that the unhappy calamity of these times does so greatly need such incitements, which I know not by what means, having obliterated the footsteps of the Heavenly Adam, seem to have degenerated again unto the Earthly Father, with a perfect conspiracy. Wherefore, I could the rather with to these manners and times, that those things which are very well discoursed of by you, concerning following the Example of Christ, concerning the resembling of his Death, concerning imitating his Divine Life; may pierce not only the Ears of Men, but also the most inward parts of their minds. For what is more solid for Advice, or more seasonable for the Time, than that which you so much enlarge upon, with a plentiful am­plification of Words; that every Man ac­cording to his power should propose unto himself Christ the chiefest Example of all Vertue, and Master of Life, for Imitation and Resemblance: That having rooted out the filth and relicks of the Old Nature; [Page 137] He may drive away very far from him with a resolved and magnanimous Spirit all Taints of impurity: And because, The imitati­on of Christ is very ne­cessary for all. as you say, we cannot be in the middle between the two, therefore it remains, that having forsaken the party of the body, we should so fight under the banner of Christ our Prince, we should so subdue the body it self, by the power of his saving Crosi; all rebellion of the body should so be overcome in us, that this unbridled lust, which maintains ever­lasting enmity against God, may at length yield to his command; and that we may not lessen any endeavour, or labour howsoever great in this most holy observance of Iustice, and imitation of Christ.

As these things are proposed by you, most ex­cellent Osorius, no less Holily than Eloquently; so I would that in like manner your Rhetorick might make a suitable Harmony concerning the Imitation of Christ, in the Ears of the Roman Bishops and Cardinals: That these Men, having abdicated the perishing and transitory Wealth of this World, with which they overflow beyond all measure of their own profession, and also above royal magnificence, may at length think of the poverty of Christ, that they may di­minish their Possessions, and large Inheritances heaped together, their Diadems, and their other regalities; I say, not according to the example of the Ancient Philosophers, but ac­cording to the contentation of the most Holy Apostles; that seriously rejecting the luxury, and superfluity of this Life, their vain glory, [Page 138] their needless vanities and trifles may at length cease to be conform to the wicked fashions of this World: And that laying aside all haughtiness and pride of Life, they may sub­mit themselves to the humility of Christ, and restrain and compose the exorbitancy of their Minds and Spirits: And laying down this Popish Cruelty and Tyranny, learn to become meek of Christ, that most per­fect pattern of meekness, Learn, saith he, of me, because I am meek Matt. 11. and lowly of Spirit. I do not re­quire that those Roman Priests should wash the Feet of the Poor according to the example of Christ, but that they should not embrue their cruel Hands in the Blood of their Brethren; neither do I require that they should give Water to refresh the Disciples of Christ, but that they should not heap up Flames and Faggots to burn their Bodies, nor lay Snares for them, or devise to entrap them privily, design their ruine and destruction, furnish Darts and Weapons to slay them, for whom Christ was Sacrificed, and by whom they themselves were never hurt.

If Example should be taken from Christ, I pray you, what doth the Divine Father and Creator commend more unto us? what else doth his whole life breath but mutual Charity, both towards Friends, and also towards Enemies? Who not only doth not break the shaken and bruised Reed, but upon the Cross Charitv the bond of per­fection. Colos. 3. prays for his very Crucifiers.

Therefore we have an example singularly excellent, which we may [Page 139] imitate. We have also together with an ex­ample, a commendation by the mouth of the A­postle, by whom Charity is called the bond of perfection. Moreover there is not wanting the Preaching of Divines, who in their Books, in their Exercises, in their Sermons, do attribute so much to Charity, that they call It the form, the perfection, and the very life of faith, with­out which there is no other vertue, that can be helpful to Salvation: And now I need not here in many words declare what agreement there is between the Doctrine of those great extollers of Charity, and the practice of their lives; seeing there are so many proofs before our eyes, so many ten thousands of men slain do witness it, and so great abundance of Christian blood shed; there is so great outrage of Persecution every where; there is nothing safe from slaugh­ter, fury, tumult, snares, contentions, dan­gers, articles of Inquisition, bonds, How no sign of Charity appears in the Roman Tyranny. and imprisonments. In some places the Turk makes havock with the Sword, and elsewhere with flames and smoak. And the Fathers of the Roman Court exercise Cruelty. First, they make Laws written with blood, which afterwards they commit to Political Mo­narchs to be promulgated, and to the other Of­ficers to be executed by Law. On The Laws of the Popes are written with blood. the sudden, Citizens of good re­pute, and Learned Ministers are violently haled to examinations, and afterwards to death, if any Man dare but open his mouth against the manifest [Page 140] abuses of errours, they spare neither Age, nor Sex, nor Condition. Thus (forsooth) those perfect Roman Catholick Nobles imitate the Charity of Christ, so they follow his Divine Life, so they resemble his death, so they shew forth his meekness, so they bear the Image of the Divine Father, so they wholly and more than wholly form and fashion themselves from the imitation of the earthly Father, to the ex­ample of the Heavenly. Who justly deserve to hear from the Lord: ye are those that justifie your selves before men, but God knoweth your hearts; for that which is of high account be­fore Men, is abominable before God. What if the most Holy Popes, and purple Cardinals, those Chiefest Dignitaries of the Church, with all this your Order of Bishops, and the most strict Orders of Monks, who by Place, Dig­nity, and Profession seem to approach nearest unto Christ, and to supply his place upon earth, differ so much from him, what cause is there why we should hope better of the whole body of the common people, or that any Man should promise himself Salvation in following the footsteps of Christ? but (God willing) I shall elsewhere make enquity into this just matter of complaint.

Now let us return to you, Osorius, whose so godly and eloquent exhortations about putting on and imitating Christ, I am so far from slighting, that I desire they may remain most firmly fixed in the minds of men; for as nothing appears in the most holy manners of Christ, which is not very worthy of imitation; so no [Page 141] part of duty seems more agreeable to every Christian, than that all of us should endeavour with all our might to resemble the image pro­posed unto us; especially seeing Paul so gravely, and that in more places than one, calls us here­unto, who making a Comparison of both Fa­thers, Adam, and Christ, declares what we received of both. By Man, 1 Cor. 15. saith he, came death, and by Man came the Resurrection from the dead. And presently after, proceeding on that matter, the first Man was of the earth earthly, the second Man is the Lord from Heaven. And after­wards concluding with words to the same pur­pose, and exhorting us to imitate the example of his obedience, he subjoyns; as we have born, saith he, the image of the earthly, let us bear also the image of the heavenly. And the Apostle Peter, not differing much from Paul, proposes Christ for an Example of all long suffering; for, saith he, 1 Pet. 2. Christ also suffered for us, giving us an Example, that ye should follow his foot­steps, who did no sin, who when he was revi­led, reviled not again, when he suffered, he threatned not, but committed all judgment to his Father, &c.

Therefore, that you contend so earnestly with the Blessed Apostles for following the foot­steps of Christ, herein we do very willingly both hear you, and assent unto you. But that you place all the dignity of our Salvation in this, that you refer all the promises of God to this one head, as if there were no cause of Sal­vation, [Page 142] but that which is placed only in pre­cepts and instructions of Life, herein your dis­course seems to pass far beyond the bounds of sound and Apostolick Doctrine.

For though it is a thing of very great con­cernment, that we should frame all the en­deavours and Offices of Life to The promi­ses of God are not tyed to the imita­tion ofChrist, but to Faith. the imitation of him; yet Salva­tion is not therefore promised, because our actions agree to this rule of Righteousness, neither is the title of Righteousness given us, because we live vertuously, but because he was made Righteousness for us: For we do not become just before God by imitation, but by Regeneration. As of Old, not through our fault, but Adams, not by Imi­tation, but by Birth and Propa­gation, the pollution of his Sin A compari­son of the First and Se­cond Adam. was imputed to us unto Condem­nation. So by vertue of the Se­cond Adam, not by any power of our own, by being born again, not by imitating, is Righteousness imputed to us unto the Iustification of Life: Neither doth it therefore follow, that the examples of Christ are not proposed to us for Imita­tion.

It is one thing to reason from causes to effects, another thing to reason from effects to causes. What if the cause is enquired into, that makes us righteous before God? Paul will answer, That Christ is the Christ the external cause of justi­fication, Faith in Christ the Internal. Effects, causes. external cause, who was made Sin for us, that we might be made the Righteousness of God through him: But the Internal is our Faith in Christ; which is imputed to them that believe, forRighteousness.

But if you ask, what are the the effects of this cause? Who knows not that they are the Fruits of Pious Works, and this very imita­tion of Christ, which you so greatly (yea and so deservedly cry up and) extol? For who can rightly call himself a Christian, as you say very well, who doth not apply his mind as much as he can. to separate himself from all society of the Earthly Father, and frame and conform himself wholly to the example of the Heavenly: I grant this, to be very true, as indeed it is. For, I do not disallow of that which you do rightly assume, but I confute that, which you would falsly gather from hence. For thus you con­clude; To wit, that the whole Ma­gazine De just. lib. 7. pag. 186. of our Salvation is placed in this, that by our Pious Labour and Industry, we should purchase the King­dom of God for our selves: That they, who af­firm Faith only is sufficient for Salvation, are mad, and singularly serviceable to the Old Serpent; and that every action we undertake, is wholly [Page 144] unprofitable, if Faith only is sufficient. This is the summ of the Epilogue of this whole de­bate of yours. In which, what do you else, but by an unskilful huddle of things, and without order in disputing, turn causes into effects, and again effects into causes? What? when the Apostle Admonishes that Wives should be subject to their An argument from like things. Husbands, and acknowledge their Authority, as the Church is subject to Christ her Husband, shall she therefore, that is by a Lawful Covenant Mar­ried to her Husband, not be a Wife before there is added a testimony of due obedi­ence?

So Children, born of Creditable Parents, use to resemble them not only in the Linea­ments of their Bodies, but also in the likeness of their Manners, of whom they are begotten: What, if in some part their re­semblance fails? What if their Luk. 18. manners are dissolute? What if they have such a Son as the parable of the Gospel represents to us: Who leaving his Father, doth no part of his duty, shall he therefore cease to be a Son? Or, shall any Man by the merits of his Life attain to be a Son, who is by nature a Servant?

You may say, to what purpose are these things? That by these examples you may un­derstand, that effects depend on causes, and causes are not governed by effects. An honest Matron, carries with that subjection to her Husband that becomes her, and he on the other­side [Page 145] performs his duty in cherishing his Wife. These things follow the Conjugal bond, but they do not make it; just so it is in the Spiri­tual descent, which, like another nature, rege­nerates us to Christ, and transforms us as new Creatures into the Sons of God. Of which thing, if the cause be enquired, not Works, not Hope. not Charity, but only Faith in Christ: Not any Imitation, but Baptism being the Sacrament of Baptism a Sa­crament of Faith. Galat. 3. Faith performs it. Concerning which, let us hear Paul testifying in very evident Words. All of you, saith he, are the Sons of God through Faith in Christ Iesus. Whosoever of you are Baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. He that walks being Cloathed with Christ, What can be wanting to him, unto all Glory and Beauty of Righteousness? What can any Man desire more for the se­curity of Eternal Life? What is more bound­less than Sublimity? What is more Sublime than Nobility of Birth? What is more ex­cellent than the dignity of high degree? Than to be received not only for Ser­vants, or Dependents of the what Faith in Christ performs ac­cording to Paul. Galas. 3. Mighty God, who comprehends all things by his Power; but also as Sons. yea, and Heirs? But if you design to be taught how these so many, and so great good things come to us, Paul makes Answer: By Faith, saith he, ye are all Sons: If Sons then Heirs according to promise. And if [Page 146] you ask when that comes to pass, whether after the merits of Works, or before Works; the same Paul will teach you: As soon as you are Baptized, saith he, you have put on Christ.

To which also Chrysostom sub­scribing, saith, as soon as a Man Chrysostom. Belives, he is presently also Iusti­fied. Which if it be true, then it is false, which you assert. For you affirm that the ob­taining of Salvation consists wholly in this, that we should transform our Oso. de just. lib. 7. de just. 1. 9. p. 232. de just. 1. 6. p. 148. selves entirely into the similitude of Christ. And again youn say, there is no other way of Salvation estab­lished for us, but that which is con­tained in the Law of God. And the same you affirmed elsewhere, ha­ving openly asserted: That ascent into Hea­ven is given to the merits of the greatest Ver­tues, and that the Mansions of the Eternal Kingdom, are given justly and deservedly to Holy and Pure Men. For so, Say you, it comes to pass that the Immortal Kingdom is due by the best right to Iust Men; not only as a recompence and remard, but also as a Lawful Inheritance, being founded upon the Wisdom and Bounty of the Father.

All which things, as being represented gloriously by you, seem at a distance to have some shew of Truth, if they be referred to that Platonick Righteousness of yours, or to the state of our First Innocency. But now in this wounded and destroyed Nature, they have no place at all, but that they may wholly [Page 147] prelude from us all passages into the Eternal Mansions of the Kingdom. I know indeed that the Everlasting reward of Righteousness is due by best right to Pure and Holy Men, as you say, and those that observe the Law unblameably.

But, I know likewise that the Eternal Pun­ishments of Hell are due to those, that do not perform the Royal Law accord­ing to the Scriptures. What would Iames. 2. you do in this case, good Friend? What good can your Platonick Philosophy do here? I am not Ignorant, what the Lord said to the Rich Pharisee: If Mat. 12. you will enter into Life, keep the commands: That indeed is true. Do you then perform what he was commanded to do; Sell all that you have, and give to the Poor, and follow Christ Naked: But if you do it not, what else can you look for, but to perish together with him? But now the goodness of God hath found out another way to consult our Infirmity, who hath not only put upon us the beauty of Righ­teousness, but whole Christ, so that you may not only, being Naked, follow Christ, but that whole Christ may live in your self, and Cloath you, and also may make you a Son of God by Faith.

What then, may some Man say, is not the Holy Spirit given to them that trust in Christ, to Illuminate their minds with new light, to renew their Hearts, to enrich them plentifully with the Riches, Gifts, and En­dowments [Page 148] of good Works, and to What the re­newing of the Holy Ghost makes in us.adorn them exceedingly with all kind of Vertues? What, do these good Works nothing with God, which are performed by the influence of the most Holy Spirit? Do they contribute no­thingOso. de just. lib. 9. P. 233.towards Righteousness? have they no use nor place upon. the account of reward? For this seems to be the Foundation of all your arguing: Where you write these words; If we be­lieve De just. lib. 9. P. 234. the promises of God, we pre­sently obtain the help of God, that we may very easily do all things that are com­manded us, and so may be saved: And presently after the Interposition of a few words; You say, Faith causes us to have the Law of God Written in our mind, and so to make an everlast­ing Covenant of Salvation with the Lord. Therefore when we have the Law of God put into the most inward parts of our mind; it comes to pass, that Lust being subdued, Evil concupi­sence extinguished, the pravity of a stubborn mind taken away, the mind becomes on a sudden, a Temple of the Holy Ghost, and is stirred up with all its might, to the study of the Law of God: And that I may express it in one word, such a Man contains the Magnificence, and Glory of Divine Righteousness comprehended in his mind, And a little after you say; Therefore it is of Faith, Saith Paul, that according to Grace, the pro­mise may be firm. What manner of promise is that? That they who come to the Lord with [Page 149] the Faith of Christ, may both be freed from their Wickedness, and delivered from the Curse, whereunto they were lyable, and may have the Law of God Written in their Hearts, and have the very Divinity of the Holy Spirit comprehend­ed in their mind, and not defile their Life with any wicked deed: But may govern it by the Law of God, or as it is in Ezekiel, They may walk in the commands of God; and perform Holy and excellent works; and also that they may be Righteous: For hereunto all the promises of God are referred, &c.

Concerning the Promises of God, what, to whom, and how God hath promised.

BUT now, because here there is a conveni­entoccasion of speaking concerning the Pro­mises of God, it remains that we should hear from you, who treat of these things so sharply, what that is, which God hath promised, to whom he hath promised, how, and for what cause he doth it. Now there are both many and great Gifts of God and Ornaments partly bestowed upon us, and partly promised through the singular bounty of his Grace; yea, seeing there is nothing in this Workmanship of Na­ture, nor in the meanest things, but what we ought to acknowledge to be his free Gift, if we would be thankful: And also amongst all these things, which being so many and so great he hath conferted upon us with so liberal a hand, [Page 151] I esteem that nothing is more glorious nor more admirable, than this large honour of his Kingdom, which the Lord himself promises us in the Gospel. Fear not, saith he, little Flock, for it is the good will of your Father to give you the Kingdom. Which Paul We are be­holden to the grace of God for all bene­fits and what that is which his singular favour to­wards us is ehiefly seen. Luke 12. Daniel 7. also makes mention of, writing both elsewhere, and also to the Co­lossians: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and translated us unto the Kingdom of his dear Son, &c. Of which also Daniel, a most famous Prophet, hath given an ample Testimony; The Kingdom, saith he, and the Domi­nion, and the largeness of the Kingdoms under the whole Heaven shall be gi­ven to the People of the Saints of the most High, &c.

In which one benefit, seeing the whole Sum of our Felicity is comprehended; to wit, re­conciliation with God, imputation of Righte­ousness, remission of Sins, Peace with God, access with boldness, hope, the glo­ry Romans 5. Romans 4. Titus 3. Romans 8. of God, eternal blessedness and salvation, the Inheritance of Eter­nal Life, freedom from the accusa­tion and condemnation of the Law: On what foundation doth the free Promise of God chiefly stand. What can any Man either by de­sires wish for, or by Faith conceive more glorius? For he that is pro­moted unto the possession of a King­dom, what more can be added to him, unto the highest splendour [Page 152] of Glory, and the degree of the most honour­able Dignity?

Therefore we have, as you see, O Osorius, the hereditary Mansions of the Eternal Kingdom promised to us, and that not of Works, but of Faith; not according to Bargain, but according to Grace, and therefore according to Grace, that the Promise may be firm and sure to all the Seed.

It is a very weighty Cause, and Authority not to be contemned: For what is more firm for all manner of security, than that which relies on the certain faithfulness of God, and a free promise? On the contrary, what is more un­stable than that which depends on the most un­certain condition of our Works, which are ei­ther for the most part evil, or always uncer­tain? Why then wilt thou cast us again out of the most firm safeguard of most sure confidence proposed to us, which rests most safely in the free bounty of God promising, as if thou dro­vest us out of a Haven of Tranquil­lity procured for us, to be tossed in Theassurance of confidence and persua­sion from the free promise of God. the tempestuous Waters and Straits of Diffidence and Desperation? And do you make those things doubtful and uncertain, which through the bounty of God, we do as it were hold in our hands with a most assu­red Faith, so that now there is not any thing certain which a man may satisfie his own Soul about touching Salvation? for, I pray you, what can be certain, if so be the Grace of the Promise being taken away, if Imputation of Righteousness being neglected, which is placed [Page 153] in Christ for us, the whole matter is brought to the account of our actions? and you plead that we are not otherways righteous before God, than by performing the Offices of the Divine Law?

Objection. But (you will say) What, hath not God promised in Iere­remiah Osor. de just. 1. 9. pag. 234. and Ezekiel, to those that come to God by Faith, that they shall have his Law written in their mind, that they shall have the very presence of the Holy Ghost with­in their mind, and defile their life with no sin, but govern it by the Law of God, and walk in the Pre­cepts of God, and perform excellent and holy works, and moreover that they shall be righteous? &c.

Ans. 1. As touching the promise of the Spirit of God, it is very true, what you cite out of Ieremiah: For God in his bounty hath promi­sed, that he will write his Law not only in Tables of Stone, as before, but in the inward Tables of their minds, and indeed accordingly he hath performed, and doth perform daily what he hath promised. And what doth your Logical reasoning gather Ibid. p. 233. thence?

Therefore, say you, seeing we have the Law of God put into our inward Lib. 9. p. 232. Two Para­doxes of Oso­rius, both of which are false. parts, it comes to pass, that giving cre­dit to the promises of God, we do pre­sently obtain the help of God, that we may very easily do all things that are commanded us, and so be saved, &c.

Therefore by these many things, which have been hitherto mentioned by you concerning the Law and its Office, I perceive you have two Opinions, both of which are false. First, That you affirm that we being supported by the Grace of God, and guarded by his help, can very easily perform all things, whatsoever are commanded by the Law of God. Secondly, Be­cause you plead that all the nature of our Righ­teousness and Salvation consists in performing God's Commands; and that there is no other way to Heaven but that which is contained in the Law of God: Both which Reasons of yours, how absurd they are, how contrary to the Grace of God and the Gospel, and how much disallowed and confuted, not only by all Authority of Divine Scripture, but also long since contradicted by the sayings of the most Antient Fathers, and how void of all support of reason and experience, there is no Man that hath so little Reason or Religion, but evidently perceives it, and clearly takes notice of it. For, though we do not deny that by the help of the grace of the Divine Spirit there are wonderful, various, and manifold effects produced, and great gifts are shed abroad in the minds of the Regenerate, for governing all parts of Life piously and holily; but whence, I pray you, will you teach that so great strength, and so great power to observe Righteousness is given by God, and committed unto mortal Man, which may be sufficient for performing all things that are prescribed in the most holy Law of God?

Concerning the Perfection of Righ­teousness, Ier. 31. [...]. 11. Osor. l. 9. and compleat Obedi­ence of the Law.

You proceed to press again and again that Antient Song out of the Prophet; I will put, saith he, my Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts: And also out of the other Prophet; And I will give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in my Precepts, and keep my Iudgments, and also may do these things, which are just, &c.

I hear the Oracles of the Prophetical Promise, uttered with great evidence, from whence cer­tainly works of New Obedience do proceed, which necessarily follow Faith; so that if any Man do now enquire for the cause of good works, presently he learns hence, that it should not be attributed to the strength of Man's Will, but the Gift of the holy Spirit; but now whence does this Gift proceed, but from the Merits of Christ? or to whom is it given, but to them that believe in Christ? For the holy Spirit is received by Faith, according to that of Paul; That we may receive the promise of the Spirit by Faith. Wherefore No man de­nies that the works of new Obedience proceed from the fountain of Divine Grace, and the Merits of Christ. seeing Faith is the only thing, which procures unto us the holy Spirit, [Page 156] therefore it cannot otherways be, but that having received the Divine Spirit of Sanctifica­tion, a new Life, and spiritual motions do fol­low in the hearts of the Regenerate. For a mind rightly qualified with the Faith of Christ, and being now reconciled to God, as it cannot be destitute of the favour of God, so being stirred up by his holy breathings, begins now to be a Law to it self, whereby it fears God, and according to its power honours him with due Reverence, cleaves unto him with all its might, refers its actions and counsels to him, calls on him by prayers, adheres to him in ad­versity, celebrates his benefits with a thankful remembrance, lays its hope and confidence, and its whole self upon him, and also for his sake loves and cherishes all the Brethren.

And as there is no Man that de­nies, Every faith­ful man that is truly born again in Christ, is a Law to him­self, or ought so to be. Works of Faith. Osor. de Iust. lib. 3. p. 71. these Offices of necessary Obe­dience, performed by the help of the Spirit of God are fruits of a well­instructed Faith: So there is no con­troversie between us and you in that matter, especially seeing you your self also together with us con­fess, That these are not works of the Law, but of Faith, and that they should not be referred so much to the Law, as to the holy Spirit, and Faith relying upon his help, as you say.

But the greatest difference that is between us consists in this; that whereas we assert, That the Obedience of Man born again by the Di­vine Power, is but begun and imperfect in this [Page 157] mortal infirm state: You on the contrary dream of I know not what perfection of obe­dience in works, the Spirit of God so working in us, that whosoever is qualified therewith, needs nothing that belongs to compleat per­fection of righteousness; for all your debate a­bout this matter, seems to drive at this, as being concluded with this one Syllogism.

How Christ takes away Sins: With an An­swer to the Objections of Osorius.

BUT this goodly Antagonist rushes upon us again with ano­therOsor. de Iust. lib. 2. p. 34. A Dilemma of Osorius.caption, which at the first sight may somewhat puzzle the mind of the Reader. For he asks of those that deny Sin to be utterly Ibidem.extirpated by the Grace of Christ in this Life; Whether they distrust his Power or his Clemency? For if Christ doth not abolish all Sins in them, whom he receives into favour, that comes to pass either because he cannot, or because he will not. If you say he cannot, you take away his Power. If you plead that he is not willing, you rob him not only of the praise of his Clemency, but also of his Faithfulness. Therefore whatsoever way you [Page 179] defend your Opinion, you trample upon the Son of God, and cast great reproach upon him. Well said, most excellent Man. And now by what confirmation do you prove Ibidem. this? For seeing his Infinite Power can­not be hindered by any difficulties from performing suddenly the things which he willeth: And seeing his Love is so great, that of old he bath engaged his Faithfulness, that through Christ he would abo­lish Sins, and would deliver Mankind from all wickedness; what boldness then is this of most im­pure men, who deny that Sin is utterly destroyed in those, whom he hath joyned to himself with a holy Love? and assert that Sin is not wholly The connex­ion of the Argument. cut off? nor plucked up by the roots? that all the remainders thereof are not extirpated? These things said he.

Christ begins his Benefits in this Life, and perfects them in the Life to come.

Now these great Benefits of the Son of God consist chiefly in this, that sin being totally abolished, death being destroyed, he re­stores us, being plucked out of the Kingdom of the Devil, unto the possession of eternal Life, in which God communicates himself wholly to us, and is wholly all in all. And this most glorious work of his, most full of the highest dignity, he begins in this miserable life, and will compleat it in the other life, when that shall come to pass, which is written Death is swallowed up in Victory: O Death where is thy Victory? O Death where Hosea 13. 1 Cor. 15. is thy Sting? Howbeit these things are not said upon this account, as if there were nothing in the interim, or but little in this life, which the help of the grace of Christ does for us. As of old the help of the Eternal God was never wanting to the Is­raelites in the waste Widerness, whom he was to bring into the habitations of promise; so verily neither are Christs benefits towards us little, and the riches of his bounty are not small, which the present Grace of Christ pours [Page 191] daily upon us with a full hand, when in this sinful Nature he often helps our infirmities, forgives our sins, instructs us with his word, refreshes us with hope, supports us by Faith, feeds and strengthens us by the Sa­craments, and refreshes us by his own The Land of Promise the figure of our inheritance. What and how great benefits the grace of Christ con­fers upon us in the pre­sent life. Spirit, adorns us with his gifts, renews our hearts, and stirs them up to spiritual motions of better life and obedience, restrains vitious affections, by whose guidance there increase in us the beginnings of eternal life, the knowledge of God, invocation, fear, faith, true repentance, a new law, and the image of him, who Created us, &c.

And seeing Christ works these things in us with continual care, daily more and more, promoting and bringing unto maturity that which he hath begun in us; there is therefore no cause why the Graces of Christ here should seem needless to any Man.

But these beginnings of Divine Grace must be distinguished from The grace of Christ is ne­ver idle in his own. that perfect and compleat reno­vation of Nature, which shall be seen in the glorified after this life. For though it should not be doubted but great advantages are communicated to Be­lievers by the Divine help of the Holy Spirit, both to shun those things that are grievously offensive, and also to exercise the Offices of [Page 192] Piety; of which Paul Rom. 8. They Rom. 8. who are led, saith he by the Spirit of The life of the Saints in this World is not so much life of the flesh as of saith; it is not so much discerned in justice as in justification. God, are the Sons of God. Yet there is not given to the regenerate in this life a compleat conformity to the Law of God, but it is reserved for the other life; for the life of the Saints in this World should not be called a life of the flesh but of Faith rather, not a life of perfect, but of begun love and mortifica­tion; as being not so much discerned in justice as in justification, not in perfect holiness, but in sanctification; not in perfect purity, but in purification, not in perfection, but in going forward.

But this good Friend ours thinks this should by no means be suffered: Who so fights against us, as if all the Na­ture of Salvation consisted not in Osorius by no means receives the word justifi­cation. Iustification (the name whereof he doth not account worthy of any mention) but in Iustice it self, not in the growth, but in the per­fection of Vertues: And as if it were not allowable, otherways to aspire to those just rewards of Felicity, but by performing these Offices of Life, which are contained in the Law.

O miserable condition of Mortal Men, if those things are true, which you Evangelize to us. But by what Authority of the Gospel do you confirm those things, which you assert? [Page 193] You say, There is no reason that any Man should be joyned to God, unless Osor. de just. lib. 4. pag. 96. he be a Friend to him. I hear you. What then? But no Man can be his friend unless he be like him. That is harder: Let the induction proceed. But the Divine similitude consists wholly of the study and exercise of true Vertue. From all this there­fore it is concluded. That there is no other way, that joyns us to God, but what consists in the performance of Vertue, and in worthy Offices.

And now what will become of those, who being Iust Men fall Proverbs 24. 1 Iames 3. seven times a Day, and yet rise up again? What also will be­come of all those, concerning whom Iames speaking, saith, in many things we offend all? Moreover, what will become of those, whom Christ bids Pray, Lord forgive us our debts.

Moreover whereas you say, that no Man is joyned to God, or received into favour, but he that is his Friend: If that be so, How then doth God agree to his own Law, which commands not only to love Friends, but to pray for Enemies? Iob. 3. I beseech you, when God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son, what else was this World then, but an Enemy to God, which yet he had so great a favour to? Yea, Paul expresly testifies, that we were reconciled to God, not when we were Friends, but Enemies; and therefore he says the love of Christ is commended in [Page 194] this, that he dyed for Enemies. And again, if, whilst we were Rom. 5. Enemies, we were reconciled unto God, by the Death of his Son, much more being reconciled, we shall be saved by his Life.

See. I beseech you, how great a difference is between Paul's Assertion and yours, Osorius. He affirms we were reconciled to God when we were Enemies, you admit no Man unto favour, but him that is a Friend to him, and conform to him in the whole fimilitude of his Life. And how then will that com­mand of Christ consist, concerning loving Enemies, and that by the example of his Father's bounty, who bestows the benefit both of Sun and Rain, not only on Friends, but also on Enemies; if so be the Grace of Di­vine favour is accessible to none but Friends. and those that are like himself.

And that I may by the by touch some­thing here of the Mysteries of Prophetical Scriptures, tell me what else is pointed at unto us by the reception of Iacob, and his Sons into the Land of AEgypt. Gen. chap. 47. Whom that very loving Gin. 47. King being brought unto him, to whom they had not been so much as known before, received for Inhabitants of Foreigners, and for dear Subjects of Men unknown; not only into the Common Wealth, but into Friendship, not at all for their own sakes, who brought nothing with them but hunger and poverty: But only for the sake of Ioseph, [Page 195] whom the King had a very dear love for. What else doth Ioseph represent to us, but the sublime Son of God, dearly beloved of him? What else should you understand in the Brethren, Father, and the whole Kindred, but us miserable Sinners, whom being dead in Sins, Christ hath quickned, and of Ene­mies reconciled us in Friendship to his Fa­ther, not for any merit of our Works or Conformity, but only by that favour, where­by he is powerful with the Father.

But now let us briefly bring the Osorian Argument into a re­gular Osor. de just. lib. 9. Nu. 96. lib. 8. nu. 20. form, that we may the bet­ter view each part thereof.

The Assertion of Osorius, whereby he proves that there can be no Reconciliation to God, unless all the Relicks of Sin be utterly cut off.

BUT perhaps some Osorian will Another Ca­lumny of Oso­rius against Luther. here again object; Though dissimilitude doth not divide the connexion of friendship; but yet things that are so different, that they are op­posed to one another by a mutual repugnancy, it cannot by any means be, that those things should be joyned together; of which sort are Virtue and Vice, Righteousness and Sin, Love and Hatred. Therefore seeing God is altoge­ther so just in his own Nature, that he cannot but hate Sin; and on the contrary, Man is so wholly drowned in sin, that in every good work, according to the Opinion of Luther, the Saints themselves also do sin, in this so great dissimilitude of things that are opposite to one another; how can it be that Infinite Holiness can be joyned by any Communion with Man, if he is such a one as Luther describes him? For so Oso­rius, from things well said by Luther, but badly understood by him, and worse wrested for the occasion of cavilling, doth very ill argue, not because it is true, but because it seems so to him. But let us first oppose the frivolous Ob­jection; and then let us take Luther's part, as well as we can, against the cruel Incursions of his Adversaries, And first indeed it cannot [Page 199] be denied that Iustice and Sin are repugnant to one another by the most con­trary Romans 1. opposition. Likewise we must confess that it is no less true, that all impurity of sin is hateful and abomi­nable to God: For the Anger of God is re­vealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who ditain the Truth in unrighteousness; as the Apostle speaks very evidently. Which being so, what remains then, but that the Life of the Godly should either be free of all sin in this World, as Oso­rius contends; or if that cannot be, as Luther affirms, all must be liable to the A Confuta­tion of the Cavil. All Iudg­ment is com­mitted to the Son, Iob. 3. Luke 10. Wrath of God. I answer with the Apostle Paul; That indeed would follow, unless there comes a Me­diatour, who may interpose himself against the Anger of God in the sinners behalf; who may satisfie for sin, who may obtain pardon, who may mollifie the rigour of Iustice; yea, who may transpose all the Iudgment given against the guilty upon himself, and that now he himself may be Iudge of the Cause, who is the forgiver of the Crime. For so we hear in the Gospel; My Father judgeth no man, but hath given all Iudg­ment to the Son. And again; All things are delivered unto me by Father. All which benefits, seeing we receive from Christ, the most bountiful Mediatour, in such plenty as exceeds all belief, there is no cause, O Osorius, why in such great abundance of grace, you [Page 200] should press us with such strict weights of Iu­stice, as if we were now under the Law, and not under Grace? But how much more agree­able would it be both to your Duty, and Salva­tion, that you should by a submission common to you and us, give place to the Grace of God, and acknowledge the benefits of the Mediatour, and apply your self with all gratitude of mind to his everlasting praises, that are worthy to be celebrated through all Generations.

Therefore that we may expedite a matter not very difficult in a few words: Whereas you say sin is hateful to God, nothing is Sin is one thing, and a man that is a sinner is ano­ther thing in the sight of God. more true. But it is one thing to speak of sin, and another thing to speak of Man that is a sinner; he indeed hates sin, and the Physician also hates the disease, but yet not so, that he should destroy the dis­eased person, but that he should heal him. Concerning which thing, if you do not trust me, hear Augustin; he is not a God that condemns some sins, and justi­fies Aug. Tract. 41. in Iobannem. and praises other sins: He praises none, but hates all, as a Phy­sician hates the disease, and by curing endea­vours to drive away the disease: So God by his Grace procures that sin is con­sumed Sin is dimi­nished in this life, but not taken away. in us. But how is it con­sumed? It is diminished in the life of them that are going on to Perfection: it shall be consumed in the life of the perfect, &c.

The Assertion of Luther against Osorius con­cerning the Sins of the Saints, is defended.

I Come now to Luther, whom you reproach after such an unworthy manner, and with such shameful slanders, yea and lyes so tragical­ly. Why so? to wit, because he durst accuse the Saints themselves of sin; which seems to you so execrable a wick­edness, August. of true and false Repeniance, c. 5. Why did the Lord wash the seet of Peter, but be­cause there was a daily sinning, it behoved that there should be a daily remission, &c. Cyprian. But if no man can be without sin, whosoever saith that he is unblameable, is either proud or a fool. Hier. contra Pelag. Dial. 1. But to be perpetually without sin is only in the power of God: Therefore either give an example of one that was always without sin; or if you can­not confess your weakness, and do not set your mouth against Heaven to deceive the Ears of fools, by that which really is, and that which can be. as if no greater reproach could be cast, not only on holy men themselves, but also on the Author and Prince of all Holiness.

You may upon the same account cast re­proaches in like manner upon Hierom, Augustin, and Bernard, and other most approved Writers of the Primitive Times: Whom you must ei­ther by necessary consequence absolve with Luther, or not condemn Luther without them: Seeing there is none of all these, that thought this Title of Honour should be attributed to any man, but Christ only, that he should be wholly [Page 202] without all stain of sin. No, but Osor. de Iust. lib. 2. p. 35. 36. Luther, say you, pleads that all mor­tal men, though confirmed in Faith, are yet in a state of sinning, and that sin is lively also in the Saints. even so long as they live by Faith; and also he profeses that the same do sin in every good work. And what hath any man said or done so rightly, but it may be depraved by re­lating it wrong, especially when calummy makes the Interpretation. That which Luther asserts concerning the sins of the Saints, if the words be suitably weighed with the state of the Que­stion, there is no offence in it. As if it be asked, whether the works of the Regenerate should be called good in this Life, or sins: Lu­ther denies not that the pious deeds of the Re­generate are good; but affirms this very thing, That they are good in the sight of God, and pleasing to him, which comes not How the works of the Regenerate are good and how they are sins. Aug. in primo quinqua. Psal. 31. Believe in him that ju­stifies the ungodly, that your good works may be good, for I should not call them good as long as they come not from a good Root, wherein consists the state of the Controversie. to pass upon the account of the work it self, but upon the account of Faith and a Mediatour, for whose sake the pious endeavours of his own are pleasing to God, and their begun obedience, though it is other­ways of its own nature imperfect. Therefore this is not the Controver­sie, whether the Regenerate by the help of the Grace of God can do any thing in this Life piously and commendably. Neither is this the Controversie, whether the absolute [Page 203] Grace of God in the Regenerate is able to per­form this, that their work should be free of all sin. But whether the Grace of God in this flesh, furnishes any of the Regene­rate with so great a power of per­fecting Aug. de Civi­ate, lib. 19. cap. 17. Our righteousness it self is so great in this life, that it consists more in the remis­sion of sins, than in the perfection of Vertues. Hieron. in Ezek. lib. 14. cap. 46. It is evident that every man, though he had come to perfection, needs the Mercy of God, &c. Aug. Epistola 31. ad Hieron. Charity whereby we love that which ought to be loved. This is more in some, and less in others, and in others none at all; but the fullest that cannot now be increased as long as a man lives here is in no mau; but as long as it can be increased, that which is less thau it ought to be is faulty, &c. Idem in Psal. 142. No man hath at any time done a good work with as much Charity as he could and ought. Righteousnns, that any work of his is so compleat and per­fect, if it be examined according to the Rule of the Divine Law, that it needs no Pardon nor Mediatour. But if it needs Mercy, then it is ne­cessarily joyned with pollution and sin, so that now the Praise belongs to the Mediatour, and not to Man; to Imputation, not to Action; to Grace, not to Merit; to Faith, not to Works; that God accepts of the Works of the Regenerate and most holy men. Neither is the rectitude of our good things any thing else but the forgiveness of God, and the remission of his just severity. Whence the Apostle rightly con­cludes, that those who are of the Works of the Law (not speaking of evil works, but the most perfect Works) are under the Curse, and upon this account it is true, which Luther says, that a righteous man [Page 204] sins in every good Work. Not that the Work it self being appointed by the Law of God is a sin; but because, according to the say­ing of Augustin, whatsoever is less than it ought to be, is faulty: From whence it ap­pears evidently, that in this Life there is no Work so perfect, but something is wanting in it, that is there is Sin in it, if it be judged according to the strict rigour of the Law.

Concerning the Grace of God, how it is de­fined by Osorius, with a confutation of his Definition.

ARguments increase, because here menti­on falls in of the Grace of the regene­rate. It is shewed, though against the Rules of Logick, that the Grace of God is nothing else but Iustice and Vertue, upon this account: because it being that chiefly, which makes us ac­ceptable to God, and nothing can be acceptable to God, which is not like unto him, be thinks he pre­vails sufficiently by this conclusion; That, because nothing [...] us likeOsor. de Iust. lib. 5. Nu. 127, 128.God but Righrecusness and Vertue, Therefore Grace is nothing, if it is not Vertue and Iustice. Why do I use many words on this matter? If that Grace be understood by Osorius, which St. Paul so often commends to us in all his Epistles, both are false, which here the Bishop assumes against the Apostle. For Grace is not rightly [Page 205] defined after this manner, that it is nothing else but Vertue and Iustice, and first, that it is a Vertue Thomas did flatly deny in his sum of Theology: Part. 12. Quest. 110. Artic. 3. where disputing of the Grace of God, though he denies not that it may be re­duced to the first species of quali­ty, A definition of Grace ac­cording to Osorius. Tho. 12. quest. 110. yet he wholly denies, and con­futes its being a Vertue, conclude­ing at length after this manner, that it is a certain habitude pre­supposed to infused Vertues, as the Principle and Root of them, &c.

Moreover in Sentent. lib. 2. dist. 26. Art. 4. proving concerning the same thing that Grace and Vertue are not the same: If Vertue, saith he, should hold from Grace is not the same thing with Vertue but only a Prin­ciple of Ver­tue. the same, both that it was a Ver­tue, and that it rendred a Man acceptable to God, it would fol­low that all Vertue would do the like. And so seeing some Vertues are acquired by acts and not by infusion, it would follow according to the Pelagian heresie; that a Man should be made acceptable to God by his free will. But if it holds from another, and not from the same, from one that it Osorius Con­futed by Thomas Aqui. That Grace and Iustice are not the same. is a Vertue, and another that it renders acceptable to God, it must needs be, that Grace and Vertue are not the same in reality. For so divers principles necessarily are suitable to divers effects, that are found in division from another.

Now if so be Grace is denied to be a Vertue, verily upon the same account also, it cannot be called Iustice, seeing Iustice is necessarily comprehended under the general name of Vertue: and what wonder is it, in the interim that this Antagonist of ours is so ill agreed with the Lutherans; who is not well enough agreed with the Angelical Doctors, and Leaders of his own Sect in such evident Heads of Divinity? But now let us consider his Reasonings, and the Confirmations of his Arguments, of what sort they are.

How the Papists and Protestants What the Pa­pists, & what the Protestants understand by the word Grace. agree and differ in understand­ing the word Grace.

Now whereas both Papists and Protestants seem to attribute Man's Iustifaication to grace, herein they both agree. But they say this after their manner of speaking, & we after ours. For this is the difference between these and the Protestants, that the Papists by the name of grace understand only gifts, that are conferr'd upon those that are justified, to wit, habits, which they call infused, and excellent Endow­ments of lovely Vertues, and other things of that kind, wherewith the Elect are adorned by the free gift of God. But the contrary party being otherways taught by the Scriptures, and confirmed by the sayings of the Fathers, perceiving these very gifts of the Spirit of God, as long as they live in this flesh, are im­perfect, through our default; they deny that men can be justified by these, because Divine Iustice cannot at all be satisfied by these. And therefore it is, that After what manner, and in what sense the Grace of God justifics us. they attribute Iustification only to the grace and mercy of God; which consists not of any remune­ration of Vertues, but rather impu­tation of Righteousness, and for­giveness of sins. For we do not find fault with this in them, that they do rightly affirm, that [Page 218] all our good works should be referred to the grace of God; which neither the Iews them­selves nor the Turks will deny. But A definition of Grace ac­cording to the School­men. we justly disapprove, that they do not define this grace according to Scrip­ture. For whereas grace is so de­fined by this sort of men, that it is nothing else but a habit infused by God, like his own goodness and love, whereby he that hath it is rendered acceptable to God; and it makes Works acceptable to him and merito­rious: It is easily demonstrated both by Scrip­tures and Reason, how faulty this definition is, because the thing defined is of a larger ex­tent than the definition: For the grace where­by God loved Iacob, and hated Esau, before they did either good An infused Habit. or evil, was grace; which ye [...] [...]as not any Habit, either begotten in The refuta­tion of the definition. Iacob, Esau. The Exam­ples of the Thief, Publi­can, the Le­per, &c. them by the power of Nature, or infused by grace, whereby Iacob, that had it, that I may use their words, was render'd acceptable to God. After the like manner the grace which in the midst of his persecution of Saints changed Paul into an Instrument in the hand of Electing grace, was not an infused Habit, but went be­fore an infused Habit, and first made him a man acceptable to Christ, before the Habit mak­ing acceptable was infused. The same should be said of the Thief, the Publican, the Leper, and many others in the History of the Gospel, who were not saved by an infused Habit, but [Page 219] only by an infused Faith; for otherways what did that word so often repeated in the Gospel signifie; Thy Faith hath saved thee? Which word, if it be true, then either Faith is Righ­teousness, or else Righteousness can by no means save us. And the same reason is to be given of the Conversion of the Gentiles; whom of old the grace of God brought from impure Paganism to the Communion of the Gospel; not for any Inherent Righteousness, but for his great Love wherewith he loved the unworthy and the wretched sinners.

Moreover, what shall be said of the Apostles themselves, whom Christ verily chose not being just, as Augustine speaks, but to be justi­fied, when he said; I chose you out of the World? What if Christ chose them out of the World; that they might be just; then they were first unjust in the World, whom he chose out of the World, that they might be just. If they were first just, and not sin­ners of the World, whom Christ chose out of the World; then they first chose Christ, that they being just, might be chosen by him. But it was not so; for he himself says to them; Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, &c.

These things said Augustine; by which it evidently appears how our Election and Iusti­fication purchased by Christ is perfected not by any Righteousness of Works, but only by the free gift of Grace; whence it is called by Paul the Election of Grace, not of Righte­ousness, [Page 220] to wit, by this Argument: What if it is by Grace, saith he, it is not now by Works, or else grace is not grace; but if it is of works, then it is not grace; Romans 11. There was a remnant ac­cording tothe Election of Grace, &c. Osor. lib. 5. p. 127, 128. or else work would not be work, &c. Which things being so, it necessarily follows, that the Righ­teousness, which is wholly exercised in the Observance of Works, is not rightly called Grace by Osorius.

Therefore take the Argument of Augustine.

Concerning the Vertue and Efficacy of Di­vine Grace, a more enlarged dispute a­gainst the Adversaries; Answering their Objections.

BUT Those Men will deny that they detract any thing Osor. lib. 6. p. 151. from the Grace of God, yea, they say that this is the common Sin of the Lutherans, not theirs, because all that they drive at is to maintain the mercy of God and to celebrate it with due praises: Why so I pray? for what, say they? Do not the Pious Works of the Saints please God? Well, and what next? Should not the same Works having proceeded from God himself the Author, be referred to his bounty and mercy Why not?

Now then Catholick Reader, re­ceive a conclusion, Roman Catholick [...] enough? as I suppose. Therefore he [...] detracts from good works wrought by Christ, [...] from the Grace and Mercy of God: Well said, but pray who detracts from those? Who denies good Works, which Christ living and dwelling in us Works, to be good Works? Does any Man take away due praise and dignity from those? Now Hosius talks, Osorius pleads, Andradius crys out, that the Lutherans do it eagerly. Why so, I beseech you? Because they do not at­tribute [Page 227] unto the performance of good Works, the Salvation that is due to them, but tran­slate it to Faith only.

What then, such as do not attribute Sal­vation to good Works, should they be there­fore supposed to attribute nothing to Works, or to cast reproach upon the grace of God? On the contrary, they that detract the pro­mise of Eternal Life from the Christian Faith, Shall they be accounted Friends to Grace?

By the same reason we may turn Light in­to Darkness, and Darkness into Light: Let Christ remain in his Sepulcher, let Moses rise again to be Iudge of the Living and the Dead. But now what Arguments do they rely upon in disputing thus? Because, say they, Works of Righteousness flow from the Fountain of Divine Grace. But what? Is not Faith in Christ the Mediatour as singu­lar a gift of God; and does it not pro­ceed from the Election of Divine Grace? But now let us hear an Argument more than Catholick.

What Benesits come to us from Christ, and what should be chiefly regarded in these Benefits.

NOW this is it in which chiefly the un­speakable amplitude of Divine Grace to­wards us doth evidently shine forth, that God the Almighty Governour and Creatour of the World, according to his fingular Mercy, [Page 233] wherewith he hath loved the World, having given his Son, sent him to us, and so sent him, that he for us hath fulfilled all Righteousness; for there was no need that he should fulfil it for himself, and if he hath fulfilled it for us, what hinders now, but that may be ours, which was done for us? or Christ fulfil­led all the Law, not for himself, but for us; if for us, then we also fulfil it by him. Tho. 12. 109. pag. 259. to what purpose should he do that for us, which he knew was neces­sary to be done by our selves for our Salvation? But what if accord­ing to the saying of Thomas, What­soever things we can do by Friends, we our selves are said to be able to do it in some respect: How much better then may we our selves be sup­posed both to be able to do, and also to have done those things which a Friend is not only able to do for us, but hath also done for us? and this is that grace chiefly, which every where the Evangelical Writings sound sorth unto us; unto which all our both consolation & salvation should be referred; which Paul the Apostle having received from Christ, did propagate it with so continued labour among the Gentiles and taught it with so great fervour of spirit and made it evident with so many Signs and Mi­racles, and also confirmed it with so many Scriptures and most sure Testimonies. Where­fore those Papists are the more worthy to be abhorred as being Enemies to Antiquity, and Enemies to Paul; who seem to be busied about nothing else, but to abolish the Gospel of Christ, and to overturn the Foundations of [Page 234] the Doctrine of the Apostles, that have been long since very well laid by our first Fathers, and to sow another Gospel in the The Roman Catholicks falsly so cal­led, obtrude another Gos­pel upon us, minds of Christians: For what else doth all their Doctrine drive at, who disputing about Grace, Faith and Righteousness, do so handle the matter by their Philosophical Prin­ciples, that he who observes their Collections, Distinctions, Corollaries and Opinions, will perceive that they do not teach as Christians out of the Gospel, out of Christ, out of Paul, but that the Antient Philosophers of the old Academy, or the Thalmudists of the Law of Moses are again risen up and alive; except that this only difference is between them, and the Antient Philosophers, that these do palliate with the name of Grace, and Faith in words, at least in some manner, but in reality, as touching the signification of the word Grace, or the force of the word Faith, they seem to be so very blind, as if they had read Paul little, or at least had not at all understood him. I do not rail at the men themselves, The sum of all our Salva­tion and Re­ligion is chiefly dis­cerned in two things, Faith and Renovation by Grace. Grace. Faith. whom I rather account worthy of pity, but it is not at all convenient to endure the Errours of men, be­cause they cast no small blot upon Religion, and are injurious to Christ, and do violence to Paul, overthrow the simplicity of the Christian Faith; moreover they adulterate all the sincerity of E­vangelical Doctrine with their Ni­ceties, [Page 235] and after a certain manner subdue it unto humane Philosophy. Which that it may appear the more evidently to the Minds and Eyes of beholders, let it not be tedious to you to hearken a while, first what Divine Truth, and then what Humane Opinions teach us.

But because there are two things chiefly in which the whole sum both of our Salvation and Religion is contained, Grace, and Faith, of which the one belongs to God towards men, the other agrees to men towards God: It ve­ry much concerns Christians, that their Minds be very well instructed in both. And Grace indeed is discerned in those good things that are given to us, and promised by God. Faith is exercised in those Offices, which are chiefly due from us to God, and are greatly requisite. Therefore that we may rightly apprehend the nature of Grace, we must see what and how great those gifts are, which the bounty of God hath partly bestowed upon us, and partly promised: Concerning which thing it remains that we should examine what the Scriblers of Popish Divinity do hold. Now what they teach about this matter, is for the most part to this purpose. They place the end of humane Life in blessedness, and the School-Divines dispute about this very blessedness Wherein Be­atitude con­sists accord­ing to the Shcolastick Doctors. Divines dis­puting about the chief good. just after such a manner as the Phi­losophers of old did of their chief­est good; unto which every man, must endeavour according to his power, to attain by industry and [Page 236] diligent labours, and the merits of the great­est Vertues. And when the former Pela­gians affirmed that we could do Pelagians Adversaries of Grace. that by the strength of Nature, there were not wanting others at the same time, who valiantly op­posing the help of the Grace of Augustine a defender of Grace against the Pelagi­ans. God to Free-will, successfully re­jected and exploded this wicked Opinion by the Scriptures. After this came another kind of Divines, who having followed Augustine, The Papists Semipelagi­ans. disputed thus against the Pelagians, that we cannot so much as will good by Free-will without Grace, or merit Eternal Life by any means without Grace. And that is true indeed. But that those same men joyning Grace again, deny not that we can merit Life by Works, and that ex condigno according to their worth; I do not see what difference is between these and the Pelagians in that; except that in the manner of working they somewhat differ; for those work without grace, these no otherways but by grace; but both do equal­ly Wherein the Papists agree with the Pe­lagians. err from the scope of true Iustification: For as untrue as that is, that it is in our power to perform any thing aright without the Grace of God: It is again as false, that this grace of working was not given by God for any other purpose, but to pro­duce meritorious works, whereby we may be justified. Though I deny not that by any [Page 237] means that the Divine grace of How Thomas Aquin. and the Thomists define grace. the Spirit is both fruitful and abounding with the greatest Ver­tues, which can never be idle; but it doth not therefore follow by sufficient strength of Reason, that the reward of Eter­nal Salvation is due to the merits of these Vertues, as the generality of Sophisters chatter with a great noise in Schools: For thus Tho­mas the Prince of this Faction, and the others that are partakers of his Discipline discourse of grace, and in their Summularies do define this grace, as if it were nothing else, but a certain habitual infusion of the heavenly gift in the essence of the Soul, because, (as they suppose) it is a principle of meri­torious Tho. 129. 109. Art. 6. That the will may be prepared to work well, and to enjoy God, there is required an habitual gift of Grace, which is the principle of a meritorious work. works; for so Thomas de­fines it. And Guillermus not much differing from him, calls this grace a form freely given to us by God without merits, which makes him that hath it acceptable, and makes his work good, and meritorious. Of these then is a vulgar definition made up, and it thus defines grace unto us, that it is, a gift of good will freely given, making its pos­sessor acceptable, and rendring Guillerm. in sentent. lib. 2. qu. 26. Art. 1. a common definition among the Schoolmen. Albert. in sen­tent. lib. 2. dist. 26. Art. 2. his work good. And Albert shews the manner how it makes a man good; in as much as by infused Vertues, as he says, it perfects the will of man for act, &c.

By these things, I suppose, it ap­pears Grace is a ha­bit in the es­sence of the Soul, which according to infused Ver­tues make perfect for act, & makes the possessor good. A vulgar and usual defini­nition of Grace in the Schools. The School­men disagree with one a­nother in the manner of Grace. [...], [...], [...]. evident enough what Opinion hitherto hath been usual amongst those men in the Popish School. In which neither their Divines them­selves are well enough agreed with one another; for some place this habitual gift of influencing grace in the essence of the Soul subje­ctively (that I may speak in their own Dialect) amongst whom is Thomas and Bonaventure. Others chose rather to refer it not to the essence, but the powers of the Soul as its proper subject, of whom is Scotus, and the Allies of that Order.

Again, There are those who Osor. lib. 5. p. 26. Dost thou deny Grace to be a Vertue? what then is Grace if it is not a Veatue? Thomas a­gainst Osorius. think grace is nothing else but a Vertue; which is the thing that Osorius strongly defends in his Books. But Thomas confutes this Heresie with much greater strength, and bears it down with suitable Reasons. But the summ of all their summs drives at this, that Faith only may be excluded from Iusti­fication, and that they may not acknowledge any other Iustification, but what consists in exercising of Works: Neither do they think this grace to be given to us upon any other account, but for this end, to fulfil (as they [Page 239] say) the Commands of God, ac­cording Faith exclud­ed from Iu­stification by the Thomists. Thom. 12. q. 109. Art. 5. to the due manner, with­out which the fulfilling of them cannot otherways be meritorious.

The Errour of the Tridentines in defining Grace is examined.

I Have explained the sayings of some Di­vines, which differ several ways from one another, yet they are all wonderfully agreed in this one thing, as it were by a common Conspiracy, that they may take away from sinners that saving Grace which only justifies us. Let us joyn also unto these, if you please, the Sophisters of later times, and especially the Nobles of Trent, and the Hereticks of that Council, whose Writings, Opinions, and De­crees, when they are read, what do they de­clare? I will say in a word, and truly, no­thing that is sound, nothing that is not full of Errour, nothing that does not disagree with the genuine verity of the Word. But what that Errour is, lest we should seem to accuse them without cause, let us explain in a few words, but true; to wit, seeing there is a two­fold Testimony of the Grace of the Father to­wards us in the Scriptures; the one whereby in a free gift he bestowed his Son upon us [...] the other, whereby he bestowed his Spirit: The Son to die for us, the Spirit to [...] our Life; there is not any man, but should con­fess [Page 240] that they are both great gifts. He gave his Son, than whom nothing was dearer to him; he bestows his Spirit, than which nothing is higher in Heaven. But for what purpose doth he bestow both? how does he give them for our advantage? for what end? with what fruit? what did he design in so doing? by what Reason was he persuaded? by what ne­cessity? by what mercy was the most gracious Father and maker of the World moved? I would very willingly ask this first, either of Thomas Aquinas, or rather of those Tridentine fellow-Priests; for if Free-will being helped by the grace of the Sprit of God, as they say, could do so much by meriting through the infused Vertues, even as much as was suffi­cient for obtaining Salvation, what cause then was there why all this charge should be put upon Christ the Son of God? What need. was there of his blood? Why did not the most gracious Father spare his Life? But if so be that all other helps of grace could afford no help to expedite the business of our Redemption; Then it remains to be asked of those men, what they affirm of Christ, whether they acknowledge him the only Saviour or not? And indeed I know that they will not deny that Christ is the on­ly Saviour. But in the mean while it re­mains that they should answer me this, af­ter what manner this only Saviour saves his own, whether only by his Innocency and Death, or by adding other helps besides? Now if they judge that other securities are [Page 241] necessarily required, it must be why the ho­ly Spitit is given. Thom. 12. qu. 114. Art. 4. The motion of humane mind to the fruition of divine good, is a proper act of Chari­ty, by which all acts of other Vertues are appoint­ed for this end, accord­ing to which other Ver­tues are com­manded by chariey, and therefore the merit of E­ternal Life belongs chief­ly to chari­ty. &c. Censura Golo­loniens. fol. 148, 149. christ by his Death hath merited this, that Be­lievers are endued with charity and other Vertues, which qua­lities, being now received by the Merit of christ, man him­self by. Inherent Righteousuess merits a greater Righteous­ness, Reconciliation, and at length Life Eternal, &c. And fol. 170, Faith is only the preparatory Cause and way to Iustification, that afterwards we may by another thing be righteous before God, not by Faith apprehending Christ, &c. Iustification is divided into two parts. known what sort of Securities these are. Aquinas with his Asso­ciates answers, that those are gifts procured by the Holy Spirit, and habitual Infusions of Charity, and the like faculties of exercising Righteousness, which helps unless they are added, the Death of Christ, according to his Opinion is not of such efficacy that it should be able enough of it self alone to merit Salvation. And now, what then if those are added? doth then at length full and perfect Righte­ousness arise from these together, partly from the blood of Christ, and partly from renovation by new qualities, which may reconcile us being justified unto God. For thus Andradius with his fellow. Tridentines divides Iustification, which Paul attributes simply to Faith, into two parts, of which he affirms that the one consists in the remission of sins, and the other in the obedience of the Law. O [Page 242] the Pest of Sophistical Divinity, and intole­rable deceits! for by this distinction it will come to pass, that Christ is not the only Saviour, nor a compleat one, but the Spirit that be­stows these qualities; for if the only formal cause of our Iustification consists in nothing but only the renovation of the Iacob. Pava. Orthod. Exp. 6. p. 470. Then the Spirit is com­municated, when, at the coming of Righteous­ness; we are made righte­ous; when all our sins be­ing extin­guished, we are renewed by charity spread abroad in our hearts by the Spirit; which Charity, be­cause it in­forms the mind with the Love of the Divine Law, is called Righteous­ness. Of how large an extent the fruit of the Lord's passion is. inner man, by a willing receiving of grace and gifts; what shall now remain that may be attributed to Christ the Saviour and his blood, but that he should only give a Dye to our merits, which being so Dyed, may bring us di­rectly into Heaven. But if it be so, that the Death of Christ alone doth not fully compleat our Re­demption; to what purpose, or what way did he say it was finish­ed, when his passion was finished? Or how are all things in Heaven and in Earth reconciled by the blood of his Cross, as Paul wit­nesseth? Moreover, the same Paul in many places, and in all his Epistles, places the price and Re­demption in no other thing, but only in the Blood and Cross of the Son of God: In whom, saith he, we have Redemption through his blood: But how shall we say that all things are reconciled by blood, if Charity and the other [Page 243] gifts of Renovation, and Merits are the things which make us acceptable to God, Ephes, and claim unto themselves, the greatest part of our Reconciliati­on? What is this else, but to thrust Christ down not only from his Office, but also from the Throne of his glory Christ only by his Perso­nal Office is a Saviour, and the Holy Spirit by his Office is a Helper and Comforter of them that are saved. with a gigantick fury?

Concerning the Reward and Merits of good Works.

VVHat then? Are there no Merits then, say they, of the Righteous? Is there no reward by way of Merit left in Heaven, which Christ promises to be so plentiful in the Scriptures? What, will all that provision of inherent Righteousness avail us nothing towards Life? Will so many labours and store of most Holy Works profit nothing, wherewith we be­ing Cloathed by the Holy Spirit, are advanced daily more and more towards the Answers. Aug. Epist. 65. fulness of Righteousness? Augustin will answer to these things, and first of Merits. If you ask, saith he, whether there are no Merits of the Righteous?

There are indeed, because they Righteous­ness receives not its vertue from Merits, but Merits re­ceive vertue from the Iu­stified. are Righteous; but there were no Merits, that they might be Righte­ous. For they were made Righte­ous [Page 244] when they were justified, &c. The Dignity of [...] is valued by the Person of the believer, not the Person by the Deeds. Therefore they were not made Righteous by Merits, if we believe Augustin, but Merits proceed from the Iust: By which you may under­stand, that a Person is not valu­ed by the Dignity of his Works or his Grace; but that the Diginity of Merits receives its value from the Iustified Person. Wherefore see­ing Men are not made Righteous by Merits, as Augustin witnesseth, but Merits receive their Virtue and Dignity from the Iustified, it easily appears from hence, what should be judged of reward by way of Merit. For if after the like manner it be asked, whether there is no reward of the Saints in Heaven: that which Augustin answers concerning the Merits of the Righte­ous, the same do I also acknowledge concern­ing the reward of the Saints, that the Saints want not a reward, and that a large How the Re­ward of the Saints is ap­pointed in the Scrip­tures. one in the Heavens. For they who are Holy. a Reward shall be ap­pointed for them, not for the Works themselves, because they are Holy, but because they that work are Holy.

For not Heaven, but a reward in Heaven is given not to Holy Works, but to Heaven is not a reward to the Saints, but in the Heavens. the Workers. But if any proceed to ask, whence they are Holy: I return to Augustin, That they are Holy from thence, whence they are also made Iust, not by Works, but by the Faith [Page 245] of the Workers. As for Example, if any Heathen or Pharisee, who is a stranger to the Faith of Christ, should do this same thing, that a Christian does, though he should do also greater things, yet the Works would not please God. And why should his Works displease? Or why should the Works of a Christian please, unless it were for Faith? And that is it which Prophetical verity in old time foretold should come to pass, that the Iust should live by Faith; he says, not that the Faithful should live by Righteousness: By which you see, that this Life whereby we live by the Faith of the Son of God, is not rendered unto the Merits of Works, but consists of Faith and Grace; for grace and the gift of God, is Etrenal Life: If grace, where is reward? If a gift, where then is Merit? But what shall be said in the mean while unto Testimonies, that are Ro. 6. An Objection concerning the rewards proposed. Answer. frequent in the Scriptures, which oft-times propose great Rewards to Pious Works? First, it is to be considered by the very Name of Obedience, Debt and Duty are implyed: Now the Obedience we owe, can pro­perly deserve no grace: What Man at any time commanding a hired Servant to do his Duty, bestows grace or praise upon him for that which he owed upon the account of O­bedience, or therefore doth assign unto him a­ny portion of his Inheritance? What does the Lord himself an­swer That which is due upon the account of Obedience deserves no grace. to such Servants in the Gospel? Say ye, we are unprofitable Servants, [Page 246] we have done that which was our duty to do, &c. Now then where­fore Lu. 17. are those things called by the Name of reward, which God ren­ders unto our good Deeds? I will tell you: God proposes rewards: verily so he does: but the same God proposes Dangers and Combats. The most excellent Master of the Wrestlings sees what and how great storms of Temptations must be undergone, how many labours must be endured, how many difficulties lye before them: He sees through how many Casualties and Dan­gers, the strait way to the Kingdom must be undertaken by them, who are planted in Christ: And therefore that they may not faint in their minds, but proceed with the greater courage in their undertaken Warfare, rewards are shewed to them as certain prizes, and recompenses of Victory, to stir up their minds; whereby the most Gracious Father may mitigate the crosses of his own Servants, and comfort them in their Sufferings, with proposing hope of Rewards.

And hence is that frequent mention of Re­ward and Recompenses in the Scriptures. Not that those things Ro. 8. which the Saints suffer in this life, are worthy of rewards.

For the sufferings of this time are not wor­thy of the glory that shall be revealed in us: But because it so seemed good to the Clemency of God, to esteem those Merits of ours which are none, as if they were Merits indeed, and to Crown them, as if they were very great, which deserve no grace at all. For who hath [Page 247] thanked a Servant, as the Gospel Witnesses for the Service, which he owed to his Master af­ter he did his Commands? And would not ra­ther have punished him if he had not done them? But if he find any praise or reward beyond his Merit, he hath cause to give thanks to his Master, but not to boast of August. praefa­tione in Psal 31. his own Merits. Therefore Augustin admonishes rightly and understand­ingly: If you would be a stranger to grace, saith he, boast of your Merit. And verily Bernard was not wholy without sight, though he saw not all things, when he said it was sufficient for Merit, to know that Merits are not sufficient.

Briefly, that we may express the thing in a word, whatsoever it is, which is called a re­ward in Mystical writings, is nothing else but Grace proposed in the place and name of reward. What if this present Life, which we enjoy in the Flesh, if the conveniency of Life, and other Ornaments, though transito­ry, and temporary, are very rightly accounted, not to be, our Merits, but the Gifts of God, how much more rightly shall that Heavenly and everlasting reward of Life, wherewith the most gracious Father crowns us, seem to proceed, not from the dignity of our Works, but from his singular Mercy and Grace. Which though sometimes it takes the name of reward, yet if we rightly consider the matter, we shall find nothing in all this whole Fabrick of our Redemption, but the only and singular Grace of God.

First, because he endued thee with Faith, and the knowledge of his Grace is often signi­fied in the Scripture, un­der the name of reward. Whatsoever we are or shall be, we are in debt to the Grace of God sor it. Son: And because afterwards he washes thee in the saving laver of Faith, and because having wash­ed thee, he calls thee forth to be a partaker of the Inheritance of the Saints, translating thee into the Kingdom of his Son, whom he freely gives unto thee; and Adopts thee for his Son to­gether with him, and appoints thee for his Heir: Promises the Heredetary Kingdom, and adorns, changes, refreshes and comforts thee with his Spirit; beautifies thee with Vertues, justifies thee by Faith, over­looks very many of thy Sins, esteems thy good deeds which are very small, as if they were the greatest, and rewards them as if they were eminent.

He brings thee forth to the Combat, looks upon thee Fighting, adds Strength to thee, guards thee with Patience, restores thee when fallen, gives thee a way of escape in Temptations, and raises the up, when thou art Dead, and exalts thee to the Mansions of never perishing Glory.

What do you contemplate, I beseech you, in these, but the boundless and altogether In­finite greatness of Grace? And to [...] all that hath been said of it, whatso­ever it is, that we are, or shall be, that we [...] that we live, and are to live; What is [...] but the grace of God, that shews Mercy? [Page 249] Not of Man that willeth or runneth? Ex­amine and search your self, and all things that are yours: First consider your Vocation, who calls thee to this Grace; it regards those only, whom Divine Grace sets apart for it self, not those that are puffed up with Human Learning, not those that are of the noblest extraction, and dignified with the high Titles of their Ancestors, but God hath chiefly chosen the base and unpolished things of this World, which seemed contemptible and of small value, according to the vulgar opinion. And that I may express it in a word, those things that were nothing he exalts unto the high­est Sublimity. Why so? But that A wonderful and secret o­peration of the Grace of God is shew­ed by Ex­amples. he may have all the glory to his own free Grace, and no place for glorying left for Human en­deavours, and merits? Of which thing if any Man require more sure examples, let him call to mind the calling of Peter. with the rest of the Fish­ermen, that were his sellow Apostles, and chiefly let him admire the stupendous History of Paul's Conversion: In whom if we look at his very Original, as Augustin speaks, and seek for his Merits, we shall find that they be­longed to Damnation, not to Salvation.

The calling of God and his Grace, are Free and Gratuitous, beyond all Merits of our Works.

LET Us come down nearer to our seves, and now take Example from thy self, Christian Brother, whosoever thou art: con­sider with your self both what you now are, and what formerly you have been; You stand in Faith, Who gave it you? You con­tinue in the Faith, Who upholds you? You are assaulted by Temptations, but do not succumb, Who helps you? You are perpetually in danger amongst so great a Multitude that perish; Who supports you? You Sin daily, Who forgives you? Dangers, Terrours, Mi­series, weariness besiege you on every side, Who gives you help? Moreover, whither­soever you turn your self, what do you see else, but all Arguments of Favour and Grace, which take away from Men all confidence in Works, and glorying in Merits? And where then is that thrice accursed curse of the Tridentines, whereby all and every one are devoted to the Trident. Concil. Sess. 6. Can. 11. dreadful destruction of Damnation, who setting aside the helps, the Coadjutor-ship of Merits, asserts that the Grace of God, whereby we are justified, consists only in the favour of God: And whoever dare say that a Man is justified by the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness only, or by the remissi­on [Page 251] of Sins only, whilest Charity doth not together with it communicate its influence in the Hearts of the Godly, and that the grace of working well is not joined thereunto, &c. Which if it be true, what should be judged of the Prophets, what should be judged of Christ himself, who are of a contrary judg­ment? We must either acknowledge that those were destitute of the Spirit of God, or else that those Tridentine Sanctions are con­trary to Divine Grace. The Prophet cries with a loud Voice, the Apostle also cries, that it is not of him that runneth or willeth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

And, will the Tridentine Councellours re­monstrate against this; that Man's Salvation consists only in the Favour of God? Where­in then? Running, say they, must be added, and the choice of Free-will must be added thereto. Who denies it? We run all of us, each one for his own Portion, being placed in our Stage by God: For the Christian Life is a race, not a play, an exercise, not a vacuity from business, a warfare, not slothfulness. Be it so indeed, yet in this same race how un­happily do we oftiems run? How often do we stumble? How many ways do we fall, how blind and traver­sed Free Will. a way do we often go? And so sometimes we run head long, either wandering every one his own way as the Prophet speaks, or with the Sheep of the Gospel wander sometimes out of the Folds? Isa. 53. But we return presently, say you, [Page 252] into the Way. well: But who, I beseech you, calls you back? Your own will, or the grace of him, that hath mercy? I see that you re­turn, and I praise it, but to whom is this praise due? To the strength of your will, or to free mercy? And now I would have you teach me what this running of yours deserves. You only look at how much you proceed in running, but you do not also take heed how much you fail in your race. And after all these things do you yet boast of your merits, as if the reward of the Everlasting state were due to your Labours? In which assertions I do not drive at this, to dissolve the Pious endeavours of making Pro­gress, or to dishearten them by desperation.

For the Admonition of the Apo­stle is not in vain; so run that ye 1 Cor. 9. 2 Tim. 2. may obtain. And again: no Man is Crowned, except he strive Law­fully. Let us therefore so strive, that we may be Crowned, let us so run that we may obtain. But we do not therefore obtain, because we run; but we do therefore run, because the promise is made to them that run, not to them that slumber: So that the running is not the cause The promise is not there­fore made, because we run: But we do therefore run because the promise is made. 1 Cor. 15. 2 Tim. 4. of the promise, but the promise stirs up to running, and adds ala­crity to the runners. Therefore the Apostle that he may make them the more valiant in striving, adds this promise, your labour shall not be in vain in the Lord. And speaking of himself, I have fought, saith he, the good fight, and a [Page 253] Crown of Righteousness is laid up for me, &c. What then, do you not see that labours well performed, have their own reward due to them?

Be it so indeed: But we treat not here of the labours of Men, but of the merits of Labours, we do not ask, with what rewards the goodness of God dignifies us, but what we our selves deserve Difference between Gift and Merit. to receive. For there is no small difference between Gift and Merit. If Merit is called that, to which a recompense of reward is due by reason of its equality, it is certain there is no equality between those things which we do here on Earth, and those things which being promised we expect in Heaven. The Inheritance of the Everlasting Kingdom is promised, not that which upon the account of hire is due to our Works, but which is promised to our Faith by the free gift of God.

Whence Paul, when he said the wages of Sin his Death, he doth not add next there­unto, the reward of them that live Godly is Life Eternal: But the grace, saith he, or the gift of God is Eternal Life.

And why doth he not as well say, the re­ward of Righteousness is Eternal Life? But that the difference between gift and reward, between grace and recompence might be evident. For if it is of Rom. 6. Ephes. 2. grace, than it is not of works: If of works, than it is not of grace. But now that he might manifest the Infinite [Page 254] Riches of Divine Grace towards us through Christ Iesus: He Proclaims openly that we are saved through Grace by Faith. And that not of our selves, it is the gift of God, not of Works, lest any Man should boast. Which also elsewhere inculcating more clearly, He says, not by works of Righteousness which we have done: How then? But according to his mercy hath he saved us.

And now what is that mercy, but the fa­vour and loving kindness of God, which re­mitting the rigour of Iustice, spares those that are unworthy, pardons the penitent, receives them that are undone into favour, which fa­vour or mercy also glories against Iudgment? All which being so, what should be said of the Hypocritical Fathers of Trent, who by the publick decree of their Council of Trent. Sess. 6. Canon. 11. Senate, pronounce those accursed, whosoever dare say, that the grace of God, whereby we are justified is only the favour of God.

The Absurd Paradox of the Tridentines, whereby they deny that we are justified by the favour of God only.

BUT Now by what other thing then will they say that we The Triden­tines deny that we are justified by favour only. Glossa ordina­ria in cap. 6. ad Rom. The ridicu­louscomment of the Glosse of theSchool­men. are justified, if we obtain it not by the favour of God only? By the Law? But that works Wrath? By the works of the Law? But the Apostle expresly excludes those: Not of works, lest any Man should boast. But here I call to mind the ordinary Glosse, which doth resolve no difficulty, but makes one, by it's subtile comment, partly affirm­ing that we are justified by works, and partly denying it. For thus it says, our works, as they are ours, have no power to justifie, yet consider them as they are not from us, but are wrought by God in us through Grace, they merit Iustification. And for that cause the Apostle would not say, the wages of Righteousness is Eternal Life: But chose rather to say, the grace of God is Eternal Life. Why so? Because, saith this device, those merits, to which Eternal Life is render­ed, are not from us, but they come from grace, whence they receive the vertue of meriting: O wise, yea rather wild talk to vilifie grace? What if the Spirit of Christ [Page 256] influencing the Hearts of his own, stirs up the Holy Offices of Charity, and excellent moti­ons to Piety? What doth not the same Spi­rit also vouchsafe all other gifts to his Church, bestowing on some gifts of Prophesie, on others divers kinds of Tongues, on others ad­mirable Vertues of Curing and Healing; and on others of Teaching, for the Edification of the Saints. What shall we therefore place our whole Iustification in those gifts received from Christ?

I know that there are both many and emi­nent vertues, wherewith the Spirit of Christ always adorns his Church; but it is one thing to adorn, another thing to justifie the Church. The gift of Sanctification is one thing, the cause of justifying is another: both whereof, though Christ perform by his grace, yet he Sanctifies one way, and Iustifies another, for he Sancti­fies by his Spirit; but he Saves and Iustifies on­ly by his Death and Blood: But you will say, if Salvation is not placed in Grace, why then is the grace of God called by Paul Eternal Life? Verily it is certain, and must be confes­sed, which Paul teaches, that our Life must be attributed wholly unto grace, to which also it behoves us to attribute all other things. But we must look what way this grace saves and justifies; for it is that on which the whole con­troversy depends: In which the generality of the adversaries are greatly deceived.

Against the Tridentines.

THomas Aquinas, and they that follow him, according to the gloss which they call ordinary, do not deny that Tho. Aqui. lib. 2. sent. dist. 26. q. 6. which the Apostle affirms, That we are saved by the Grace of God: But if you ask after what manner: they answer, that it comes to pass upon the ac­count Glos. 9. Ro. 6. Orbelius lib. 2. Sent. dist. 2. Bonaventure. Alex. Halensis. of good Works. For these are the words of the Gloss: Grace, says it, is called Eternal Life, because it is rendered to those Merits, which grace hath conferred. And to the same Sense are the Comments of Orbelius, Bonaventure, Halensis, and others, because, say they, without grace no Man can observe the Commands of God. And Thomas adds elsewhere, that to ful­fill the Commands of the Law according to the due manner, Grace is necessarily requisite, to wit, to fulfill them with that Charity that ought to be, by which the fulfilling of them becomes Meritorious. Which Comment of theirs, we having formerly explained how false and frivo­lous it is, there is no need now of any new Ar­guments. [Page 258] Verily the Christian Doctrine teach­es us far otherways; for though we confess that which is reasonable: That the Divine Grace is never idle, but always stirs up the minds of the Regenerate to the best things; yet these Works are never of so great value, as to pro­mote them unto Eternal Life, which is freely promised by God, not to them that Work, but to them that Believe; or if Salvation is pre­mised to them that Work, it is not therefore promised because they Work: But they that truly believe, do therefore Work, because Salvation is promised. Salvation is promised to them that Work, not for the sake of the Works themselves. Therefore Iustification first pro­ceeds in the most direct Order, as the cause of good Fruits, but that is not effected by these: But it con­sists only of the free favour of him that confers it upon them, not upon the account of them that Merit, but upon an­other account; to wit, That where­by the most bountiful Father of his Rom. 11. own Will, hath given to us, Meri­ting nothing, his only begotten Son, who hath fulfilled the Law for us, and hath satisfied the Iustice of God for our Unjustice. For herein consists all our Salvation, and the Efficacy of Divine Grace, and the praise there­of In what thing chiefly the Efficacy of Divine Grace appears. appears very evidently, Not that we in the mean while being idle, should do nothing; but that doing all things, we should Attribute no­thing to our selves, imputing all to the Mercy of God.

Which things that they may be confirmed with the greater evidence and certainty, let us compare them with the most sure Oracles of Sacred Scripture. And Examples of Divine Grace are produced out of the Scriptures. AdamGen. 3. First, beginning at the very first Head of that Book, let us consider Adam, that Miserable Progenitor, and Overturner of our Nature. Who when he had both privately and publickly destroyed both himself and us all, by an abominable Wickedness, received at length the most Blessed Tidings of the promised Seed. What could the bounty of God have promised more firmly, or given more largely to any Man, though he had been most Holy? And what did that first and chiefest sinner deserve to receive? Abraham was comman­ded Abraham. Gen. 12. to leave his Native Country, and to go out whither God called him, thereunto was added a very glorious pro­mise of giving him an Inheritance, and he o­beyed him that called him. The promiser did not fail, he was increased and enriched above measure; but if I ask, by what Merit of his own, what can the Admirers of Works answer me here? Afterwards Ifaac was born to him, when his Isaac. Gen. 27. Father and Mother were so Old, that there was no hope remaining of their begetting Children. Why so? But that God might make it manifest, that in the benefits of God, there is not left any thing for Human Pride, wherein it may Ioseph. Gen. 65. glory? Ioseph very kindly helped [Page 260] his Brethren, who were in danger to Pe­rish for Hunger, though they had very inhumanly Conspired his Destruction, nei­ther did he only furnish them with plenty of Corn, but also promoted them to great Ho­nours. And now what Merits did they bring with them, that they should be so Honourably Entertained? The same may be asked concerning the Israelites, who The Israelites delivered fromthe Bon­dage of Pha­raoh. Exod. 12. having slain a Lamb without blem­ish, were delivered from most grie­vous Bondage: for what Vertues of their own? Whether for keeping the Law? But the Law was not yet made, at least it was not yet written. Was it be­cause they obliged the Prophet Mo­ses with kindnesses, whom rather The Law was promul­gatedbyGod, after the de­liverance of the People. they endeavoured to betray, by most unjust ways and complaints? After they had endured so many laborious Travels and Iourneys, they came at length to the promised Land of their Inheritance, in which, First, the Town of Iericho is Besieged, the Walls fall down, not by strength, but by sounds. Afterwards having slain and subdued so many Kings in one day, the People is placed in their Habitations. It was verily a great Miracle of Victory, but whence happened this Victory? What shall we say? Because the Israelites were more in number: I suppose it was not so: was it because they were stronger? Neither was that the cause: What, did they then excell all the other Nati­ons in Vertues? Yea, what Nation was ever [Page 261] more perverse? But you will say, they obliged God to befriend them by observance of his Worship. Yea, how often and how grievously did they exasperate God with their sins? How wickedly did they murmur against their Lead­ers, and so provoked the anger of God against themselves? How often was the Clemency of God by their Perfidious Rebellion, Wicked Contrivances, Untractable Stubbornness, Mur­muring Concupiscence and Perverseness, not on­ly provoked, but also almost overcome, so that he would have utterly destroyed the Rebellious People with all their Posterity, unless Moses, the meekest of Men, by Humble Prayer with hands lifted up, had turned the provoked An­ger of God into Mercy? But it is better to take notice, what the The Land of promise, the Victory of the People of Israel. Deut. 9. Lord himself speaks against this People with his own Mouth: Say not, saith he, in thy Heart, when the Lord thy God shall destroy those Nations before thee; For my Righteousness the Lord brought me in, to possess this Land, whereas those Nations were destroyed for their own Abominations: For thou shalt not enter in to possess their Lands, for thy own Righteousness, nor for the upright­ness of thy Heart, but because they did wick­edly, they were destroyed at thy entring in: And that the Lord might fulfill the Word which he promised by Oath to thy Fathers, A­braham, Isaac and Iacob. Know therefore, that the Lord thy God hath not given thee this Land for thy Righteousness, for thou art a stiff-neck­ed People, &c.

Ye have heard the naked and simple Histo­ry, but yet true, of the thing that came to pass, and not only true, but also much 1 Cor. 7. The Land of promise is a Type of the promised Kingdom. more Mystical. If all things hap­pened to them, as the Apostle wit­nesseth, under a figure, what else should we judge concerning this History, but that under the History, lies hid a more hidden Mystery: For it can not be doubted, that this Land of Canaan, that was promised to the Israelites, Represents those Celestial and Immortal Mansions of the in­heritance above, which if it be true, let us com­pare the truth with this figure and shadow, the Antitype with the Type. Iust as they, not being helped by any Merites, of their own, yea, contrary to all their Merits, neither for any peculiar cause in them, but through the singular favour of God promising, and for the sake of the Fathers, to whom it was promised by Oath, received by gift the possession of the Country that flowed with Milk and Honey: So also we should Iudge of the Heavenly Country of Immortality: That it is not due to any Vertues or Works of ours, but that it comes to us by the free promise of God, for the sake of his Son, into whose hands all things are given, that are in Heaven and in Earth.

What will the Angelical Dogmatist answer here with his gloss? But that either those things did not happen to them Thomas A­quinas with the ordinary Gloss. in a figure, and that they belong not at all to us; or he must needs acknowledge that our Interests are hereby Represented answerable to theirs. That I [Page 263] we may proceed in the Sacred Myste­ries of Scripture, what shall I now: say of those, who being bitten by Serpents, had no other way of Recovery, but by the Serpent set up upon a pole? Again what shall I say of those in the Prophet Ionah; who being in dreadful danger, as soon as they had thrown out Ionah, and had committed him The Hebrews recover their Health by looking on the Serpent. Ionas a Type of Christ, sa­ving the lives of his own by his Death. to the mercy of the Waters, the Tempest being presently quieted, escaped safe with the Ship? What else do all these Arguments teach, but that casting away confidence in all other things, and distrusting our selves, we may account that all the help for our obtaining Salvation, is placed in no other thing or vertue, but in his death only, who by his Blood, hath Recon­ciled all things both in Heaven and in Earth. How often in the Psalms, in the Prophers, in the Gospel, doth the Scripture, shutting up all under fin, take away from Man not only Me­rits, but oft-times drives the Holiest unto this by an acknowledgment of his own unrighte­ousness, that he acknowledges his Salvation to be placed, not in those things that are given, but those that are forgiven to him by God. For as touching the name of Merit or Reward, if it be found any where (for it is found some­times) let no Man from hence flatter himself, as if God owed it to any Man: But let him know rather, upon what account he is said to do that: not because the Deeds, which of them­selves are imperfect, deserve life (yea, which [Page 264] rather stand in need of Pardon:) But because the bounty of God imputes these Works, such as they are for Merits to them who Work: Why so? To wit, because they are the Works of the Faithful; who, if they were The Pious Works of Believers are impured for Merits, not according to Righteous­riess, but ac­cording to Grace. not Believers, their Merits would have no room at all, nor be of a­ny value in the sight of God. As if a Father say to a Son, if so be thou lovest Learning, thou shalt ob­tain any thing of me, and be my dearly beloved Son: By this Speech the Father doth not so oblige him­self to the Son, as if for no other cause, but for performing Obedience, he would receive him to himself for a Son, yea, because he is a Son; therefore the Father commands what he will, and the Son performs what he ought. God useth sometimes thus to propose a Recompense and Rewards to the Regenerate, whereby we may be stirred up to do well: And there is no doubt but the Rewards promised, will follow the office performed.

But in the mean while let us see to whom this promise was made, and for what cause it was made; of which thing let us understand what is the Opinion of Osorius: God hath promised, faith he, to all that live Osor. de Iust. lib. 6. p. 150.righteously, great wealth, exceeding great pleasures, and an immortal Kingdom, very great dignity, everlasting glory, &c. There are many faults in these vicious Argu­mentations, and that is none of the least, which is committed by making a division not [Page 265] sufficient: In which kind Osorius offends here: For whereas there are two kinds of promises very much differing Legal promi­mises. Evangelical promises. from one another; the one beliong­ing to the Law, being annexed un­to certain conditions; the other belonging to the Gospel, being free, without all condition of Law. The whole discourse of Osorius is so taken up in that Legal kind, that he doth not so much as make mention of the other. God hath promised, says he, to all that live righteously, &c. That is true indeed, if we look to those Romans 2. things that belong to the Law: For the Law, as it hath its threatnings, so also it hath its promises proposed to them that live unblameably; in which we are command­ed to do this and live. Concerning which Paul also saith, Peace and life to every one that doth good, &c. So then the Law promis­eth, and the Gospel also promiseth, but upon a different account; for they differ in this; The promises of the Law regard the Desert of Life: But the Grace of the Gospel doth not so much regard the manner of Life, as the Faith of the Person, and measures his dignity, not by the merits of Works, but measures the merits of Works themselves, by the Faith of the Be­liever, and the dignity of the Object only on whom he believes. Wherefore as touching Rewards proposed in the Gospel, it is not enough to look only on the things themselves, which are proposed, but the consideration must be referred to the Faith and Person of Be­lievers, [Page 266] of what sort they are, whether plant­ed in Christ by Faith, or out of Christ, to whom the promise is made? If out of Christ they are servants and unbelievers, no promise or expectation of reward belongs to them. But if in Christ they are Sons and regenerate by Faith; then all is due to Faith, not to Works: It is of Grace, and not of Merit, whatsoever the Father either promises his Sons for Love's sake, or imputes unto them in the place of a reward. And indeed this Im­putation, in which all the confidence of our Salvation is contained, proceeds from the grace and favour of God only; and also it must be considered, that there Imputation twofold. is a twofold kind of Imputation with God; the one, whereby the Righteousness of Christ is ascribed to us, and when for his sake, our petty duties are impu­ted for great, and recompensed with the highest rewards; the other, when he doth not punish, but pardon great crimes in his own that are regenerate: Concerning which the Apostle said, God was 2 Cor. 5. Romans 4. Psalm 32. in Christ reconciling the World to himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them. But the Sons of the Papacy do in no ways endure this Imputa­tion. Why so? Andradius together with Mon­hemius and the Colognists think it an unworthy thing, that any man should be called righteous by another man's Righteousness, Andrad. lib. 6. Orthod. Explic. pag. 477. 454. which is not inherent in himself. Tiletanus cries that it is more than [Page 267] absurd, and that it hath not been Tiletanus in A­polog. contra [...]. p. 226. heard of in the World, that that can be the true form of any thing, which is not in it. As if a man should call Cicero couragious with the Courage which is not in himself, but in the mind of Achilles. To whom that I may answer, this cavilling would take place, if our affair were carried on by Nature, and not by Grace; if by Law, and not by Redemption.

I know that our Debt is infinite, the pay­ment whereof the Law doth necessarily re­quire of us. Neither do I deny that we are not able to pay, nor will ever be able to pay that debt, if our ability be considered. But what if some rich King intervene, who paying the debt that was owing, gets himself a right to the in­debted Citizens, and having freed them from all obligation, makes them subject to his own command; what will those furious and impor­tunate pleaders for Works say here? May we not enjoy the bounty of another, because we have no ability of our own? what, will they say that no payment is By the Law it is reckoned that he did a thing, who does it by another. just, but what is paid with a man's own money. That which is done by a Friend for the sake of a Friend, is it not just as if it had been done by himself? If that which was due from us, be paid by the price of Christ, is there any Law so cruel as to exact the same debt of us again? and what will the Adversaries require more here? that he should be condemned for unjust, whosoever hath no [Page 268] Righteousness of his own: And indeed I ac­knowledge this to be true in Iudicatories, if no Redemption intervene, which may satisfie in the room of another. But now seeing our Affairs are in such a condition, that the con­demnation of the Law, hath nothing that it can demand of us; I think that is a sufficient Plea for us, which was done by him, who made satisfaction for us. But these men do again cry out against us, saying that it cannot be by Nature, and that it is no less contrary to all natural Reason, that any thing should take its being from that form, which is not its own, but another's.

I answer, That it is true indeed formally, as to the essence of a thing, but not judicially: For tho' the Righteousness of another, which is not inherent in us, cannot render us essentially just, who are by Nature unjust: But nothing hinders but the Righteousness of another may help our Righteousness, according to Iu­dicial Imputation; just as nothing hinders, but the Riches of another may be cast upon ano­thers Poverty, by a certain Communion or Im­putation of good things; so that he who in himself is poor, yet may be esteemed rich in another: And not unlike unto this is our Communion of mutual Imputation with Christ; for as our sins being imputed to Christ, were hurtful to him, even unto the damage of pu­nishment; so by the like Mystery of dispensa­tion, the Righteousness of Christ being ad­judged and imputed to us, though it doth not inhere in us essentially, yet in respect of pos­session [Page 269] and dispensation of Iudgment it is pro­fitable to us for a reward of Life, just as if it had been our own Righteousness; for otherways to what purpose is Christ said to have done and suffered all these things for us, if what he did and suffered, serve not for our advantage? But if they serve for our advantage, why cannot those things be justly accounted for ours, which were undertaken in our name, and for our sake? If the name of Imputation doth so greatly offend them, which they think doth not well agree with Christian Piety, wherefore then doth Paul so often seem in his Writings not only to use this word Imputation, but to delight in it? But afterwards, Christ willing, There is fre­quent men­tion of Im­putation in Paul's Wri­tings. we shall discourse of this matter more largely in its own place.

Not every Faith Iusti­fies. Not every Faith Iuifies.

BUT What I just now said of [...]. 3. Sentent. dis­tinct. 23. I believe a God, I believe God, I believe in God. Hope, the same also again must be said of Faith, that it must be true and right, and not only that it must be great. For every Faith doth not avail for Iustification, because there are [Page 278] many and divers kinds of believing: First there is a Faith, whereby we both know that God is; and fear him: and the Devils themselves are not without this Faith. There is another Faith whereby we believe God and give certain credit to his promises. The Schoolmen add unto these a third kind of believing, whereby we are said to believe in God. And this Faith they divide variously into a formed and formless Faith: into an habitual and actual faith. There is also a faith, that is often taken for hope, and so defined: As in the Epistle to the Hebr. 11. Hebrews: Where Faith is called the substance of things not seen, but hoped for, and the evidence of things not appearing, but future.

Moreover there are those that divide the use of this Word into many forms. Andreas Vega, reckons in the general Nine Significations of the word of Faith. Andreas Vega Hisp. De Iust. q. 1. Nine Signi­fications of Faith in Vega. Put because in these which I have hitherto reckoned, there is no men­tion made of that person, from whom all the Vertue of Iustify­ing proceeds, therefore I see not how it can be, that Iustification should rightly agree to the same. VVhere­fore this seems less strange to me in Osorius, Hosius, and others of that School; if their Opinion is not so right about the Iustification of Faith, for they seem not to have clearly enough discerned, or at least not to have fitly defined that Faith, which the Evangelical VVritings propose unto us.

But if this Faith, that we pro­fess, contained no other thing in it, It is no won­der if Faith as it is de­fined by the Papists does not Iustifie. but that which they pretend to in their Books, I would be of the same Opinion, which they Preach: To wit, That it avails little to the procuring of Righteousness. That this may be the more evident, I would have Pious Readers listen to what those Men teach concerning Faith, and how they define it. And so they define it, that either through blindness they know not, or by dissimulation they make as if they knew not, what is the true Faith proposed to us in the Gospel for Righteousness. And that we may begin first at the Tridentines, they so define it, That it is a firm assent unto those things, that are revealed, and made manifest by God. And Osorius following these Men Col­lects The defini­tion of Faith in Osor. lib. 2. Numb. 46. the Universal Nature of Faith after a manner not much differing from them, That it is a firm and constant assent of the mind, stirred up by the Au­thority of the Speaker.

But what this Faith is, which Osorius de­scribes after this manner, let him look to that. Verily any Man may think it is not this Faith, which Paul speaks of, in disputing of Righteousness, or [...]. lib. 3. Dist. 23. to which we from the Authority of Paul affirm that Righteousness should be attributed properly. Though in the mean while we deny not, that this Faith is true, which is asserted by Osorius and others, [Page 280] whereby, for the Authority of the Church teaching, we believe whatsoever things belong to Religion; which though they are not seen, as Lombard says, yet What Faith is according to Osorius and the Papists. they are believed whether they are past, or expected to come. As he that gives credit to the things contained in the Articles of the Creed, and that are expresly mentioned in the Scrip­tures: He that believes and professes, that the World was made by the Word of God, and that God is, and that he Created all things of no thing.

Moreover that he believes and pro­fesseth that he is powerful, and very good, Osor. lib. 1. pag. 7. (That I may proceed in the very words of Osorius) endued with boundless and infinite virtue, and bounty watching over all parts of the World, and passing through them, beholding and taking notice of all things, and looking well to every thingaccording as the dignity and condition of each thing requires; and whatsoever else belonging to the profession of Faith, is taught in the Writings of the Prophets, Verily that Man is not at all mistaken in believing. For the things that are seen by an Internal light of Faith are very true, though they are very re­mote from the Senses.

But yet this is not the Faith, though it be true, that justifies us, Not every Faith appre­hending true things justi­fies. who are miserably defiled and wretched Sinners, before God. For what Circumcised Iew, or hateful Turk is there, but believes [Page 281] all these things, which Osorius, with a long multiplication of words, Preaches of God, and his Power, and Iustice, and Immensity? For they together with us confess one God, and rely on his promises with great hope, call upon his Name, observe his commands as well as we, and also flatter themselves with the Title of the true Church; Yea, also they are not Ignorant that the Dead shall be restored to Life, and promise E­ternal Life to themselves: Moreover many things, which they see not with their Eyes, they retain. by Faith, and pursue by hope. Briefly, they do no less believe God them­selves, and confess God. But if the Christian Faith, according to the Magisterial position of Lombard, should be placed in nothing else, but a solid apprehension of things to be hoped for, and a sure expectation of those things, which do not appear, what hinders, but that both Iews and Saracens may be reckoned faith­ful upon this account.

What then, you will say, Doth not Paul writing to the Hebrews What man­ner of Faith is this which is [...]. Hebr. 11. expresly comprehend Faith in that same definition, To wit, That it is the substance of things hoped for, &c. Verily, I neither reject Paul the Author of this Epistle, nor disapprove the definition, neither do I examin that, nor do so much as enquire for it, which is en­quired for in Lombard: Whether this de­scription be more agreeable to Faith than Hope? But this I answer: That we may [Page 282] confess this Faith to be true, which is here defin'd. But surely that is not the Faith which properly justifies the wicked in the sight of the Lord.

Why so? Because there is wanting to the definition, the Genus, Property, and difference, which distinguishes Faith from Hope. Also, there is wanting the true and proper object of Faith, which should by no means have been omitted; To wit, The person of him, in whom only all the promises of God, and the whole cause of our Iustifica­tion is contained. Who unless Faith looks upon the promise, but yet not upon this only, but rather ano­ther object, whence it re­ceives Iusti­fication. he comes in, in vain other things are either believed or hoped for by us, neither will all that sub­stance of things hoped for, avail us any whit unto Salvation. What then, you will say, Hath not the most gracious Father promised us his mercy? Hath he not engaged himself by an inviolable Covenant that he would pardon our Sins? Must we not give credit to those things, which are pro­mised by God? He hath promised indeed, I confess, but how? Only in Christ his Son. To whom? Only to them that believe in the Son. I know and acknowledge that the promises of God are most sure, in which he promises as Osorius Osor. lib. 6. Nu. 150. Lib. 5. Num. 21. rehearses; Infinite Riches, excellent Pleasure, an immortal Kingdom, great Dignity, everlasting Glory. But yet these good things are neither [Page 283] so promised or given by God, that in the mean while he exacts nothing of us for the obtaining of these good things which he pro­mises. Therefore this is not the state of the question, whether we should believe God pro­mising, which is common to us with the Iews themselves and Turks.

Neither do I ask that, what the Lord hath promised: For Salvation is promised, Pardon of Sins is promised: But this is it which pro­perly comes in question here: Upon what account, and for what cause, this Salvation and Pardon of Sins is promised, whether there is no condition interposed? Or whether there is some condition? But I think there is none, can say, there is no condition. There­fore it remains that we confess there is ne­cessarily some condition. Which of what manner it is, let us examin by the Scriptures.

But in the mean while perhaps some Man will object: If the promise of God be con­fined to certain conditions, how then shall we with Paul make the A Question. How the pro­mise is free if it is con­fined by a condition. Answer. mercy of God free, whereby he freely justifies the Wicked? Yea verily, I both judge and hold that the Mercy of God is most free: Free, I say, in Christ. Otherways without Christ there can be no hope of Mercy, nor promise of Salvation, nor remis­sion of Sins. And the Sons of the Papacy will not deny this that all the riches of the Di­vine promise and of our Salvation stand in Christ. And indeed in so much they are in [Page 284] the right. For hereby I under­stand the Mediatour, by whom The Media­tour. God dispenses his Heavenly gifts to us: That [...] Christ. But I do not yet per­ceive well enough, how he dispenses by this Mediatour. For tho I acknowledge him to be Mediatour, to whose merit only we are beholden for all our Sal­vation, The Promise with a Con­dition. yet because this Salvation by the Merit of Christ, is not Communicated unto all, neither is it derived to us but upon a certain Condition, I would gladly learn of those Men, what is that Con­dition prescribed unto us by God to obtain Salvation, or how this meritorious Efficiency of the Mediatour Works in us: And here presently Answers Lombard, Lombard. and others that favour the Lom­bardick Discipline, that it comes to pass this way; To wit, by Charity infused through the Merits of Christ, which being received by our voluntary taking it in, we are incontinently not only named just, but are really so.

O Divines! As if Christ had been given to us, and had come from the Father for no other purpose; but that he might pro­cure unto us the Divine Infusion of For what [...] Christ was given to us of the Fa­ther accor­ding to the Papists. Charity, as they call it. And why could he not by Prayers, obtain this same infusion from his most bountiful Father, when he was pre­sent here? what, was the Father so hard, and so inexorable, that he could not be mitigated by any Prayers, to com­municate [Page 285] the benefit of grace to any Man, with­out the death and Blood of his own dearly be­loved Son? But what hindered? Because he was not willing who by nature is Charity it self? Or because he was not able, who is in Majesty Om­nipotent? But now being endued with the gift of Charity, what will you obtain by that? You say, Salvation and Righteous­ness. Trident. Concil. [...]. 6. c. 7. Upon what account will you obtain that? Because Charity be­ing the fulfilling of the Law, thereby it comes to pass, that Charity being spread abroad in our Hearts by the Holy Ghost, and inflaming us to the Obedience of the Law, it easily performs all those things, which are the duties of life; so that we are now not only ac­counted, but in reality are called, and are in­deed Righteous. That is right indeed: There­fore if I am not mistaken, this is it, which I see those Men drive at; that all our hope of Salvation is placed in the performance of the Law: And that the Summary of the Divine promise, is contained in that condition, if we perform the things that pertain to the Law: Which because they cannot be performed without Supernatural Infusion of Andrad. Or­thod. explic. lib. 6. pag. 471. Charity, therefore Charity inform­ing the mind with the love of the Divine Law, is called by them Righteousness.

Ingenuous Reader, you have the Summary of this Sophistical Divinity briefly described.

Concerning which that you may judge more rightly, look now at this wonderful Order of Causes.

Concerning the Threefold cause of Iustifica­tion, 1. Conditional, 2. Formal, 3. Meri­torious.

1. FIrst they place the end of all Righteous­ness and the Salvation promised to us in the observance of the Law, upon The order of causes accor­ding to the Papists in the manner of justifying. this condition, that if the Law be performed, we may live, but if not, there should remain no other way of obtaining Life.

2. But because this perfect performance of the Law, according to the due manner of doing, as they speak, is not in the power The nextand last cause of Iustification, is the perfe­ction of the Law. of Nature, nor in the Law it self, without a special Supplement of grace, as they call it, therefore they necessarily require Charity spread abroad in our Hearts, which they define the formal cause of Iustification.

3. But now by what ways and means this infu­sion of Grace and Charity is obtained, they assign two causes chiefly, of which the one is placed in the Death of The cause of procuring grace is the Merit of Christ, and the voluntary acceptance of free will. Christ, as the Meritorious cause: The other they place in the volun­tary acceptance of our Will, which because it could reject this grace which it accepts according to its li­berty, therefore they Attribute un­to [Page 287] it the Merits of Meriting at least [de congruo or Agreeableness:] Merit de con­gruo. and in the mean while, Faith a­mongst those Men is nothing valued or accounted of. And it is no wonder, for they do not understand by the Gospel, what Gos­pel Faith is, neither do they seem to have had any experimental knowledge, what the power and efficacy thereof is.

But that I may answer the Sophistical talks of these Men: First, as touching the next and last cause of Iustification, which A Refutation of the Popish Division as touching the order of causes. The conditi­on of Iustifi­cation, de­pends not on the perfecti­on of the Law, as the next and ul­timate end. they say consists in the perfection of the Law; how false it is, and con­trary to the Gospel, who is so void of the knowledge of the Gospel, but clearly perceives it? For tho' the voice of the Law confines us by a most rigid necessity, to the per­fect condition of performing all Righteousness, yet the meek voice of the Evangelical promise sounds far otherways: Which requires no other condition to obtain Salvation, but Faith only, whereby we believe in the Son of God.

But what should you say to those Men, who know scarcely any more difference between the Law and Gospel, than Night Owls that are dimsighted at Noon-day.

Concerning the Formal cause of Iustifi­cation.

AND that is no less false, which they most vainly dream concerning a formal cause; which is easily confuted after this manner. First, that we may grant this, that Cha­rity should be reckoned amongst Charity is in part as the Saints often teach. the chiefest gifts of God, which being so often praised by the Apo­stle, cannot be praised enough by any Man, yet never was there given to any Man in this life so great an excellency therein, that he should fulfill all the Righteousness of the Law. Whence because charity of life, as they call it, is imperfect, (for we love in part ac­cording to theMagisterial Sentence,) that can neither be called Righte­ousness, Sentent. lib. 3. dist. 31. Charity does not go before Faith, but follows after it, neither doth it form Faith, but it is informed by Faith. nor be the form of Faith. Unto this there is added another reason, because when it is given most largely, yet Charity is never given for this end, that it may justi­fie us in the sight of God, nor that it may inform faith, but rather that it self may be informed by faith, and may be subservient to faith, for Works of Charity are fruits of faith, not the cause of faith, they follow, but do not go be­fore faith.

For Magdalen did not therefore believe in [Page 289] Christ, because she loved Christ, but because she believed in Christ; therefore she loved much. Now if that be called the formal cause by Philosophers, which furnishes mat­ter with Life and Soul, and if Divines account this the life, whereby we live to God, what then will they say to the Prophetical Scripture, whereby the Iust is said to live not by Charity, but by faith? What also will they answer to the Words of Christ, in which he teaches that life Eternal consists in this, that we should know the Father the true God, and Iesus Christ, whom he hath sent?

And again, where in very evident Speech, he Attributes life to faith only, and not to Charity. He that believeth in the Son, faith he, hath Eternal Life.

Concerning the Meritorious cause of Iusti­fication.

BUT in the mean while, because these things have been already largely discoursed of, there follows after this, that which is next in this Series of causes, that we should In what res­pect the Me­ritorious cause of Iu­stification should be placed in Christ. now examine with the like brief­ness the Meritorious cause of Iusti­fication, which those Men by the Authority of Trent comprehend on­ly, and wholly in Christ. And now what then will those Scribes and Disputers of this World answer [Page 290] here? What do the Works of the Iust Merit nothing in the sight of God? Do they help nothing towards the obtaining of Righteous­ness? And where then is that Me­rit Merits of congruo and condigno Me­rits of Super­rogation that are undue ex opere oper ato. de Gongruo and condigno? Where are the Works of Supererogati­on that are above due? Where is that grace, which the Sacraments confer upon us, ex opere oper ato? By what Argument now will Andrew Vega defend this. Axiom of his? Faith, says he, and other good Works, whereby we are disposed unto grace that makes us acceptable, and whereby we are formally justified, and made acceptable to God, are Meritorious by the way of agreeableness of such grace, and of our Iustification, &c. Whence it is evident, that either Christ is not the only Meritorious cause of such grace, or that all the other helps of Merits are of no value. Though in the mean while, I do not deny that the death of Christ is truly Meritorious; but let the adversaries consider diligently what it hath merited: That the spiritual help, say they, of Divine Grace and Charity to perform the Law. might be diffused into us. What then? Dyed Christ for no other cause. but that he might obtain the gift of Charity for Mortal Ephes. 2. Colos. 2. Men to perform the Law? Did he not rather dye upon this account, that he might blot out the Hand writing which was against us in the Law, having nailed it to his [...], that he might take away the Enmity, and might destroy Death for ever; might dis­possess [Page 291] the Devil of his Kingdom, that there might be food and sustenance for our hunger; that he might make Principalities and Powers subject to his Triumpham Dominion, that he might take possession of all Power in Heaven and in Earth. What, if the power of Charity to perform the Law is so great, as they preach, could not this Charity otherways get entrance, unless the Son of God dyed? Yea, were not the Patriarchs, Prophets, and many others of the Saints adorned with the same supernatural gifts? Moreover, since the Death of Christ, is there so great an influence of Charity infu­sed into the holy Patri­archs and Prophets be­fore the Death of Christ. Grace present with any man, that he is able to fulfil all Righteousness? Because the Merit of Christ is perfect, it is necessary that those things also should be perfect, which he hath merited for us by his most perfect price. But on the contrary, my Opinion is, that I think Christ to be indeed the meritorious cause of our Iustification, and that he is not so much the merito­rious, Christ only is the meritori­ous cause of Iustification. as the efficient cause of our Renovation, seeing it is he that baptizes with the Holy Spirit and with Fire. Suppose we grant that this Charity flows in upon us by the Merit of Christ, yet I do not therefore call this same in­fusion of Grace a cause of meriting Iustification, nor any part of a cause thereof; but it seems rather fit to be reckoned amongst the effects and fruits of Iustification, which follow from thence; neither doth it follow, because the [Page 292] works of Grace and Charity come to us by the Merit of Christ, that therefore the same do merit Iustification before God; for it relies up­on no condition of works at all, but only the promise, and that a free one also; and so free, that it implies no condition except one only. And because in this place we enquire what is that only and peculiar condition, the The promise of God unto Salvation re­lies upon one condition only. Doctrine of the Gospel will easily teach us, if so be we are more wil­ling to hearken to the Gospel, than to the Opinions of Trent.

On what condition properly doth the Promise of Iustification rely.

BUT the condition, whereby we Faith consists of two parts, inward know­ledge, and outward con­fession. are properly justified, is this: That we should believe in Christ, and adhere to him by a constant confession. In which Faith, in the mean while, a diligent Caution should be observed, that this Faith should be directed unto a proper and legitimate Object; which I wonder that it hath not yet been ta­ken notice of by those School Doctors hither­to: Of whom some place the Object of Faith in the first Truth: Others take for its Ob­ject, all things that are written in the holy Scriptures: Others do esteem for The Object of [...] to the [...]. the Object of Faith, all things that are laid before us to be believed by the Authority of the Catholick [Page 293] Church. And they say not amiss; for I de­ny not that all these things are both truly and necessarily to be believed by every man: For he that believes the whole Archi­tecture of this World was framed by the handy-work of God in the space of six days, he is indeed led by a right Faith, as all Truths are to be believed with a most sure Faith, whatsoever are mentioned in the Books of the Scripture, which Faith of every particular Truth, as I suppose, doth not therefore justifie a man: For the sense of our question is not, what is truly believed by us, but what Faith that is which justifies the wicked before God from his sins; and that we should search by the Gospel, what is the proper Object of this Faith. In the mean while that is a very ridiculous thing, and too barbarous, that the Pope in his Decretals reduces the Object of Faith to the Keys and Succession Bonifacius in Decretals. of the Roman Chair, and that as necessary to Salvation; but away with this Deceiver and his Cheats.

Concerning Faith and Assurance, and what is the proper Object of Faith.

NOW let us discourse of others, The Object of Faith accord­ing to the more sound Orthodox. who reasoning with more sound Iudgment about Faith, do not fetch the proper and genuine Object of Faith, whereby we are [Page 294] justified, so far off from the very first Truth, as Thomas; nor reduce it to every particular Truth of Scripture, as the Colonienses; nor define it by the Decrees of the Church, as the Duacene Doctor, and Iesuits of that Place and Order; nor place it in the Infallible Authority of the Roman Chair, as Boniface; but com­ing much nearer to Evangelical The defini­tion of Falth according to the more re­formed Di­vines. Truth, do thus define Faith unto us, that they place its Object in the Mercy of God only. For thus is Faith defined by most of our Di­vines at this day, to wit, That it is a firm and constant relyance on the Mercy of God, promised freely for the sake of Christ. Which definition, if it be true, by this means it appears that the Object of Faith is placed no otherways, nor in any other thing, but in the free Mercy of God laid hold upon; Faith often taken for trust in mer­cy. which neither I my self deny to be true in this sense, as Faith in this place is taken for a relyance, as it is often used in this signification, because it hath a respect to Mercy, Whether on­ly relyance on mercy properly ju­stifies us be­fore God. and brings forth Assurance in the mind of Believers. But whether this relyance properly justifies us before God, it may here be en­quired not without profit.

Concerning the Assurance of Christian Reliance, against Hosius.

A Worthy comparison for sooth, An Answer against the Hosian uncer­tainty. of God and Men, which dis­annuls and destroys all the Promises of God, the whole Doctrine of the Gospel, yea and the foundations of all Re­ligion. For to what purpose should God pro­mise by his Word, if he would not have us assured of those things which are promised? A [Page 298] Son was promised to Abraham, and he be­lieved, not at all distrusting him that promised, and it is accounted a praise to him: What then? Do you praise the undaunted confidence of Abraham, and do you dispraise ours? In like manner the Seed to come was promised to mi­serable Adam: To what purpose? that he might stick in a trembling wavering diffidence? or rather that he might support his mind with the expectation of the promised consolation? There are so many engagements of promises in both Covenants, which if the Divine Truth would not have made sure unto us, why then would he have them written in the Word, and recorded in Books? Briefly, why are we com­manded in the Christian Articles of Faith to believe the remission of sins, the Resurrection of the flesh, and Life Eternal, but that we might reckon those things to be most sure unto us, which are inserted in the Articles? Therefore that is false, which Hosius affirms, That no man is bound to believe firmly, or to hold assuredly either concerning himself, or this man or that man, that his sins are for­given him for Christ's sake; that he is in a state of grace, and that he is assu­redly to possess the Kingdom of Hosius lib. 1. confut. p. 15. Hosius ibid. Osor. de Iust. l. 2. p. 32. Heaven, &c. And again, neither is that less false, which he fathers upon men of our persuasion, as if we held thus, that every man is a partaker upon that account only, because he hath determined himself to be a person that will be accepted of God; which is not true, [Page 299] and is not without an impudent calumny. For we are not of such an Opinion, as to believe that an assured persuasion of Mercy should by any means be separated from Iustifying Faith, (which the Divines of the Popish way do abo­minably:) neither again do we transfer properly the very cause of Iustification into this confi­dence and naked application of Marcy, (as they falsly slander us.) Why so? because, yet some other thing is wanting, which must needs go before this application of the Promise, and which is necessarily required to the true cause of Iustifying.

The cause of Iustification depends not on con­fidence, or the application of Mercy only.

YOU will say, What then? Is The cause of Iustification in respect of God is Mer­cy in respect of us, Faith in the Medi­atour. not the free Promise of God a most true cause on which our whole Iustification depends? If you say on God's part, it is true; if you ask on our part, you must go fur­ther, and something seems to be necessarily joyned with the Promise. Now that we may set the thing more evidently be­fore your eyes; God promises Salvation to his own, and that freely, and for Christ's sake. That indeed is most certain, and beyond all controversie. Go on, And you put trust in the Promise of God: You do very well in doing so, and I commend the constancy of your con­fidence. [Page 300] When Salvation is promised freely for Christ's sake, shall therefore an absolute Promise save all men promiscuously for Christ's sake, without any restriction of condition? I suppose God will not save all promiscuously. Now then this Promise belonging not to all, but some certain persons only, upon some cer­tain condition, I would know, who those are, to whom this Promise properly belongs. You say, Believers, and in that you say well; but how, or believing in whom? Are they not those that believe in Christ him­self? Faith only in the person of the Son of God justifies. Is it not he only, for whose sake only Salvation is promised to Believers? Doth not this Faith only in the Person of the Son of God make us partakers of the promise? Doth not this Faith only justifie before God? More­over, is not this the only condition, which eve­ry where the voice of Christ, and the Apostles in the Gospel, and the voice of the Prophets inculcate; which the appointment of the Father especially requires; that we should hear his be­loved Son, that we should receive Christ, that we should believe in his Name, that we should flie to him by Faith, and betake our selves wholly to him, that we should believe in him, whom he hath sent, whom the Father hath sealed, that we should digest him inwardly in our minds, that we should be ingrafted into him, and should grow in him, that we should know Iesus, and him crucified only, that we should behold him only, as the Israelites of old beheld the Serpent in the Wilderness; that we should put on Christ.

Hence come these so frequently repeated Sermons in the Gospel concerning the Per­son of Christ: He that believeth Ioh. 6. Ioh. 1. Ioh. 3. Ioh. 6. Ioh. 11. Ioh. 14. Ioh. 6. Rom. 4. Rom. 3. Ioh. 20. Act. 8. Act. 16. Philip. 3. Ephes 3. Galat. 3. Act. 26. Act. 10. Ioh. 8. Ioh. 6. Ioh. 15. Galat. 3. in me hath Life Eternal: As many as received him: They that be­lieve in his Name: He that be­lieves in the Son of God. That every one that seeth the Son, and believes in him: He that believeth in me shall never Die: Do ye believe in God? Believe also in in me. We believe and know that thou art Christ the Son of the living God. He that believes in him, who justifies the Ungodly. Iustifying him, that is of the faith of Iesus Christ. If thou confess with thy Mouth the Lord Iesus, &c. That we may believe that [...] is the Son of God, and be­lieving may have Eternal Life. If thou believe with all thy Heart, &c. Believe in the Lord Iesus, and thou shalt be saved and thy House; The Righteousness which is of the Faith of Christ. We have access through the faith of him. The pro­mise of the faith of Iesus Christ. By faith which is in me. By his Name all that believe in him. If ye do not believe that I am he. Ex­cept ye eat my flesh. Except ye a­bide in me. If ye abide in me. Ibid. Ye are all the Sons of God by Faith in Iesus Christ.

What is the True and Genuine Definition of Faith.

BY Which so many and so evident places of Scriptute, there is no Man that cannot be most sure, what is properly The Object of Faith that justifies. The Object of Faith which certi­fies. the Object of that Faith which justifies us; To wit, no other thing, but the person of the Son of God: As again the object of Confidence is the promise of God. Which things being so, it will not be difficult to gather from these No­tions of Scripture, what is the true and genu­ine definition of justifying Faith, concerning which we are making enquiry: which seems, that it ought to be defined according to the right rule of the Gospel after this manner. To wit, That it is a right knowledge of the Son of God planted in our minds, The definiti­on of faith whereby we are justified. whereby we acknowledge a pro­mised Christ, and receive him be­ing held forth, and with our Mouth profess him to have dyed for us, and rose again, Worship him in Spirit, and em­brace him with all our mind, together with all his benefits.

And this Faith as it is a singular gift of God, so of all the gifts of God, we believe this faith is that only which justifies believers in the sight of God. To which, though assurance and [Page 303] confidence of the grace of God is most nearly joyned, which is it self also sometimes cal­led by the name of Faith, yet this confidence doth not properly infer the cause of Iustificati­on, but receives it being brought; neither doth it cause Iustification; but is rather caused by it, and renders those assured, who are justified by the Faith of Christ; but Perswasion of Mercy fol­lows the faith of Christ in Order. doth not it self justifie. For God doth not therefore forgive thee, and receive thee for a Son, be­cause thou embracest the Mercy of God with a Holy confidence; but because thou embracest his Christ with a right Faith, and confessest and lovest him, he loveth thee: nei­ther do we therefore believe in Christ, because we are assured of Salvation, and trust the pro­mises; but because we believe in Christ, there­fore we attain unto a certain hope of those things that are promised in Wherein Iu­stifying faith and assurance do differ. Christ: for Eternal Life is promi­sed to him that believes in the Son. And from hence arises that clear Distinction between Faith and Assurance; for they differ in Subjects and Objects. The Faith of Christ, which brings forth Righteousness, takes its place in the higher part of the Soul, wherein the understanding is. Assurance hath relation to those powers of the Soul, in which hope, and the like affecti­ons The Subject of Faith. The Subject of Assurance. are placed. As touching the Objects, Assurance hath respect to the Mercy, or the promise in Christ: faith is directed to Christ himself, because he obtains Mercy for Believers.

But perhaps too much hath been said of those things, which, being clear enough of themselves, would not at this time need any Explication, unless I were forced thereunto by the Calumnies of Hosius, Osorius, and such O­thers, whose Opinion seems to me, to be faulty upon a Twofold ac­count. A twofold Calumny of the Papists. First, in that they think this Doctrine of Christian Assu­rance, which we Establish in Christ, should by no means be endured in the Church, and which they call Confidence and Presump­tion, than which they affirm, that nothing is more hurtful and pernicious to the Salva­tion of the Godly. Hosius adds his own Iudgment; that to him no Abomination (as he expresses himself) seems greater in the sight of God, than this so great pre­sumption of the Hereticks: Nei­ther wants he here his Authorities Hosius in con­fut. lib. 1. pag. 14. wrested from the Scriptures: What, saith he, doth not the com­mand of the Gospel teach us, to confess our selves to be unprofitable Servants in all re­spects, yea, when we have performed all that God commanded us: From whence Hosius presently gathers, that he who assures him­self that he is in a State of Grace, he doth as much as if contrary to the command of the Lord, he called himself a profitable Servant. O Wise Headpiece! As if this Assurance and full Perswasion, which we maintain, did rely on any Dignity of ours, and did not wholly depend upon the certainty of the promise of [Page 305] God. I come to their other Calumny, no less absurd, whereby they most unjustly slander us, as if we referred the whole cause of our Iu­stification to nothing else but only an opiniona­tive assurance; so that to obtain the Remissi­on of sins, we taught that no other thing is necessary, but that every Man should, by a spe­cial faith, be perswaded in his own mind, that his sins are forgiven him, which is most false, as there is almost nothing true in the Books of Hosius. For though we confess this to be most sure, that nothing is more sure than our Iusti­fication by Christ; yet if the cause be enqui­red for, which properly justifies us from our sins, we answer, It is faith, not whereby we believe that we are Iustified, (as Hosius chat­ters) but whereby we believe in Christ the Son of God, who only is a propitiation for our sin.

Concerning the Word Iustification, what it signifies in the Scriptures: Whether it consists of Remission of Sins only, or not. And by what ways and means Iustificati­on is obtained.

NOW (ye Papists) ye have our Opinion of Iustifying Faith, and the true Nature thereof explained unto you, what its power is, and what its object: Moreover ye understand how this Faith is distinguished from Hope and [Page 306] Assurance: And wherein the true and next cause of Iustification is taken up; whereof if ye enquire for the Internal cause, it is faith only, whereby we belleve in Christ: If ye enquire for the External Matter thereof, it is Christ only, whom we embrace by Faith. But be­cause ye do by no means allow thereof, that we should be Iustified by Faith only; that we may confute your Calumnies in this mat­ter, or amend your errour, I see there re­main two things to be unfolded by me, and to be considered by you. First, What the Scrip­ture properly understands by the word Iustifi­cation: And then, Who and what manner of persons they are, who are Iustified by Faith. As touching Iustification, they of Trent deny that it consists only in the Remission of sins, unless there is joyned therewith a What it is to be Iustified in the Scrip­tures. voluntary receiving of grace, and some other things go before, by which as preparatories, Men are disposed to receive Iustification.

But Pious Reader, If you have not yet. heard what this Preparatory Trident. Conc. cap. 7. Sess. 6. Disposition is, and by what degrees it arises, and into what order it is digested by these Men, it is worth while to take notice of it. For Men are disposed un­to Righteousness, whilst being hel­ped By what ways and means Men are prepared for Iustifica­tion. by the preventing grace of Di­vine Vocation, without any Me­rits of Works going before, they receive Faith by hearing. Now what this Faith is, it hath been [Page 307] shewed above; for according to the opinion of the Papists, it is a firm assent unto those things, that are revealed and discovered by God: And yet they plead that a Man is not pre­sently Iustified by this naked as­sent, Trident. Concil. Sess. 6. cap. 6. or faith; But it behoves that other Dispositions be added by Divine grace, whereby men are prepared for Iustification; Faith, Fear, Hope, Love, Repentance, Hatred and Detestation of Sin, Love of Righteousness, Prayer and the like: so that indeed the beginning of Iustification is the free calling of God; Whence Faith comes by hearing: Whereby Men believe those things to be true, that are revealed by God: Whe­ther they be such things as belong to the free mercy of God towards sinners, through the Tiletanus in Apol. pag. 250. 241. Redemption which is in Christ Iesus: Or whether they be such things as be­long to the fear of Divine Iustice; from which Faith, by consideration of the Divine Iudg­ment fear ariseth, whereby Men are terrified to their advantage, that they may forsake and detest their sins. And afterwards from the same faith through consideration of free Mercy, purchased fo penitent sinners by Christ, assurance proceeds, where­by they are perswaded that God will be gracious to them for Christ's sake. And thus by this consideration of so great goodness, they begin to call upon God as the Fountain of all Righteousness, and to love him, and to cast away sin, and to endeavour after new­ness of life, and to keep the Commandments. And by this means we obtain a perfect disposition or pre­paration to Righteousness, whereby we are comman­ded to prepare our Hearts to the Lord. And af­terwards [Page 308] Iustification follows this preparation, which is not only the Remission of sins; but also Sanctification and Renovation of the inner Man, by a voluntary accepting of grace, and gifts, whence a Man of unjust, is made just, and of an Enemy, a Friend, that he may Free Will cooperating. be an Heir according to the hope of Eternal Life, &c.

But now, from what part of the Apostolick or Prophetick Scripture, have they taken this Doctrine? From none, neither is there need of any. The Tridentine Oracle is suf­ficient for Scripture. Amongst the Doctors, Canisius endeavours a valiant defence of this Decree; but he gains nothing at all. For tho' we acknowledge with Augustin, and the Do­ctors, that which cannot be deny'd, that we are Debtors to the grace of God; for all we receive, both for those things which belong to the forgiveness of sins, and also those things which belong to new Obedience: Yet what makes this for the matter we are now treating of? For the Subject matter at present, is not what the efficacious power of Divine grace per­forms in us (without which, Augustin justly pleads against the Pelagians, that all our strength is wholly ineffectual;) but what that is which justifies a wicked Man before God? What that [...] wherein this our Iustification, whereof I speak, consists; in the Remission of sins only, or in the possession of Vertues? Moreover what that is, which is properly signified in the Scriptures by the word Iustification? Though in this also, the Adversaries are not very well [Page 309] agreed with one another; but in this one thing they are wonderfully agreed, to oppose Saint Paul with all their might. First, they of Trent, as I have said, do thus divide their opinion, that they make two parts of Iustifi­cation: The one in Remission, which they at­tribute to Faith: The other in new Obedience, and Works meritorious of increase, as they speak, by which the Righteouness of Faith is perfected, of which opinion Tilet an Wher ein Iu­stification consists ac­cording to the Tridentines. Tiletanus in Apol. pag. 237. is the Author. Again, there are O­thers, who are so far from explain­ing what is signified by the word Iustification, that referring all to the Righteousness of Works, they think that Iustification is not wor­thy to be mentioned in Books: Of whom, and the chief amongst many, is this Osorius of ours. Thomas Aquinas discoursing of many things about Iustification, as also a­bout many other things, seems to have descri­bed it after this manner: To wit, according to the nature of Motion which is made in Man, from one contrary to another: So that it is a kind of Transmutation [...] 12. q. 113. arti. 1. What the Iustification of the wick­ed, is accor­ding to Tho­mas. A [...] al motion in Iustification. from a State of unrighteousness to a State of Righteousness, And he explains the reason, why this is called the Iustification of a wicked Man, in these words. To wit, because all motion is denominated more from the term to which, than from the term from which: there­fore that Transmutation whereby [Page 310] a Man is changed from a State of unrighteousness through the Remis­sion The Term to which. of sin, to a State of righte­ousness, it takes its name from the term to which, and it is called the Iustification of the wicked. These things said he: and he said not amiss, if so be it be rightly under­stood, for suppose we grant that which must necessarily be acknowledged, that there is no Iustification of a wicked Man, without a Trans­mutation, and that Transmutation is not made without Remission, The opinion of Thomas is examined. and also that there is no motion without a twofold term, yet there is a twofold consideration requisite here: First, where he places his term to which? That is, where he would place this State of Righ­teousness? If in this life, it is false: But if in the other, it is most true: For here, by the help of Divine grace, we proceed from Vertue to Ver­tue. But we shall attain the term of full Righte­ousness only in the life to come. And then as touching the word Righteousness, I must ask Thomas what Righteousness he means, if he means, Human or Inherent Righteousness, whereby he thinks we are Iustified before God: I answer, That we shall never attain unto that state of Righteousness in this life: But if he understand That Righteousness which [...] Preaches, which is God's, and not ours, the assertion of Thomas doth not at all differ from the words of the Apostle: for thus saith he, that we might be made the Righteousness of God through him: First, what is called this [Page 311] Righteousness of God? but that which is not ours: Which God approves in us by his im­putation. And then why doth he add, (through him) but that we may understand that this Righteousness consists not in any Whether Iu­stification consists in Remission only, or in change of qualities. 2 Cor. 5. performance of our Vertues, but is only upon the account of Christ's imputed to us, that he only may be just and the justifier of him that is of the Faith of Iesus.

Reasons are brought against the Definiti­on of Iustification set down by Thomas.

BUT because here we fall into a debate with Thomas, about the definition of Iu­stification; Out of whose Breasts the late School Divines seem to have sucked what­soever poyson runs in this Controversie: It will not be unconvenient as it were by tracing his Foot-steps, to pursue the deceits of this definition by a more exact enquiry, and to confute them by just Authority, that we may as much as in us lies, bring to nothing these Sophisti­cal tricks. But by what reason more hap­pily, or by what authority more convenient­ly shall I do it, then if I oppose St. Hierom to St. Thomas, who I think is nothing inferior to him, as it were beating out one hard wedge with another harder wedge. Now, whereas Thomas measuring this peripatetical Iustificati­on by a Physical Motion, he terminates it by [Page 312] these bonds, to wit, That it is a Transmutation from a Term of Unrighteousness, by Remission of sins, to a Term or State of Righteousness: immediately the Divines of the Council of Trent following him, snatch at this same defi­nition, and thus express it, that it is a Transla­tion from that State, in which Man is born a Son of the first Adam, into a State of grace and adoption of the Sons of God by the se­cond Adam, Iesus Christ our Saviour. Though this latter definition seems to be somewhat more cautious in words, but it differs not much in the Sense, yet one answer is sufficient to both of them.

And first I ask this of Thomas, and then of the Tridentines, What they mean by this motio­nary Translation of theirs, from Term to Term, from State into State, as they teach. If this be their meaning, that we, who before were dead in sins, having our sins afterwards forgiven through Christ, and being again re­ceived into grace with God, being freed from death, and the bond of Damnation, are vouch­safed into favour, and received unto life, and Placed in a free condition: Herein they do wholly agree with us: But if otherways, they think thus, That there is no Iustification made, but that which consists of the change of qua­lities, so that he who before was a sinner, an Evil Doer, a Deceiver, a Perjured person, an Adulterer, a Glutton and Drun­kard, having changed his life now, begins to be another Man, fasts twice a week, and out of his own wealth, willingly supplies the want [Page 313] of the needy, being forward to help all, unto the expending of the tenth part of all his goods, and so leading his life, and changed into a new Man, that he appears Iust and Holy, not by thatRighteousness, which either needsRemission, or is imputed to the bounty of the Iudge; But which by reason of true Vertues inhering by grace, is justly approved in the sight of God: What hinders, I beseech you, but upon this account the Pharisee in comparison of the Pub­lican goes away justified? The Histories of the Heathen Nations abound with examples of many, who, when they had been very much corrupted by their own disposition, or by edu­cation, returned afterwards to a remarkable amendment of their Life, and a habit of good manners: And what will hinder, but we may reckon those also among the Iustified, accord­ing to the Philosophy of Thomas: If so be Iustification be nothing else but a certain mo­tion from contrary into contrary, that is a transmutation from a state of Unrighteousness to a state of Righteousness?

But there is added in the definition, by the remission of Sin, and what does this help their cause? For if there is no other Iustification, but that which consists of Remission of Sins, why then do they of Trent deny Iustification to confist of Remission of Sins only. More­over whereas in the Remission of Sins always a suspicion of hidden Sin lyes hid, which needs the Patronage of a Pardon, where now will that state and term of Inherent Righteousness consist, which cannot otherways defend it self [Page 314] before the Iudge without his Mercy and Re­mission.

But why should I contend with any more words about this matter, when the Opinion of Hierom is contrary thereunto, who speaking particularly of these degrees of Righteousness, utterly beats down and overturns all this, both Station and term, settled by Thomas. For where­as Thomas disputing about the motion of Iusti­fication proceeds from one term to another term in which the motion ceases, and the trans­mutation receives an end and station; on the contrary, Hierom running through all degrees, teaches that we never Hierom. cont. Pelag. Dial. 1. Phil. 10. 23. fix in a station, and are always in a race in this Life, and that that is always imperfect here, which we Men thought to be perfect. And he confirms it by the example of Paul: Who forgetting things past stretched himself always to things beyod him; by which he teaches that things which are behind should be neglected, and things to come should be desired, that what he thought perfect to day, whilest he always endeavours after better things, the morrow he finds it imperfect.

These things said Hierom. Therefore if Paul being in perpetual motion, could find no ftate of Righteousness in which he could rest: It follows by consequence from hence, that either there is no Iustification of a Christian in this Life, or that surely it is not defined by its right terms, by Thomas or the Thomists; whence a just connexion is framed on this manner.

Against the Tridentines, who deny that we are Iustified by Mercy or Remission only.

BUT it pleased the Tridentine Senate to de­termine otherways; for this is their Opi­nion, That Iustification is not purchased by God's pardoning Grace only, but by the com­mendation of Vertues: But let them again hear, what Augustin answers them to the con­trary; who in opposition to the Tridentine Opi­nions refers all to the Grace of God only, and to Imputation, writing these words: All the Commands of God, (saith he) are esteemed to be done, when that which is not done is for­given. A very short sentence, if it be reckoned according to the number of words. But if we rightly consider their efficacy, who sees not that all the buildings of the Adversaries, whereby with so much ado they establish their inherency, are utterly overturned by this Answer of Augustin? Which that it may appear the more evidently; First, Let us gather the assertion of the Council, on which all their defence seems to lean, into the exact form of an Argument, according to the art and use of Disputants, which should rather have been done by them: And then let us see what should be answered by the Authority of Learned Interpreters.

The Argument of the Tridentine Council.

The frivolus Objection of the Adversaries, is more largely exa mined and confuted.

BUT what shall be said to those unruly Persons and Deceivers, who though they have undertaken a cause, that they can­not [...] Tiletan in defence of the Council of Trent. pt. 1. defend, being convinced by so many Testimonies of Scripture and Examples. Yet such is their ob­stinacy, they do not submit to the Truth, when they are overcome by its Evidence. What then have they to say for themselves? By one you may understand what they all are. [...] Tiletanus, a Com­mentator upon the Council of Trent, arguing against Chemnitius, thinks his cause is well enough defended by this curiously con­trived Sophistry. Whereas the Holy Scrip­tures reser all the concernments of Man's Iustification, to the Grace of Remission only, he interprets it thus by the Au­thority of the Council: To wit, he ac­knowledges it to be true in the first Iustifica­tion, or in respect of the beginning of Iustifi­cation: For they say, when a wicked Man is first Iustified by Faith no Works, or Merits of Works go before; but by the free grace of God for Faith, and the Merit of the Son [Page 332] of God the Mediatour, he is received into favour, obtains a Pardon, and is made an Heir. Well said: But what then Sirs; do ye think that this is not sufficient to Establish a Man in everlasting Felicity? No indeed, if your Opi­nion be true, unless there be added hereunto in the lives of those that are come to years, a perfect Obedience to the Law of Righteous­ness, which they affirm to be easie, and possi­ble to every Man. And because Human frail­ty can by no means attain unto this: There­fore there is need of the assisting grace of God, which being altogether infused at once, as Alphonsus affirms, doth so Alphonsus in [...]. renew a Man in the Spirit of his Mind, and endues him with so great Charity, that there is nothing so hard in the Law of Commandments, but he can perform it with ready Obedience: Whence it comes to pass, that he is called Righteous, not only by Name, and by Imputation. But is in very deed, and as they speak, really Righteous, and Merits Eternal Life.

Ye have here briefly set before you, a Sum­mary of Catholick Divinity, concerning the perfection of Righteousness, which, though there is no Man, but sees how absurd and un­reasonable it is; yet that it may appear the more evidently, it will not be a miss to reduce all the debates of the Adversaries, into a short form of argument.

What sinners are justified by Christ.

BUT here there is another thing to be en­quired into; to wit, who are these sinners to whom this Iustification belongs. In which the difference must of necessity be observed: For as it is not every Faith, or act of believing, that procures Iustification, but that only which eyes the Mediatour: So this very Faith doth not belong to all sinners promiscuously. Though all men are sinners by nature, and Iames 3. in many things we offend all; yet all are not sinners alike. They that have no sense of their sins, no trouble in their Conscience, nor shame for the Abominations they have committed, but run on headlong and without fear into all wickedness; Faith only justifies sin­ners, but whom. though they prosess Christ, and Faith in him with their mouth; yet their heart is void of him; neither doth this empty profession yield them any benefit. Of which sort of men Christ Preaches in the Gospel, Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, but he that doth the Will of my Father, &c. After the same man­ner the whole Epistle of Iames treats of these, and such like men, whom he denies to be justi­fied by this counterfeit and hypocritical Faith. But on the contrary, those that sincerely repent [Page 355] and mourn for their sins, and abhorring their own Wickedness, return to Christ with all their Hearts, and receive him by Faith, these only are [...], whom Faith alone Iusti­fies without Works, according to that well known saying of Paul. And by this means it will not be difficult to reconcile both the A­postles, Paul and Iames, to one another. For as Iames a Servant of Iesus Christ can­not deny but Faith, when it is found Iames a Ser­vant of Iesus Christ, and Paul an Apo­stle of Iesus Christ recon­ciled. in a Penitent and Humbled sinner, justifies him freely without Works, and before all good Works: So on the other side, neither doth Paul an Apostle of Iesus Christ, approve of that Faith, which works not by love, nor admits abominable wretches of pro­fligate lives, to have any fellowship with Christ.

Which things being granted, what can the Papists say against this Assertion, concerning justifying Faith? Or what valuble Author can they produce in defence of their Erroneus Doctrine. Now if to justifie from sins, is nothing else but to absolve from sins, as we have de­monstrated out of the Apostle: Is there any that can absolveus, but Christ only? Or how should he absolve, unless he be received? Or after what manner, by what Instrument, by what hands must he be received, but Faith only? And what absurdity is it then for us to profess that we are justified by Faith only?

An answer to those that say the [...] of Faith is [...] pretending that it opens a door to Irreligion, and Licentiousness.

BUT they pretend that this Do­ctrine Hosius in confut. [...]. 140. Canis. in prae­fatione in Andrad. [...]. is pernicious, and con­trary to a Pious Life, and good manners: For, (as they say) it en­courages Men that are weak by nature, and prone to evil, to sin with the greater boldness. Canisius confirms this: Wheresoever, saith he, Iustification by Faith only is taught, it comes to pass, that usually in such places, Men sin without any fear or shame: And vain Men to encourage themselves in living profanely, flatter themselves with hopes to go unpunish­ed, because they lay hold on Christ Andrad. Vega de justificat. in Epist. by Faith. And it is no wonder says Vega, for what should he be afraid of, yea, what should he not despise and make light of, who is once per­swaded, that Faith only is sufficient for his Iustification: And that the Kingdom of Hea­ven is not shut up from any sin or wickenness, if it were never so great?

Osorius adds his Vote to theirs: If Faith only is sufficient, and if every Action that Osor. de just. [...]. 7. Osor. ibid. [...]. 2. we do, is unprofitable and defiled, it follows, that all who embrace this ima­ginary Faith, do altogether neglect good [Page 357] Works, &c. And elsewhere. Therefore you cannot by such Doctrine, exhort a Harlot to for­sake her Lust, nor a Thief to refrain his covetous desire of other Mens Goods, nor a wicked Man to depart from his [...] but that he should [...] this naked and empty Faith only, which is void of all works of Charity; for by such instructi­ons, he will conceive a strong perswasion, that by this Faith only, he is very dear to God. Than which, what can be more absurd? An Answer to the Ob­jections. Though I grant this to be true, that nothing can be more absurd, than if we say that Harlots, High­waymen, and Outragious Cut-throats, who breaking the bonds of natural Modesty, give themselves up willfully to all impurity, are ac­ceptable to God by Faith only. I say, suppose we grant this to be true, what follows from hence? Then Faith only (as you say) doth not justifie. O ingenious arguing, worthy of the Roman Mitres. It is true, that such as your Description sets forth to us, are not Iustified by Faith. But what a Connexion is this? there are many, who by the Preaching of free Iustification, are encouraged to a greater Licentiousness in sin­ning. Therefore, that which is taught concer­ning justifying Faith, is false. As The conse­quence is de­nied. if the Truth or Falshood of things depended on the using or abusing of them. What hath ever been so right or good, but evil Men have made it the occasion of Destruction to themselves, or o­thers, by the abuse thereof. If this Argument were reasonable, the Sun might cease to shine, [Page 358] because there are some that abuse his light, to commit the vilest Enormities: And health­ful Herbs may cease to be planted The abuse of good things should be ta­ken away, but the things themselves, should be continued. in Gardens, because the venimous Spider sucks the worst poyson out of them. The Physician also may cease to Administer Medicines, be­cause there are some found, who after they have recovered their Health, do sometimes commit such things, that it had been better, if they had still lain sick in Bed. Yea, on the Lord's days there are not a few, that through idleness, commit many sins. What then, because they that know not how to use good things aright, take occasion to abuse the time of the Lord's Day to Gluttony and Drunkenness, and to o­pen a door to Licentiousness, should we there­fore reject the Lord's institution? No verily, Human things must give place to Divine, and the usual custom of Men of wicked Lives, must not be your rule to walk by, but that which God hath commanded to be done. Christ commands the Gospel to be Preach­ed Mark 16. to every Creature: Will ye forbid it, though many abuse the Gospel? But what is this Gospel of Christ, that he commands to be Preached? He that believeth, and is Baptized, shall be saved. Do you hear that Salvation is simply promised to Believers; and that it consists of nothing else but Faith, and that Sacrament of Faith? Will you deny it? Whether then shall we be­lieve Christ, or you? So it pleases him to open [Page 359] unto sinners, the Treasures of his abundant grace. And will your envy shut up that from us, which he hath opened? do you neither en­ter your self, nor suffer others to enter? Christ also speaks thus by the Prophet, ye have been sold for nought, and ye shall be redeemed without price: What is the sense of these words, (without price) but this, with­out any Merits of Works at all, that is, your own Merits, but not Esa. 52. the Merits of another. What then? If the procurement of another, hath brought you to death, may not also the procurement of another, restore you to life again? And in the same Prophet, the Holy Spirit proclaims how beautiful the feet of those are upon the Moun­tains, that bring good tidings, that publish peace: And yet do you endeavour to stop the comfortable course of Gospel Preaching and in the room thereof, do you obtrude your old erro­neous Doctrine of mournful Sorrow, and heart­less doubting.

You will say, Why not? For it will be better for Men to be kept in fear, for who will be anxi­ous about the Fruits of Repentance, Hosius [...] lib. 3. pag. 140. Against the assurance of Christian Salvation. or his progress in grace, if every Man be sure of his own Iustification, and of the favour of God? And there­fore Masters and Fathers conceal their love towards their Sons and Servants, that by this uncertainty, they may be the more obliged to their Duty: And it must be believed, that God deals just so with his Creatures, &c. Thus said Hosius. Where then is that peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, if [Page 360] no Man must be assured of the favour of God? Where are those feet of them, that run up­on the Mountains, and bring glad tidings of Peace, if it is not lawful to publish the Righ­teousness of Peace? We are not against the Preaching of Faith, (say they) but we would not that Faith only should be Preach­ed. That is the only thing that Objection. Faith only. we require, for the cause that we mention'd, because when this form of Doctrine is taught, of necessity the conse­quence thereof is the Ruin and Destruction of all (honest Discipline.)

That I may answer this Objecti­on, though it hath been sufficient­ly Answer. In Sermons frequent Ex­hortations are used to Pious Works. answered already, two things must be considered, one whereof belongs to the manner of Preach­ing, and the other to the truth of the Doctrine. And first as touching Preaching, their Objection is very false: For though we teach that Faith only Iustifies, yet we neglect not to use strong mo­tives to the practice of good Works, and sharp Admonitions, and not only Admoniti­ons, but also severe threatnings, yea, and moreover Excommunications, if need be, to restrain wicked practices.

The frequent Sermons that are Preached in our Churches bear witness to this, in which according to our power, we exhort unto Works of Piety, and by the Authority of Scripture, thunder the Iudgments of God, against Har­lots, Adulterers, Covetous Persons, Highway­men, [Page 361] Sorcerers, that they may know there will be no place for such in the Kingdom of God and Christ, except they amend their lives. Who was more zealous than Paul, in exalting the Righteousness of Faith? And who was more Holy in Life than he, or more fervent against the sins of those that walked not af­ter the Spirit, but after the flesh? The Books of our Divines do evidence the same, in which they discourse no less of Repentance, and good Works, than of Faith, joyning always the one with the other. Therefore as touch­ing the manner of Teaching, you will find, that it is not Faith only, which is Treated of in the Churches and Books of Men of our perswasion. But if the matter of debate be­tween us, be about the cause of Salvation and Iustification, there is nothing more agreeable to sound Doctrine, than that an ungodly sin­ner is Iustified before God by Faith only with­out Works.

But you may object; this Doctrine An Answer to this Ob­jection. hardens the People in their sinful courses. If you understand it of all, it is false: If of evil doers, that run on in sin against their Conscience, and take no care to restrain their Lusts: As for such, who ever said or taught, that they are Iustified by Faith only? And yet never­theless the Truth of this Assertion remains invincible, whereby we affirm that a wicked Man is Iustified by Faith only, without Works, if the Scope and meaning thereof be well understood. Which will be easie, if by ad­ding [Page 362] that, which supplies the room of a pre­dicate, the proposition be made entire. As when Faith only is said to Iustifie, add unto the Subject of this Enunciation, its own pro­per predicate, or I may rather say, add the proper Subject of Iustification, and understand aright, who they are, whom Faith only Iusti­fies without Works, according to the saying of Paul: For herein chiefly lies the (difficulty) of this Controversie, Ambiguity. Faith only Iustifies, but not all kind of Sinners. Neither is there any thing wherein the Adversaries are more grosly mistaken: And herein they follow the Foot-steps of those, concerning whom Cyprian justly complains, saying, They look at that, which is said in the first place, but regard not, what follows after. They catch at that which we assert of Faith only Exclusively, and think there is in­jury done to good Works, if Faith on­ly is sufficient to Salvation: But they take no notice what manner of Persons they are, to whom this Iustification by Faith belongs. It is the Advice of those School Divines, to consider the reasons of things proposed, ac­cording to their Subject matter, and why then do they not observe their own Rule in this Evangelical Assertion? Christ affirms it, Paul confirms it, yea, the common practice of life, natural Reason, and Experience, and the Conscience of all good Men proclaim that Ruine comes only from our Works, and Salvation only from Christ. And because we receive this only Mediatour Christ by Faith [Page 363] only, hence it is that we assert it is Faith that justifies believing sinners before God. But let us see what manner of Sinners they are, whom Faith Iustifies: Is it the Rebellious, and Impenitent? No verily. Then it must be such sinners, as are Converted, and Humbled, and have the fear of God before their Eyes. But there is no fear, that such will continue to wallow in their former filthiness, but on the contrary, they are hereby so much the more stirred up to amend their lives. All Ages have abounded with Examples of those, to whom the Doctrine of free Iustification by Faith in Christ, as it conduced much to their necessary consolation, so it was no hinderance to their leading an holy life. If Charity (ac­cording as the Adversaries themselves do te­stifie) is the perfection of the Law, which is the Rule of Life; I would ask such men, whether he to whom more, or he to whom fewer sins are forgiven, hath the strongest ob­ligation to love either God or his Neigh­bour? which of these two mentioned in the Gospel, loved Christ with the greater ardency of affection, Simon the Pharisee, or The Love of Mary Magda­line. Mary, that brought with her no good works at all, but a great mul­titude of sins? And why was her Love to the Lord more vehement? but be­cause she had more sins forgiven her? But let us proceed; Wherefore were so many and so great offences forgiven her, but for her Faith, which guided her Love? for she did not there­fore believe in Christ, because she loved him, but because she knew him to be the Son of [Page 364] God, her Faith being thereby incited to act the more vigorously, she loved much. For, Love proceeds from Faith, and not Faith from Love. Because we be­lieve Love rises from Faith, not Faith from Love. therefore we Love, but we do not believe, because we Love-Whence the Lord, regarding more her Faith then her Love, said unto her, thy Faith (not thy Love) hath saved thee.

How Love and Repentance are concerned in Iustification.

BUT You may say, Is Faith alone here? Is it not joyned together with Love and Repentance? I grant indeed, that they are all three together in the person of the Believer. But in the Case of Iustification Faith only is re­garded: And the other do follow as Fruits and Effects thereof. For as that Woman, unless she had believed in the Mediatour, made known unto her by Faith, she had nevor loved him: So she had never come unto him, as her Physician, unless the Disease of her Troubled Conscience had driven Charity is no cause of Iustification. her. Wherefore if we reason aright about Causes, these things follow [...], as Effects and Fruits thereof, but they are no causes of obtaining Salvation.

We have spoken of Mary Magdalene, let us now behold the Pharisee, and compare the one [Page 365] with the other. If the Woman that was a Sinner, by her love mericed (as they speak) Iustification, What shall we say of the Pharisee? Did not he also love the Lord? Would he have gone to him so Courteously, or invited him so lovingly? or received him into his House so kindly, or entertained him at Din­ner so honourably, unless he had been mo­ved with some Affection of Love? What shall I say of his Faith? Did he not be­lieve; being instructed by the Holy Scrip­tures, in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth? Did he not re­ceive Christ as a Prophet? Now he be­lieving in the Father, and receiving the Son with Affectionate Love, What could be want­ing to him, that was necessary to Iustification? If so be all our Iustification is perfected by Charity? And yet, I suppose, no Man will say, that this Pharisee was justified by Christ, that is, set free from all Condemnation by this love of his. Why? Because Faith in Christ as a Saviour was wanting. But suppose he had Faith, and he trusting to his own Righteousness, and being puffed up with Pride upon that ac­count, had begged no help, and imagined he needed no Pardon, would this Faith have availed him to Iustification? I do no not be­lieve it: But you may say, That is true indeed, and therefore this proves, that Faith only doth not justifie.

I answer, and also request the Adversaries, that, laying aside the desire of vain jangling, [Page 366] they would examine the matter according to Scripture and right Reason.

Though the manifest Testimony of the Apo­stle Paul, and the Examples of the Saints make it an undoubted Truth, that only Faith in Christ the Son of God, hath the power of justifying without Works. Yet it cannot open this power upon all; but only those in whom a fitness is found for receiving the displayings of Divine Grace.

Of the Repentance of those that are Iusti­fied by Faith.

BUT None are found more fit, than those, that seem to themselves most unworthy, and none less fit, than those, that are most highly conceited of their own worthiness. Seeing we are all Sinners by Nature, nothing can be more reasonable, than that we should acknowledge the filthiness of our own abomi­nations, and cast our selves down at the Feet of Almighty God.

And there is nothing that God more requires, than this: Whose Nature, or rather Mercy is such, that he delights not in any thing more, than in a humble Heart and a broken Spirit, as the Psalmist de­clares: Psal. 34. Isa. 57. He saveth such as are of a contrite Spirit. And in the Prophet Isaiah, God testifies of himself, that he is the high and lofty one that inha­biteth [Page 367] Eternity, and dwells in the high and Holy place, and also with him that is humble and of a contrite Spirit, to comfort the humble Spi­rit, and to revive the Heart of the contrite ones. And for that cause he calls aloud in the Gospel, and offers his kind invitations chiefly to such as labour, and are heavy laden, that they may come unto him, and be eased.

What is coming to Christ, but believing? What is it to be eased or refreshed, but to be justified? Though indeed he calls all, and despises none, that come Andrad. Vega. De Iustif. pag. 833. Coming to christ is be­lieving in him. Esa. 16. 9. Esa. 9. to him: Yet so it comes to pass for the most part, that none come to Christ as they ought, unless they be pressed and burdened under the sense of their Sin and Misery. And again, that Heavenly Physi­cian is seldom sent unto any others, but such: As the Prophet bears witness, who making a particular description of those, to whom Christ was to be sent, he sets before us the meek, the broken in Heart, the Captives, the Prisoners, the Mourners in Sion, them that are walking in Darkness, and sitting in the shadow of Death, &c. And the Psalmist speaks much to the Ps. 107. same purpose, Ps. 107. describing the Mercy of God on this manner. He filleth the hungry Soul with goodness, and such as sit in darkness, and in the shadow of Death, being bound in Affliction and Iron. Though he being sent by the Father, is given [Page 368] to all, yet he is not entertained by all with the like Affection.

The Lord himself shews the cause thereof: For, what need have the whole of the Phy­sician? Therefore as a skilful Physician, doth not Administer his Medicines, but when sick­ness requires it, so Faith cleanses none, but those, whom Repentance also a­mends, Ioh. 1. If we con­fess our Sins, he is faith­ful to sorgive us, and the Blood of Iesus Christ cleanseth us from all Sin. neither doth the Gospel heal any, but those whom first the Law hath slain, and Conscience hath wounded. And as that is most true, which we Preach by the Authority of Paul the Apostle, that Men are justified by Faith only without Works, so on the other side it is false, which the adver­saries assert, that by this Doctrine of Faith it comes to pass, that all care of good Works is cast off, and the reins are let loose to all manner of wickedness: Howbeit if they speak of such impenitent persons as go on resolutely in their Sins, we acknowledge, that such as they, are not justified by Faith, and yet we assert that this is no way preju­dicial to the cause that we plead. But if they speak of such, as join Repentance with Evangelical Faith, and therefore stand in need of consolation, if they deny that those are justi­fied by the Faith of Christ only; they dis­cover themselves to be utter Enemies of the Gospel, and adversaries to Christ. And again if they assert that such penitent believers be­come [Page 369] worse by this Doctrine, they do therein err exceedingly, and lye abominably.

Wherefore that the Mouth of Malice and Slander may be stopped; I admonish these professours of Divinity, who condem [...] this Doctrine of Paul as Heretical, that they would take our proposition, not by halves, but whole, and join the legitimate predicate of the pro­position with the subject, that when Faith only justifies the Uogodly, but not unless he be first humbled by Repentance. Faith is said to justifie, they should reckon that is not enough, unless they understand aright, whom this Faith justifies. To wit, none of those that continue stubborn and impenitent in their wicked courses, but only such as acknowledge their Sins with grief of Heart, and being weary of their for­mer abominations fly to Christ by Faith for resuge.

But here they take another occasion to cavil [...] For if Faith justifies none, but them, that repent, then (as they say) Faith only doth not justifie; but together with Faith a Godly Sor­row, and Mourning for Sin Iustifie also.

I Answer, It is true indeed, that Faith is joyned with Repentance, in him that is justi­fied from his Sins. And yet Repentance is no cause of Iustification: As those, that are afficted with a painful Disease, Their pain makes them desirous of a cure, but yet there is no healing vertue in this desire. So Faith and Conversion are joyntly united in the person, that is justified.

But as touching the cause of Iustifying, Repen­tance [Page 370] indeed prepares a Soul for the reception of Iustification, but the cause of justifying lyes al­together in Faith and not at all in Repen­tance. For the just Iudge doth not absolve him, who hath violated his Iustice, because he is grieved upon that account, but because he believes in Christ, who hath satisfied Iustice, and for whose sake Pardon is promised to such as Repent; for in him are all the springs of our Iustification.

But lest this Discourse should grow too Ample, for if every thing were treated of particularly, it might be enlarged beyond all bounds: Let us come close to the Adversary, (and Fight Hand to Hand) that in a Summary Representation it may the more easily appear to the Reader, with what Arguments they defend themselves, what Arguments they defend themselves, what Scriptures they quote, what force and what fallacy is in their Arguments.

An Argument taken out of St. Iames.

No Dead thing Iustifies.

All Faith without Works is Dead. Therefore, No Faith Iustifies without Works.

Another Argument taken from the words of Christ, Matth. 25.

Da. HE that doth the will of the Father, shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Ti. It is the will of the Father, that we should do good works, that are commanded in his Law.

Si. Therefore, an entrance into Heaven is obtained by the works of the Law.

Whether the Iudgment of God is terrible to the Saints.

THerefore let Canisius produce what he can answer unto these Scriptures; for it is his Opinion, that all men should be possessed with fear of Iudgment. These are his words; Not only Sinners, but Pit. Canis. in opere Catechis­tico de Iudicio; cap. 3. also Saints themselves are oft-times affrighted at the fore-thoughts of Iudgement. Thus the Iesuit speaks in his own Dialect. But let us hear what Scripture-proofs he brings to maintain his As­sertion. Hence, saith he, David feared, and with great fervency breathed forth this Peti­tion: Lord, enter not into Iudgment with thy Servant. In like manner Iob feared, though he was innocent; What shall I do, said he, when God ariseth to judge, and when he visiteth, What shall I Psalm 142. Iob 31. answer? For destruction from the [Page 404] Almighty was a terrour to me, and because of his greatness, I could not endure. I was afraid of all my sorrows, for I knew thou wouldest not hold me innocent, &c.

To this Objection, I answer in short; Who knows not, that, in us, and our Works, there is nothing whereof we ought not to be greatly a­fraid? So David, and Iob, and all the Saints; the more they call to mind the actions and practice of their Lives, the more they are surprized with the fear of Divine Iudgment, and repose the less confidence in themselves.

But this doth not at all abate our rejoycing in Christ Iesus; so that relying upon the never failing Promise of God, and being assured of the remission of our sins, we strive against this fear as much as we can. Howbeit we cannot be so perfectly rid of It is incident to the great­est Saints to be in donbt sometimes concerning their spiritual graces and to be afraid of their sins. this fear, which is placed in our Nature, but that it will sometimes return and cause trouble to the most eminent Saints. But that, which sometimes happens through infirmity, is one thing, and that which always becomes the Saints to do, is another. So David and Iob before the return of spiritual comfort, were in terrour, but, after God had restored unto them the joy of his Salvation, all fear vanish­ed away. Canisius in saying, the Saints should be possessed with the fear of Iudgment, does, what in him lies, to root out all the assurance of Faith out of the minds of the godly, and to make the Promise of God, and our fiducial [Page 405] relyance on him, utterly void, and of none ef­fect. Does Christ encourage us to lift up our heads for joy of the approaching Redemption, and yet dares Canisius command us to hang them down for fear of Iudgment? Romans 8. Galat. 4. Philip. 1. Doth Paul promote the Saints unto so high a pitch of dignity, that he places them on the Seat of Iudg­ment together with Christ. as his Assessours and Assistants. And yet must Cani­sius thrust the godly down as low as the ungod­ly, to render a strict account of all the trans­actions of their Lives? The holy Spirit in the Souls of Believers, with fervency breaths after Christ, crying, Come Lord Iesus, come quickly; Should Canisius then Apoc. 22. endeavour to quench those holy desires by unbelief and distrustful fears? The Sacred Writings of the holy Apostles call the Spirit of the Saints, a Spirit, not of bondage to fear, but a Spirit of Adoption, whereby we cry Abba Father; and yet hath Canisius the Iesuit the impudence to call back the Saints from a Spirit of Liberty, to a slavish Spirit of Bondage? Is this any society with Iesus? Paul desires to be dissolved and to be with Christ. All Believers in Christ desire the same being afflicted in this Life. For all that desire to live godly in Christ Iesus, shall suffer Perse­cution in this present evil World. The Souls of them that were slain, under the Altar, are greatly longing for the coming of this Iudg­ment: But, as for Canisius, he would persuade us to be afraid of this day, and not to wish [Page 406] for it, and love it, as the Apostle 2 Tim. 4. For them that love his appearance. Paul teaches us. Iohn in the Reve­lation bids us rejoyce, because the Marriage of the Lamb is approach­ing, but the Iesuit bids us mourn. The Lamb's Wife cloaths her self in fine Linnen in token of her joy; but Canisius would have her cloath­ed in Sackcloth.

Nevertheless I deny not the truth of that, which he gathers out of Bernard, Gregory and Augustin concerning the dreadful severity of this Iudgment, than which I know that no­thing can be more terrible to them, that seek Salvation by the Righteousness of the Law, without flying to Christ for refuge.

But on the other side, we ought not to abate the comfort, nor discourage the fiducial re­liance of Believers in Christ, who are planted in him by Faith. Though they acknowledge their own imperfections, yet they strive against them, and endeavour daily, according to their power, to make some progress in Holiness. And therefore, as there is nothing in their good Works, whereof they may boast; So also there is nothing in their evil Works (being now forgiven) which they have cause to fear. Let us now proceed to the other Arguments of the Adversaries.

An Explication of the Parable of the Wedding Garment.

THE Minor must be denied: Answ. Though works of Charity are of no small advantage, to adorn and beautifie faith in the exercise fo Civilty and Morality; yet a Garment suitable to the Heavenly Mar­riage-feast, cannot be made of such Cloth; but of other Materials. What that is, whereof this Garment must be Rom. 13. Galat. 3. made, Paul the Apostle teaches us, Put on the Lord Iesus Christ. And again, whosever of you are Baptized, ye have put on Christ. Because we put not on him by Charity, but by Faith only; Therefore faith is the Garment, made white with the Blood of the Lamb, which Cloaths us for this Marriage-feast, not Apoc. 7. Charity, nor the filthy ragged ap­parel of our Works. Which that it may ap­pear the more evident, let us diligently con­sider both the Parable and the signification thereof.

First, He that compares our The Parable of the Mar­riage, and Marriage-Garment considered and explain­ed. great happiness in Christ to a Mar­riage-feast, How could he more significantly set forth that, which is the most joyful of all things? For what is more joyful, or suit­able to Mirth than a Marriage-feast? [Page 410] Where all things resound with Ioy, and Dan­cing, where there is no sign of Sorrow, where no Lamentation is heard, no Tear is seen, yea all Tears are wiped a­way Isa. 25. from the Eyes. Unhappy is he, that partakes not of the great felicity, and unspeakable Ioy of this blessed Marriage-feast. He that unworthily dishonours it, deserves to be abhorred, and he that disgraces it with Sackcloth and Ashes, or any other Garment, and comes to it without the wedding-garment, is not worthy to enjoy so great a blessedness.

Now consider, besides the joyfulness of the time, the greatness of the benefit; both which are Infinite and Eternal. For The Mar­riage of the Lamb of God with his Bride. as there is no firmer, nor nearer Bond amongst Men, than that of Marriage: So nothing is more Di­vine, nothing is more Glorious, than that Bond, whereby the Mi­serable, and Mortal Daughter of Adam is joy­ned unto the Immortal Son of God, the frail Church to the Heavenly Bridegroom, that they both become one flesh, and have God to be one Father to them both, and have the same Family, the same House, the same society of Life, and the same The Guests of the Mar­riage. possession of all Goods. Which thing is so exceedingly wonder­ful, that it surpasses all human understanding. Iust as if a great King, be­ing desirous to shew forth the Riches of his munificence should invite Beggars, and the Blind, and the Cripple, and every one that [Page 411] was least worthy, and entertain them with a Feast, and enrich them The Guests of the Mar­riage Feast. with abundance of his best gifts; Is it possible, that any Man a­mong them durst imagine, that this was due to his own Vertues, or Me­rits?

It remains that we should view the Guests themselves, and also the garments of the guests, whom he invites to this Mar­riage banquet, and not only in­vites, Luk. 14. but compels them to come in. Call the Poor, saith he, and the Lame, and the Blind, and compel them to come in, that my House may be filled? Who are these Poor, and Blind, Who are the Blind, and the Lame, that are in­vited to the Marriage. and Feeble, and Naked, but such as have no provision of their own Works? Who have nothing in themselves, whereof to Glory, but only in the Lord. Such as were the Publicans of Old, and Sinners of the Gentiles, and Pagans, concerning whom Paul Discourses in words of great weight.

The Gentiles that followed not after Righ­teousness, laid hold on Righteousness, that is, the Righteousness that is of Faith. But con­traryways, Israel that followed after the Righ­teousness of the Law, attained not thereunto: Wherefore? Because Rom. 9. they sought it not by Faith, but as it were by the Works of the Law. How great stupidity then and abominable impudence is this in vain glorious Men, who being by [Page 412] Nature wretched, and Blind, and Naked, and most miserable Beggars, notwithstanding all this, are exalted to the highest dignity of union with God, and Against the Righteous­ness of Works. that not for any merit of their own, but the free donation of Christ, that yet they neither ac­knowledge their own nakedness, nor testifie their thankfulness to God for the Riches of his Grace, but think themselves abundantly beautified with their own ornaments, and suffi­ciently furnished with merits to attain unto Righteousness: But what a Righteousness is this of theirs? If it be the Righteousness of Works? Who then are those poor and needy, that are admitted to the Marriage? They that are adorned with the beauty and glory of Merits, and abound with Riches of good Works, How can we account such to be poor, and blind, and lame? And if they are said to be compelled to come in, where is the free will of the Tridentines? Or its co-operation? But on the contrary if by the poor here be understood such as have no good works that can commend them, nor any help of free will, that are decked with no ornaments, but are admitted, or rather drawn to the Marriage­feast by the grace of Christ only, How then can Charity abounding The Wed­ding-gar­ment. with the works of the Law, be truly called the Wedding-garment?

Howbeit, I know there are some great Di­vines, that rather approve of this interpreta­tion, that the wedding-garment here mentio­ned [Page 413] Should signifie Charity. But when I con­sider exactly the circumstances of the Parable, if without offending those, that have better Iudgments, I may freely profess, what is my Opinion, I do rather suppose, that our Lord's design was, to signifie the same, that Paul the Apostle expresly Philip. 3. speaks of himself, that I may be found in him, not having my own Righte­ousness, which is of the Law, but that which is through the saith of Christ; the Righte­ousness, which is of God by faith. And if we are not blind, we all see evident proof of the same, not only by words, but by the example of the Israelites. Wherefore if none are entertained in this Marriage-feast, but they that have on the wedding-garment, and if Israel that followed after Righteousness is said to be rejected upon no other account, but because they sought it by works, and not by faith; can it be doubted, that this Nup­tial ornament consists not in works, but in the faith of Christ? I know, there are many kinds of garments, as also there are many differences of things, Agreeable­ness should be every where ob­served, ac­cording to the circumstances of places, times, and things. of Men, and of places: But all things agree not with all places, nor with all Kingdoms.

One thing is suitable to a Court of Iustice, another thing to a banquet. Iudges sitting on the Bench, and Guests at a Marriage feast, do not only differ in the frame of their Spirits, [Page 414] but also in their outward Garb. A suitable­ness of things, places and times, should be ob­served. The Law hath its own The King­dom of the Law, and the Kingdom of the Gospel. The diffe­rence be­tween the Law and the Gospel. Kingdom, and Christ also hath his; and both have their own Inhabi­tants: As the Kingdom of the Law receives none but the righteous; so the Kingdom of Christ rejects none, though they be wicked, if they are brought to Repentance by believing. And though both King­doms belong to God, and are un­der his dominion, yet the manner of admini­stration of both Kingdoms is not the same: For in the dominion of the Law God was plea­sed to manifest his Righteousness; but the Kingdom of Christ is the gift of Grace and Mercy: And as by the free gift of God it is offered to all that believe, so it receives none but such, as are glad, freely and willingly to embrace the Grace offered. And for the same reason chiefly, this Kingdom of Christ is by a very fit similitude compared to a Marriage Feast and a wedding garment: And not with­out cause; for if in a Marriage Feast all things abound with mirth and joy, how much more should we rejoyce, and be glad in Christ, by whose procurement we obtain the manifold riches of Everlasting Salvation and Glory?

Therefore what remains, but that we should with thankful hearts gladly receive these great benefits, of our dear Saviour; and What the wedding gar­ment signifies especially because by the wedding garment, in this place, nothing else [Page 415] can be understood. For as a wedding gar­ment is a token of the joyfulness of the mind at the Marriage Feast; so by this wed­ing garment is signified with what joy and gladness, with what holy reverence and thank­fulness, the Guests of this Banquet will enjoy the heavenly benefits. Whereunto the Apostle exhorts more than once with so much vehe­mency, that we should not be over-sollicitous for any thing, but always rejoyce in the Lord, and glory in nothing, but in the Cross of our Lord Iesus Christ, praising God in our hearts, as it is expressed in that sacred Hymn; Not unto us, Lord, not unto us, but unto thy Name give glory. But how do those superstitious Pa­pists glory in the Lord, who trust to their own Works, whose rugged and burdensom Religion consists wholly in Watchings, Vows, Ordi­nances of Men, sleeping on the ground, and such like hardships, and an affected austerity of life. But let us proceed to the Arguments that remain.

The Answers of the Adversaries, which they oppose against the eight Arguments of St. Paul, together with a Refutation of those Answers.

BY the Works of the Law, shall no flesh be justified before him; for by the Law comes the Knowledge of Sin: But now the Righte­ousness of God is manifessed without the Law, being testified by the Law and the Prophets; to wit, the Righteousness of God, by the Faith of Iesus Christ upon all that believe, &c. Which is also confirmed by these Words, Gal. 3. Knowing that a Man is not justified by the Works of the Law, for by the Works of the Law no flesh is justified, &c.

I Appeal unto thee, Courteous and Pious Reader, what Man is there (if he duely consi­der these Words of Paul,) that can gather any other thing from Free Iustifi­cation by Faith is prov­ed by the Words of Paul. them, but what their genuine Sig­nification holds forth? Which is this: That the Works of the Law should be utterly excluded from having any hand in Iustification. And if Works are excluded, what can be a more undoubted Truth, than that we are justi­fied by Faith only?

What is more solid than this Argument of Paul? What can be more plainly expressed? What Words are more familiar. if so be they are not darkned by a Sophistical Interpretati­on? [Page 461] If according to the Testimony of Paul, we are not justified by Works, or obedience to the Law, but by Faith without Works; who can deny that our Iustification consists of Faith only, unless he desperately oppose himself, not only against Paul the Apostle, but also the Ho­ly Spirit God?

But behold here the Deceit, or rather the Malice of sinful Men. They do not openly re­ject the Words of the Apostle, but wrest the sense and meaning of them to serve their own purpose. They deny not, that Works should be excluded: but pray, take notice of the capti­ous Snares of Sophisters, who endeavour by a cunning way of distinguishing, to baffle the sim­plicity of Apostolical Doctrine: For they di­vide asunder Works, and their Iustification in­to two parts, calling the one, Works of the Law, and the other Works of Grace: And they say, the Works of the Law are unprofita­ble to Iustification; but the other they ac­count very necessary. Therefore, they An­swer to the Words of Paul with this Distin­ction: By the Works of the Law shall no Flesh be justified, &c. The meaning of these Words (say they) is this: No Man shall be justified before God, for his own Works, which he hath done, as by the Vertue and Me­rit thereof, but by the Vertue and Merit of Grace infused. For, according to Paul's man­ner of speaking, then a thing is said to be done by Works, when it is done by Works, when it is done as a Andr. Vega de just. pag. 751. due Debt, or for the Works. Wherefore there being a twofold Iustification, (as they say) one by [Page 462] Grace infused, and another by the Obligation of the Law without Grace: In this Case, Iu­stification by VVorks, and every thing that is contrary to Iustification by Grace is excluded: And so the saying of the Apostle holds true, as they Interpret: to him that worketh, the Reward is not imputed according to Grace, but according to Debt, as if he should say, that what is given by Rom. 4. VVorks or for them, is not given according to Grace, but according to Debt; therefore that Iustification which is separated from Grace, is excluded, but not the Iustifica­tion that comes by VVorks with the Assistance of Grace, &c. VVhat else should I Answer to these Sophisters, but that I pray God to give them Repentance, and a better frame of Spirit, that they may not always resist the Ho­ly Ghost, and overspread the Truth with dark­ness. VVhat Man is there, but clearly per­ceives, that it is altogether contrary to the VVords and Meaning of the Apostle, to build the Hope of Salvation upon any VVorks; when he doth so manifestly teach and protest against it, denying that we are justified any o­ther way, but by Faith without the VVorks of the Law. Yea, they themselves deny not that the exclusive VVord is understood of the Works of the Law, though not of the Works of Grace, but now what are these Works of Grace? those (forsooth) which the influence of the Grace of Christ, performs in the Souls of the regenerate; but were not the Romans to whom the Apostle wrote, regenerate in Christ? VVere they not partakers of the same [Page 463] Grace? Did they not abound in the VVorks of Grace? VVhom yet the Apostle denies to be justified by their own VVorks. It is true indeed (say they) if you understand it of their own VVorks, which are called VVorks of the Law, but not those VVorks which are Christ's. How ridiculous is this! as if those things that are planted The Distin­ction of the Papists is idle and Imperti­nent. [...] us by the Spirit of Christ, were not also oftentimes called ours. Yea Faith it self, which is most especially reckoned amongst those Gifts, it is usual to Scripture to give it the E­pithet of ours and yours. Paul expresses him­self thus, [By the Communion of my Faith and yours] and again [Hearing of your Faith] and in another place [Your Faith which is in Christ, &c.] Is it not evident that he speaks of that Faith, which we have in Christ through the free gift of God? How much more then may this be understood of VVorks, which when Paul excludes from Iustification, it can­not be doubted, but he understands it not only of VVorks, that are ours wholly, Rom. 1. Eph. 1. Colos. 2. and done by our own Strength, but also of those VVorks that are done by the help of Grace opera­ting in us; so that there is nothing in the Works either of the Law, or of Grace, ex­cept Faith only, but what rather contributes to Destruction than Iustification: (What is com­manded in the Law of God, that we can do without Grace?) Therefore seeing Paul re­moves all Works from the Office of justifying, it must needs be, that he understands it of the [Page 464] Works of Grace, as well as of our own Works, or the Works of the Law: What shall we say of the Works of Christ, were not they Works of the Law: For he himself hath said, that he came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it; were not the things which he per­formed in fulfilling the Law, VVorks of Grace? VVhat difference then is there be­tween those VVorks, that are called VVorks of the Law, and those other that are called VVorks of Grace? So that it appears, that he who excludes the VVorks of the Law, ex­cludes also the VVorks of Grace from Iustifi­cation. Though I acknowledge there is great difference between Wherein the difference be­tween the Law and Grace con­sists. the Law and Grace, in respect of the manner of Doing, and the ends of their Offices: For what the Law exacts, that, Grace performs; but in respect of the things themselves, and the Actions unto which they are directed, seeing both the Law and the Grace of God are exercised in the same subject Matter, there is no difference between them.

The Law commands us to Love our Neigh­bour, and lays a Punishment on him, that dis­obeys. But Grace communicates Strength and Ability to perform what the Law commands. VVhich when we perform, we are said to do not only a VVork of Grace, but also a VVork of the Law by Grace; so that it is a matter of small concernment, whether it be called a VVork of the Law, or a VVork of Grace, a VVork of our own, or a VVork of Faith. Therefore if the Scripture denies, That a man is [Page 465] justified, and attributes his Iustification to ano­ther cause, that is Faith, what should be in­ferr'd from hence, but that Man's Iustification comes neither by the VVorks of the Law, nor the VVorks of Grace. A Similitude. Iust as if a Man writing to his Friend, should say thus: This Benefit was pro­cured for him by no Money, or charge of his own: VVhat matter is it, whether it was his own Money, or borrowed of some other Man, when the meaning of the VVriter was to signi­fie, that this Benefit, whatsoever it was, was not bought by any Price of the Receiver, but obtained by the free Bounty of the Giver.

So Paul desiring to set before the Eyes of all Men the boundless Immensity of Divine Grace toward Mankind, that they might be­hold and embrace it, expresly de­nies, The Distin­ction of Ho­sius. that Man is justified by the VVorks of the Law. But here the Distinction of Hosius (as I have said) presents it self. It is true, saith he, in respect of the Works that are of the Law, and belong to our own Free-will, which being at­tended with Imperfection, can avail nothing to Iustification: To which I Answer in a Word. Give then that Grace, which may furnish frail Nature with Strength, to yield perfect Obe­dience to the Law, and may restore us to per­fect innocency in this Life, and you have won the cause. But in the mean while, let those Disputants consider, how many gross and per­nicious Absurdities proceed from this kind of Doctrine; for hereby the infinite greatness of [Page 466] the free Grace and Mercy of God towards us is taken away and abolished, this also destroys our thankfulness to him for his goodness, and withholds Consolation from afflicted Consci­ences so that very great injury is done to him, that hath freely communicated so many and so great Benefits, and much greater injury is done to those, on whom they are bestowed: Here­by also it comes to pass, that there remains no Assurance in the Promise of God, no firmness in our Faith, no soundness in the Doctrine of Religion, nor Comfort or Refreshment in the Suffering of the Saints.

A second Argument out of St. 2. Arg. out of Paul. Rom. 3. Paul.

Being justified freely by his Grace, through the Redemption, which is in Christ Iesus, whom he hath set forth to be a Propitiation by Faith in his Blood, to declare his Righteous­ness at this time, that he may be Iust, and the Iustifier of him, that is of the Faith of Iesus Christ; and again, we reckon that a Man is ju­stified by Faith without Works.

Unless the Hearts of these our Adversaries were fully set in them to pervert the ways of the Lord, it could not otherways be, but these clear and evident sayings of the Apostle must be sufficient to satisfie them, and prevail upon them to beware lest they kick against the Do­ctrine of the Apostles, and exalt themselves in their proud Imaginations, and vain Conceit of their own Righteousness, against such clear [Page 467] Manifestation of Divine Grace. But here the Roman Legions make a fresh incursion again. and the Ring-leader of them is An­draeas Vega, who fights against the Andraeas Ve­ga. Righteousness of Faith: Whom there is no need of answering in this World: For he hath been removed out of this Life a great while since, that he might an­swer to God his Iudge. And because he deni­ed, that he was justified by the Faith of Christ only, let him look to it, what he must answer his Iudge in that Iudgment, wherein he must give account of his whole Life, where of necessity he must either over­come or fall. If he overcome, where is the Truth of Scripture, in which it is said, God only overcomes, when he is judged? But if he fall, where then is the Righteousness of Works? What if David, so great a King and Prophet could not endure that God should enter with him into Iudgment. If Iob, a Man of so Holy a Life, yet durst not answer to one of a thousand. What will our Vega say, what will he bring? his Cowls, his Fast­ings, his lyings on the Ground, his Night Watches, his Vows, his Liturgick-Pray­ers, his Propitiatory-Masses, his Mumbled over Confessions, his Penances and Satisfacti­ons? But who hath required these things at your Hands? Nay, but Isa. 1. he will defend himself, and take Sanctuary in the Law, which he hath fulfilled, not by the Strength of his own Free-will, but by the help of Divine Grace. Say you so? David, [Page 468] being guarded with as much Grace, as any Man was, yet sunk down under the weight of the Law of God. I suppose Iob wanted not Divine Grace, and yet he dares not appear before God in Iudg­ment. Aug. de per­fect. just. But when the highest Lord shall sit on the Throne, who will boast that he hath a clean Heart? And who will boast that he is pure from his Sin? Unless it be those that Glory in their own Righteousness, and not in the Mercy of the Iudge? And will Vega nevertheless hope to bring such an account of his Life before the Tribunal of God; that if God strictly Mark it, and weigh it in the balance of his Iu­stice, he will not find more Sins than Merits therein?

But I need not ask him, what he will an­swer to God his Iudge: To whom I know he can make no satisfaction with all his inherent Righteousness: But this is that which I ask him, and not him only, but all the other Tri­dentines also, what they will answer the Apo­stle Paul, who openly pronounces a Curse both on Men and Angels, if any of them should dare to preach any other Gospel than he had preach­ed. And what Gospel is it, that we have re­ceived by the preaching of Paul? Is it not the same that he taught so often in all his Epistles, with frequent Repetitions, and great Care and Diligence, and also confirmed it with Mira­cles? Now the summ of the Gospel, which he preached, is this: That Man is justified freely without Works by the Grace of God, through the Redemption, which is in Christ Iesus, [Page 469] whom God hath set forth to be a Propitiation, through Faith in his What man­ner of Go­spel Paul preached. Rom. 3. Blood. Is not this evident in the writings of Paul, &c. And yet Ve­ga not being contented with this Gospel, nor deterred by the Curse which the Apostle denounced, hath arrived at so great an impudence, that he takes upon him to contradict, what the Apostle hath confir­med with so great Authority. The Apostle says, freely without Works, but he says, free­ly, but not without Works; but how .is it freely, if not without Works? Paul says, the Righteousness of God by the Faith of Iesus Christ, unto all and upon all that believe. But what says Vega and Hosius the enemy of Paul? This universal Term [all] saith he, is not here by the Apostle applied to every one of the kind, but to every kind of every one: So that the meaning is this: Righteousness is communicated to them that believe, whether they are Iews or Gentiles. Thus said Vega.

O Saint Paul, What Ignorance was this in thee, or unskilfulness of Speech? Thou mightst learn of Vega to speak more curiously, and to polish thy Stile according to the elegancy of the Roman Court, after this manner. The Righteousness of God by the Faith of Iesus Christ unto all, and not only all, but also un­to every one, and upon every one present and to come, that believe, so that thereby you might comprehend not only the kinds of eve­ry one, but also every species of the kinds, and every individual of the Species. But that [Page 470] I may answer seriously to the vain-glorious Spa­niard. It was your Duty, O Vega, to correct your Spirit of Errour, by the divinely inspired Words of Paul; and not to pride your self in such vain and empty Notions. For who sees not the clear and perspicuous simplicity of this Speech of Paul, whereby he proclaims a com­mon Interest in Eternal Life and The popish comment a­bout the uni­versal Sign is overturned. Righteousness, not only to Iews and Gentiles in the general, but to every one of them in particular, whether they be Iews or Gentiles, that believe in Christ? Unless the Apostle had together with the universal Term set down the proper Mark of Distinction, that is, the peculiar Condition of attaining to Righ­teousness, you might have some colour of Rea­son for what you pretend. As for Example, when the Scripture speaks thus. They shall be all taught of God: God would have all Men to be saved, and come to the Knowledge of the Truth, in such a Case a Man may interpret the universal Term. (As Augustine did) in such a manner as you speak of: To wit, that it is not every one of all, but some particular Persons of all kind of Men and Na­tions, that attain unto the Know­ledge Aug. de prae­dest. Sanct. lib. 1. cap. 8. of the Truth; but the Case is otherways in this Expression of Paul, where the Apostle together with the uni­versal Term, adds also a peculiar and proper mark of Distinction: So that he doth not on­ly make the Righteousness of God common to all in the general, but also expresly sets down [Page 471] a certain manner, whereby all do attain unto it, and to whom it peculiarly belongs; in these Words: By the Faith of Iesus Christ unto all, and upon all that believe. Whence of necessi­ty it follows, that every Mans Righteousness consists in his believing in Christ by Faith un­feigned, and embracing of him ac­cording to the saying of the Pro­phet, Hab. The just shall live by Faith.

But let us again hear what the Prating So­phister hath to say for himself.

But whereas (saith he) the Iust shall live by Faith, and God is said to justifie Man by Faith, it doth not therefore follow by conse­quence, that Works are not necessary; for it is one thing to live by Faith, and another thing to live by Faith only; One thing to be justified by Faith, and another thing to be justified by Faith only; and if these Words [Faith only] are sometimes found in the Books of Catho­lick Doctors, by the Word (only) good Works are not excluded, but all other Sects and Ways to Salvation, except Faith only, and the Christian Religion. Thus said Vega.

To whom that I may answer, First, whereas he inferrs, that good Works are not necessary, because the Iust live by Faith, he may as reasonably gather Thistles No Man de­nies Works to be neces­sary. from the Vine; for this is no good consequence: The Iust shall live by Faith, therefore Works are not ne­cessary: Which we also with Paul, do notwith­standing [Page 472] account to be necessary. And in the next place, whereas he says, that it is one thing to be justified by Faith, and another thing to be justified by Faith only: Though we grant this to be true, yet I see no great difference between these two Expressions: To be justifi­ed by Faith without Works, and to be justifi­ed by Faith only. Thirdly, Whereas he Ca­vils about the Word Only, what it excludes, and what it excludes not in the Books of the Catholicks, we do not trouble our selves much about that; but this is manifest in the Writings of Paul, that Works themselves, though otherways they are very excellent, and also necessary upon other accounts, yet in this free Gift of Evangelical Iustification, they are excluded without all Controversie. Though that also is an untruth, which he asserts of the Books of the Catholicks: For Basil (that I may produce one of them instead of a great many) expresses the same in manifest Words, taking away from every Man all occasion of glorying in his own Righteousness, and testi­fies that each one of us is justified by Faith in Christ only. And therefore he presently pro­duces the Example of Paul to confirm the same, and Paul Glories (saith he) in the Contempt of his own Righteousness. I may also add the VVords of the same Basil upon the 32. Psalm, where giving a Descrip­tion Basil. in Psal. 32. of a perfect Man, he says he is such a one as puts no trust in his own good deeds, but hath his whole hope and reliance on the Mercy of God alone. I think it is [Page 473] not amiss to joyn unto Basil his intimate Friend Nazianzen, who assents and subscribes to the words of Basil Nazian. on this manner: Faith only is our Righteous­ness.

But let us proceed unto the remaining Testi­monies of Paul. For (as I have said before) Vega with his Associates heaps together eight Assertions for Iustifying Faith out of Paul.

But the other five Assertions of the Apostle, together with the Answers of the Adversaries, do follow in this order.

3 Assertion. Rom. 4. If Abraham was justified by the Works of the Law, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God. For what says the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to him for 3 Argum. St. Paul, Rom. 4. Righteousness. To him that work­eth, the Reward is not reckoned according to Grace, but according to Debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth in him that justifies the ungodly, Faith is imputed unto him for Righteousness. As David also declareth the blessedness of the man, to whom the Lord imputeth Righteousness without Works. And likewise Rom. 11. If it is by grace, then it is not of works; and if it is of works, then it is not of grace.

4 Assertion. Rom. 10. If thou shalt 4 Argum. Rom. 10. confess with thy mouth the Lord Iesus, and believest with thy heart, that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved; [Page 474] for with the heart man believeth unto Righte­ousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto Salvation. For the Scripture saith, Who­ever believeth in him, shall not be ashamed. There is no difference between Iew and Greek: For every one that calleth upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

5 Assertion. Acts 13. Be it known 5 Argum. Acts 13. unto you, Brethren, that through this Man remission of sins is preached unto you, that through him every one that believes may be justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses.

6 Assertion. Acts 10. To him all 6 Argum. Acts 10. the Prophets bear witness; That all that believe in him, do receive through his name remission of sins.

7 Assertion. 1 Cor. 3. For other 7 Argum. 1 Cor. 3. foundation can no man lay, than that which is already laid, that is, Christ Iesus. But if any man build upon this foundation Gold or Silver, &c. If any man's work is burnt, he shall suffer damage, but himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire, &c.

8 Assertion. The eight Argument 8 Argum. is gathered from many Examples of those, who were justified by Faith only, and admitted unto Baptism: As three thousand of those that believed at the Preaching of Peter on the day of Pentecost, were baptized, Acts 2. [Page 475] and the Eunuch, whom Philip baptized, Acts 2. The Iaylor and his family, whom Paul baptized, Acts 16. &c. By which Examples it may be ra­tionally proved, that the Apostles judged Faith to be sufficient to qualifie a man for the re­ceiving of Baptism, and therefore also for re­ceiving of Iustification.

By these proofs of Scripture this Doctrine is sufficiently confirmed, which attributes the Iu­stification of the ungodly, not to Works joyned with Faith, but to Faith simply without Works. But because I am not now dealing with men of moderate Principles, but with cunning So­phisters, let us for a while bring the Apostle out of the Church into the School, that he may fight hand to hand against them with their own weapons, and con­fute Arguments out of S. Paul. them with their own Argu­ments.

The Righteousness of the Law or of Works, and the Righteousness of Faith, are so contrary to one another, that they cannot consist toge­ther; but the one of necessity makes void the other.

But we look for Righteousness by Faith.

Therefore not by the Righteousness of Works.

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 [Page 483] 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 [Page 484] 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 [Page 485] 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 [Page 486] 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 [Page 487] 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. [Page 488] 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, [Page 489] 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. [Page 491] 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.

Where Faith is joyned with Works, and where it is not joyned.

AND hitherto we have been speaking of Repentance. But as touching the Refor­mation of the Life in other respects, though I [Page 502] know that nothing is more convenient, than that Faith, which is rightly instructed in Christ, should have Charity, and other Offices of Piety, suitable to the Christian Profession joyn­ed with it.

Yet it must be considered what Romans 4. manner of Union this is, and of how large an extent: for Faith and Charity have that wherein they are of necessity united. And they have that also, wherein they must of ne­cessity be separated. Where we deal with God about Salvation, Iustification, and the Expia­tion of sins, here Faith only without Works is powerful and overcomes. But in dealings with men in the Lives of the Iustified, in popular duties, in the exercise of Vertue, there is a ve­ry near Union between Faith and Vertue, of which the one cannot consist without the other. Therefore these things should be measured by their own bounds, that we may attribute unto Faith its due, and to Works their Aug. de Hae­res. Haeres. 54. due, and unto both that which is meet. For as that poisonous Errour of Eunomius should be abhorred, who is report­ed to have been so great an Enemy to godly works, that he thought it was not a matter of any concernment how any man led his life: So also great care should be taken, lest in shunning the Soylla of Eunomius, we fall upon the other Carybdis of the Papists, which is no less pernicious, being mis-led by the Popish Doctors, who make such a confused Union be­tween Faith and Works, that neither Faith without Works, nor Works without Faith pro­cure Iustification.

But this Union is easily confuted by the Authority of Scripture: For if Faith only doth not bring Believers into a state of Salvation, unless it be joyned with great Holiness of life, why did not Christ joyn these together, when he said simply; He that believeth in me hath Eternal Life? Why did not Peter joyn them together, when, according to the Testimonies of the Prophets he proclaimed re­mission of sins to all that believed Iohn 6. Acts 10. Acts 16. in his Name? Why did not Paul joyn them together, when instruct­ing the Iaylor in the Faith, he said unto him, Believe in the Lord Iesus, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house? Many other such like things may be mentioned.

The History of the Galatians is well known, who being led aside by the false Apostles, did not wholly cast off Christ, nor excluded Faith in Christ, but they would have had the good Works of Believers joyned with Faith in the Article of Iustification before God unto Eter­nal Life: for which cause, how angry the A­postle was at them, his Epistle bears witness.

But here again a place of St. Paul out of the same Epistle is objected, Gal. 5. where writing to the Galatians, he speaks of Faith, that works by Charity. From hence the Tridentine Divines infer a necessary connexion between Faith and Charity; so that Faith without Charity, like matter with­out form, avails nothing to the Tridentine Counc. 1. Sess. 6. cap. 7. perfection of Righteousness. And they say of Charity, which they [Page 504] call Righteousness inherent in us, That it is so impossible that it should be separated from Faith in the concernment of Iustification, that they assert it only to be the formal cause of our Iustification. But it is Objection from the words of Paul. not difficult to answer to this place of Paul. For in that Epistle the Apostle endeavours with great di­ligence to call back his Galatians to the Righte­ousness of Faith from which they had swerved. In the mean while, lest they should be seduced by a counterfeit Faith, by these words he inti­mates, what Faith it is, that he speaks of: Not such a Faith as is idle and dead without Works, but which worketh by Answer. Love. And in this sense we deny not that Faith is not alone. But what conse­quence is that?

Lively Faith is not alone without Charity.

It is a lively Faith that justifies.

Therefore in Iustifying, Faith is not alone without Charity.

This Argument is disproved in the Schools of Logicians; for it is a Sophism (a non causa ut causa.) Therefore I answer to the Major: The Faith that is lively is not alone without Charity: That is true in working, but not in justifying. Therefore as touching the Cause and Office of Iustifying, this is not the conse­quence thereof: Therefore in Iustifying, Faith [Page 505] is not alone without Charity. But as for the the Minor, though Faith that justifies is called lively in respect of good Works, yet it doth not justifie in respect of those Works, but only upon the account of its Object, which, because Faith only without Charity embraces; therefore Faith only without Charity re­ceives from thence the power of Why Faith is alone in Iustifying. Iustifying. If all things that any way are, or are done together, should be joyned in one and the same Office, it would come to pass, that he that hath Feet, Eyes and Ears, because he hath not these Members alone, therefore he should be said to go not with­his Feet only, but to walk with his Eyes, and see with his Ears, as hath been formerly de­monstrated. Iust so the case is in Faith, Chari­ty, and other Vertues: Which tho' being infused by Grace, they inhere How Faith, Charity, and other vertues are joyned together. in the same subject, yet each one of them are distinguished by their pe­culiar Offices. Therefore if it be asked concerning the Office of Iu­stification, What it is that reconciles us to God, and procures Eternal Life for us? I an­swer, it is Faith, and that only. If you ask; how? I answer, by Christ, the Mediatour. Again, if you ask, what manner of Faith that is? I an­swer, It is not an idle or dead Faith, but lively and active. But if you would know by what marks you distinguish between a true Faith, and that which is counterfeit? St. Paul answers that question; The Faith, that is true, works by Love.

What, where, and How Faith worketh by Charity.

BUT here there are several things, that need to be explained, as, what Faith works, where, and after what manner it works; for Faith doth not act every where after one and the same manner: It acts one way with men, and another way What, where, & how Faith works by Love. with God. It is true, that it works by Love, as Paul says but it must be understood in respect of men, not in respect of God. Neither doth Faith per­form the same in both respects, nor after the same manner; for with men it works by Love, but with God it works not by Love, but by Christ only, by whom it is admirable to con­sider what, and how great things Faith performs. It obtains grants of Petitions, pardon of sins; it reconciles, justifies, wrestles, overcomes, reigns, and triumphs. Faith only does these things, not with men, but with God; not working by Cha­rity, but by Christ our Lord. Therefore Faith works one thing by Christ, and another thing by Charity: By Christ it obtains Salvation, by Charity it performs Obedience to the Law. Doth it perform perfect Obedience? No. Doth it then perform imperfect Obedience? But that is not sufficient to procure Righteous­ness and Salvation. And where then is that excellent integrity of Life? Where is Charity's [Page 507] meritorious efficacy to purchase Salvation? Where is the Assertion of the Tridentine De­cree, which only attributes the beginning of Iu­stification to Faith, but makes the formal cause thereof to be Charity or New Obedience, which they call Righteousness inherent in us, whereby we are not only accounted righteous, but are both called, and also really are righteous, before God; adding also a dreadful Curse, if any dare be of another Iudgment. Which manner of Doctrine, if it be admitted, it utterly Trid. Concil. cap. 11. If any say, that a man is justi­fied by the Imputation of Christ's Righteous­ness only, or by the remis­sion of sins only, exclud­ing Grace and Charity, which is spread a­broad in the hearts, and inheres in them. Or if a­ny say that the Grace whereby we are justified is only the favour of God, let him be accursed. If any say, that Iustifying Faith is nothing else but a fiducial relyance on the Mercy of God, forgiving sins for Christ's sake; or that this fiducial rely­ance is the only thing whereby we are justified, let him be accursed, Sess. 6. cap. 2. Rom. 4. 11. Rom. 3. disannuls the sacred Scripture, and overturns all the foundation of our Religion. For if this be the condi­tion of our Salvation, that it must rely upon good deeds, and not free Imputation only: Where then is that Righteousness, which is attri­buted unto Faith so often Preached by Paul? Where is the difference between the Law and the Gospel, which, unless it be carefully obser­ved, we may be as blind as to the knowledge of the Scripture, as Moles and Batts at Noon-day. Moreover, where is that opposition mentioned by Paul between the Righteousness of the Law and of Faith? between Grace and Debt? Where is glorying in Works [Page 508] excluded? Where is Faith account­ed Rom. 4. to Abraham for Righteousness? And how will the Tridentine Decrees agree with that which Paul says: Faith is accounted for Righteousness not to him, that Works, but to him, that believes in him who justifies the un­godly? And where be those remarkable excep­tive and exclusive Particles, whereby our Salva­tion is wholly cut off from Works, and ascribed unto Imputation? Moreover where are all those sweet Promises, if those Testimonies out of the Prophets. Men rob us of the Assurance of Sal­vation and God's Imputation?

Let us now proceed to the Prophets, that if any are less moved with the Authority and wri­tings of the Apostles, if they have any thing to say for themselves, they may either Answer the evident Testimonies of the Prophets, or yield unto them. And first, that I may begin at this, I ask of them, that deny that it is sufficient to as­surance of Iustification, that Christ hath fulfil­led all Righteousness for us, unless thereunto be added also a Righteousness implanted and in­herent in us, being formed in us of his free Bounty, which makes us formally Righteous, satisfies the Law, and merits Life. Which if it be so, I ask of them, Whether any Man will be assured that he is in a state of Salvation in this Life. If they deny it, where then is that Peace and Ioy in the Holy Ghost, whereof there is so frequent mention in the writings of the Prophets and Apostles? Where is that fre­quent singing of Praise in the Books of the Pro­phets? Where is that Everlasting Ioy and Glad­ness, [Page 509] which Isaiah the Prophet foretels shall be upon the head of those who being redeemed by the Lord, shall come into Sion with Praise? Where is that way so straight, that Fools can­not err therein? Where is that Voice of the Prophet preaching Peace, and proclaiming Glad tidings, and comforting his own People, which taking away all Fear, Grief and Sighing, confirms fearful and affrighted Consciences, strengthens weak Kness, and feeble Hands, yea provokes the very Beasts of the Field, and the Ostriches to the Exercise of glorifying God.

If yet we waver in doubtful and uncertain fears, and have no firm hope of Salvation, but in that Righteousness, which is inherent in our selves according to the Pseudocatholick Opini­on of the Church of Rome, where then is that fiducial reliance; where is that Holy Courage, concerning which Ieremiah the Prophet fore­told: In those days Iudah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely. And again to the same purpose Ezekiel foretelling of the future Peace of the Church: And Ierem. 23. Ezek. 34. I will make with them a Covenant of Peace. And they that dwell in the VVilderness, shall sleep safely in the woods, and shall be in their own Land without fear: And presently he subjoins: But they shall dwell safely without any fear. Hereunto be­longs the encouragement, that Isaiah gives the People of the Messiah, commanding them not to be afraid. Fear not, saith he, Isa. 41. Isa. 43. Isa. 44. for I am with thee. And again, Fear not for I have redeemed thee. And again, Fear not, my Servant [Page 510] Iacob, &c. Hereunto also agree Zeph. 2. the Words of Zephaniah Prophesy­ing by the same Spirit: Be glad, O Daughter of Sion, and be joyful, O Israel, and rejoice with all thy Heart, O Daughter of Ierusalem. The Loard hath taken away thy Iudgment, he hath turned away thy Enemies. The King of Israel, the Lord is in the midst of thee, thou shalt not be afraid of evil any more, &c. How then doth this so great Peace and Tranquility of Consci­ence, so often repeated in the Prophets, con­sist with that trembling fear and doubtfulness, which the Papists plead for? For what encou­ragement is there for Hope, when the Mind is restless through fear, and all thingsly at an uncer­tainty? For how can Hope avoid being uncer­tain, if Salvation must be hoped for by Works, and not by free Donation?

Howbeit we are not ignorant, nor deny that Sanctification and Renovation, and the practice of good Works, that flow from hence, are Be­nefits bestowed upon us by Christ, which of necessity all good Christians must endeavour to attain unto. But that is not the state of this Controversie, for the debate here is not about governing the Life in this World, but about Eternal Salvation, and the cause thereof. Nor whether Offices belonging to Christian Piety should be performed; but whether, when they are performed, they are so much accounted of by God, that they Merit Salvation, and recon­cile an offended God to Mankind? Whether Vertues and good Works are able to stand be­fore the Iudgment Seat of God, without being condemned according to the rigid Sentence of the [Page 511] Law? Whether under great Terrours of Conscience, when Salvation hangs in doubt, we may safely rely upon them, that we may become the Sons of God, and inherit Eternal Life. And yet it is not therefore false, that as long as this Life endures, it is very requisite, that Believers should be careful to The necessity of Pious Works. lead Holy Lives, and utterly abhor all wickedness. But it must be con­sidered, how it is requisite. In respect of the necessity of Obedience, it is true, but if you say, that it is requisite in respect of our obtain­ing a right unto Eternal Life and Salvation, no­thing is more false, or pernicious, because it is not purchased by our Merits, but is given to us, that deserve not, and are unworthy, and it is gi­ven then, whilest we are yet Sinners, that it may evidently appear, that all the Glory of our Salvation is due to the Mercy of God, and not to our Works, which follow Reconciliation to God, as Fruits thereof, but do not procure it.

Therefore as I have already admonished, I must again renew this Admonition. that in this course of Obedience, the godly practice of Cha­rity should not be separated from us, but should of necessity accompany Faith: but yet it must be so admitted, that it shut not out Faith from its own Office and Dignity, nor justle out the glo­rious Riches of the Grace of God, which is in Christ Iesus: Nor darken the Glory of the Cross of Christ, nor take away Consolation from trou­bled Consciences, nor corrupt the sound Do­ctrine, which the Apostles have taught us; which seeing it places all our Salvation in no­thing else, but the Benefit of Redemption by Christ, [Page 512] let men of understanding and Piety iudge which of the two Opinions is in the right; whe­ther they that place all the Hope of their Salva­tion in Faith only, or they that place it in the Righteousness of inherent Works only, and call Faith, if alone, a Presumption. Ve­rily if the Spirit of Christ could not Apoc. 3. endure those Laodiceans, who were puffed up with a false Imagination of their own Righteousness, and understood not how wretch­ed and miserable, and naked they were: I sup­pose it may easily appear what should be judged of Popish Catholicks, and all this Divinity of theirs. I beg of Christ, the infinitely Glorious, and only begotten Son of God, King of Kings, Preserver of Life, the Merciful Author and De­fender of our Salvation, the Glory of Heaven, the brightness of his Father's Glory, according to his Infinite Goodness, unto whose Everlasting Dominion all things are subject, that are in Heaven and in Earth; that we miserable Men, whom Nature hath brought into this wretched Condition, who are Poor and Needy, Naked and Blind, and utterly. destroyed, being restored by his Bounty, and having Salvation bestow­ed upon us by his free Gift, and being cloathed with his Ornaments, and enriched with his Wealth, and carried on by the safe conduct of his Spirit, we may grow in him daily more and more, and never fall from him, being strong in the Faith, and fruitful in good Works, until at length at the coming of his Kingdom, we be re­ceived into those blessed Mansions of Immorta­lity, where he Lives and Reigns with the Father and the Holy Spirit in Eternal Glory. Amen.