to appear, that he denied good works, who stimulated a negligent and careless people to the practice of them? And lastly, what outstrips all the folly, is, that a Romanist should infer error of doctrine from corrupt manners;-a process of reasoning by which Rome herself, the chief seat of all wickedness (as the whole world can testify) must be concluded to be, herself, the very sink of all errors.

In the last place Bellarmine objects to us some hasty expression made use of by rigid Lutherans in the disputation at Altenburg; who asserted, that Christians with good works were on their road towards Satan; also, that good works are prejudicial to salvation: in fine, that we must pray that we may persevere in faith, even unto the end, without good works.

Bellarmine very well knows, that those whom he designates rigid Lutherans were rejected and refuted by our party in this controversy. Hence although some unadvised language in the heat of contention might have escaped one or another, to attribute that as a received doctrine, to all the rest, who at the top of their voices disapproved and condemned it, is to argue both illogically and maliciously. The Roman Church would not herself be bound by such a law, as to be compelled to abide by whatever this or that Papist may have inconsiderately uttered; nor will our Church recognise as her doctrines, sentiments rashly put forward by some private theologian.

You perceive therefore, that notwithstanding the calumnies of Bellarmine, Protestants teach now, and always have taught, that good works are necessary to all believers and justified persons, who enjoy the use of reason, and are of a suitable age to practise them.

And this may suffice for the explanation of our first proposition; we now pass to that other.

Nothing need be added to the defence of Luther by our Author in this Chapter, yet it may be permitted the Translator to quote a passage from the writings of Philpot, published by the Parker Society. The extract he ventures to adduce, as singularly in unison with what has been contended for hy Bishop Davenant in reference to the sentiments charged upon Luther, is taken from "The Defence of Christ's Church" in Curio's reply to Florebell pp. 411, 12; and admirably exhibits the doctrine of our Reformers:-

"Furthermore, that is a shameful blasphemy, when thou affirmest that

CHAPTER XXXI.

OF THE NECESSITY OF WORKS TO SALVATION, OR JUSTIFI

CATION.

HITHERTO We have shewn that good works are necessary to believers and the regenerate: which being established and fixed, a new matter of controversy arises. For some enquire whether there is not a degree of unsoundness in such language as, that good works are necessary for justification or, that good works are necessary for salvation!

Many who receive this proposition, that good works are necessary to believers, nevertheless reject and condemn the statement, if the addition be made, that they are necessary for justification, or, they are necessary for salvation.* Since by this limitation they think that the doctrine of a gratuitous

Luther requireth a barren faith only, or rather a certain trust, with the which whosoever is once endowed, albeit he shall grievously sin until the last day of his life, he ought to be careless; neither any heinous trespass, how feloneous soever it be done by him, may be to him death and destruction. Where ever did Luther teach this? Who ever heard it by mouth of him, or hath read it in print? With these subtleties and lies ye cause the true and sweet doctrine of Christ to be hated, disdained, and envied. We teach the sincere and lively faith, which is right firmly grounded upon the promises of God, out of which do spring all good deeds and honest and virtuous actions, as it were fruit out of a quick and plenteous tree, and not an idle, neither dead opinion or vain confidence. We exhort all men to mutual love and well doings, and to have justice in reverence, that thereby they may testify themselves earnestly to believe and heartily and in all points we follow the way and rule of Paul, which after that he hath taught faith, proceedeth to exhortation and discipline of living. Then thou seest, I trow, that neither Luther, nor any of us at any time, have judged good works superfluous. If, that Luther, to the intent that he might take from us the trust we had in our works, and transport us to Christ, did say both our good deeds and bad to be sins; that is, not to be pure acts, but always envenomed with some shrewd affection; neither is it not a singular opinion of Luther's, but the sentiment of the Prophet [Isa. lxiv. 6] who is not afraid to compare all our good deeds, which he calleth righteousnesses, unto the cloth of a menstruous woman. Therefore, Florebell, thou mightest have let this alone."

See Newman's Lectures, p. 211.

justification and salvation through the righteousness of Christ, apprehended by faith, is corrupted and subverted; and that it is necessary to preserve this, in its entireness, with all care, no pious man doubts. On the other hand, there are found some Protestants* who have no hesitation in declaring that good works are necessary to salvation; though at the same time they make no attempt to weaken gratuitous justification, or our salvation, by this declaration.

The second question then, which is now to be handled by us is Whether good works can be said to be necessary to our justification or salvation.

Some of our own Divines affirm it, some deny it; differing in the forms of words, yet agreeing as to the substance of the matter. But that the truth may be more evident, we shall comprise our view of the subject in the following conclusions:

1. In contending with the Romanists about justification, it is not wise or safe to use or admit these propositions—that good works are necessary to justification; or that good works are necessary to salvation.

For even though they may by means of explanations be reduced to a sound sense; yet, when they are nakedly propounded, the Papists always understand by them, that works are necessary as being, from their real and intrinsic worthiness, meritorious causes of man's salvation: which is most false. Since then use determines the meaning of language, and in formularies of words attention is always paid not so much to the speaker, as to what he means; we ought not to afford this occasion for error to the Papists, who are accustomed to distort these expressions to an heretical sense.

That this caution is necessary, when treating with the enemies of the truth of the Gospel, is evident from the example of the ancient Fathers, who abstained from certain forms of speaking solely on account of the perverted application of them by the heretics. Jerome has noticed this in his Comment on Hosea ii. 16, An expression may be correct, and yet on account of some ambiguity, it may sometimes be inexpedient to use it. Thus, in the controversy with Nestorius, although it is said with perfect truth that the blessed

Bucer. in Coll. Ratisb. pag. 98.

Virgin is the Mother of Christ; yet the holy Fathers were unwilling to use that expression, lest they should appear to make a concession to Nestorius, who denied her the title of Θεοτόκος OEOTOKOS or Mother of God. So Damascenus lib. 3, cap. 12, observes We do not call the Holy Virgin Xeoloтónos, or Mother of Christ, because the impious Nestorius invented that title for the purpose of rejecting the title corónos, or the Mother of God. For a similar reason, as often as we engage in argument with the Romanists, we ought not on any account to affirm, that works are necessary to salvation; because the perversity of Papists is accustomed to make use of this form of speech in order to deny gratuitous justification.

The Schoolmen themselves entertained the same sentiment about the use of words, and were unwilling that we should even use the same words as heretics in cases where, from using the same terms, a handle might be taken for spreading false doctrine. Thus Thomas (Aquinas) contra Gent. lib. 3, cap. 93; and Durandus, lib. 1. dist. 11, quæst. 2, -It is to be observed (says he) that there are certain terms which are not received into theology, more because they have sometimes proved the occasion of error, than because of the unsuitableness of their signification. Since then this mode of speaking administers occasion of error to the Romanists, if we are to attend to the Fathers or the Schoolmen, we ought to abstain from it.

2. In popular discourses, intended for an illiterate audience, the propositions just mentioned should be either altogether avoided, or accompanied at the same time with clear explanations.

For, if all careful foresight ought to be used that we may not give occasion of error to the Papists themselves, how much more lest we should lead our own people into Papistic errors by the use of ambiguous forms of speech? Paul had reference to this when he enjoined his son Timothy to retain the express form of sound words; 2 Tim. i. 13 But should any one in the present day affirm among the unlearned, that our works are necessary for our justification or salvation, without adding any explanation of his meaning, they would perhaps suppose him to imply, that man is justified and saved by the virtue and merit of his works; for unlearned men would not conceive of any other necessity on the first

glance. Since then such a necessity as this very evidently is inconsistent with the doctrine of a gratuitous justification by faith alone, which the rulers of our Church with unanimous consent have called a most wholesome doctrine and very full of comfort, a prudent and sober Divine will not approach a contrary opinion, so much as in words.

In these two conclusions, regard has been had only to the form and use of words. We will now lay down some other positions concerning the very matter and purport, which may be implied in those propositions.

3. Good works are not necessary to our salvation, if by good works we are to understand works exactly good and perfect according to the rule of the Law.

To explain: By works exactly good and perfect, I understand such as man since the Fall has never been able to perform; such as the Decalogue might demand, from even fallen man, under pain of eternal condemnation. Now this perfection consisted chiefly in two things. The first is that man could perform good works with his whole heart, and full delight, no evil concupiscence impairing the due fervour of his heart, or throwing any stain whatsoever upon those works. The latter is, that the same man in his uncorrupt state could do good works with a perpetual and uninterrupted constancy, without any admixture or intervention of evil. That these two things are required for works to be legally good, is evident as well from those commands of God, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, &c.; Thou shalt not covet; as from that form of the legal contract, He who doeth these things shall live by them; and, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things, &c.; Gal. iii. 10. -Works then legally good, and necessary to salvation, according to the legal contract, are such as flow from a pure and full love of God, and are manifested in an uninterrupted course (no evil work in the mean time being admitted) to the last breath of life. I say good works of this description are not at all necessary for the justification or salvation of the regenerate. For, if such things were required of them, they would be still under the curse; for those who are not yet purged from the dregs of evil concupiscence, cannot of

• In the Articles of the Church, Art. xi. on Justification.