we should yet remaine in our sinnes But seeing Iesus Christ who is of God made unto us righteousnesse is God even Iehovah our righteousnesse hence wee learne that the righteousnesse by which we are justified is the righteousnesse of God and consequently of infinite price and merit For although the Godhead of Christ neither obeyed nor suffered any thing for us yet seeing the person which obeyed and suffered was and is not onely man but also God therefore the Godhead affordeth such dâ—…gnity vertue efficacy and merit to the obedience and sufferings of his Manhood as that his sufferings are an all-sufficient price of ransome and satisfaction for the sinnes of the whole world as being the sufferings of God and therefore of infinite value and his holinesse and obedience being the righteousnesse of God and therefore of infinite merit and farre surpassing the righteousnesse of all men and Angels maketh all those to whom it is imputed most perfectly righteous before God in Christ. Wherefore they who are clothed with this royall robe of Christs righteousnesse as all the faithfull are may with boldnesse appeare before the judgement seat of God because they stand just before him not in their owne righteousnesse which is unperfect but in the most perfect righteousnesse of Christ against which no just exception can be taken After this righteousnesse therefore of Christ wee ought to hunger and thirst after this righteousnesse of God wee ought principally to seeke to obtaine this most precious peâ—…rle we are to forgoe all that we have esteemimg our owne righteousnesse in the question of justification if it should be obtruded as the matter thereof and whatsoever else of ours might seeme to bee an advantage unto us or praise-worthy among men as polluted clouts as dung and the opinion of our owne worthinesse and righteousnesse as losse so we may obtaine that pearle and that wee gaining Christ may bee found in him not as having our owne righteousnesse which is that which is prescribed in the â—…aw but that which is by the faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God by faith that is the righteousnesse of Christ which is imputed of God being apprehended by faith Now that this righteousnesse of God is the matter of our justification before God and not any righteousnesse inherâ—…nt in us or performed by us I shall prove at large in my fourth and seventh Bookes Here onely I alleage the plaine testimonies of the holy Ghost that Christ is made unto us of God our righteousnesse 1 Cor. 1. 30 that hee is Iehovah our righteousnesse and that by his blood wee are justified and absolved from our sinnes Rom 5. 9. and by his obedience opposite to Adams disobedience wee are made or constituted just Rom. 5. 19. § VII The formall cause of justification is the imputation of Christs righteousnesse because by imputing it the Lord doth justifie which â—… expressed in the definition And this necessarily followeth upon that which hath beene said of the matter For it cannot bee imagined how we should be justified by that righteousnesse of Christ which is out of us in him otherwise than by imputation For even as wee were made sinners by Adams personall disobâ—…dience so wee aâ—…e made righteous by the obedience of Châ—…ist But how could we either be made sinners by Adams disobedience or justified by the obedience of Christ whether active or passive unlesse they were communicated unto us How could they possibly bee communicated unto us being both transient and having now no being For true is that saying of a learned Philosopher Motus non est nisi dum fit postquam factus est non est A motion whether it be action or passion hath no beiâ—…g but whiles it is in doing or suffering after it is done it hath no being Adams tranl gression was transient and is past and gone so many thousand yeeres past the active obedience of Christ was transient and so was his passive obedience which had a being in rerum natura no longer than they were in doing and in susâ—…ring How then can either Adams disobedience or Christs obedience be communicated unto us I answer in respect of both as Bellarmine answereth in respect of the former Communicatur eo modo quo communicari potest id quod transâ—…it nimirum per imputationem It is communicated after that manner whereby that may be communicated which is transient and gone to wit by imputation § VIII The same Bellarmine with other Papists doth confesse that the satisfaction of Christ is imputed unto us but the imputation of his righteousnesse they deny when as indeed the imputation of Christs â—…atisfaction is the imputation of his righteousnesse for what is Christs satisfaction but that whereby hee â—…ully satisfied the Law and consequently the justice of God for us which he did both in respect of the penalty which he fully satisfied by bearing our iniquities and also of the commandements by fulfilling them the former is the obedience of the crosse or his passive righteousnesse the latter is his conformity to the Law which is both his habituall and actuall righteousnesse By the former he freeth us from hell by the latter he doth entitle us to the kingdome of heaven But the meaning of the Papists is that Christ by his satisfaction doth free us from hell but as for heaven we must attaine to it by our owne merits as if there needed not so great a price to purchase heaven as to redeeme from hell But it is certaine that there is required as infinite merit to purchase heaven as there is required infinite satisfaction to redeeme from hell In respect of both God accepteth of no righteousnesse to our justification that is either to free us from hell or to entitle us unto the Kingdome of Heaven but that which is of infinite value because the offence of sinne for which satisfaction is to be made is infinite and because the reward which is to be merited is of infinite worth But that righteousnesse may bee of infinite value it is not necessary as Bellarmine himselfe teacheth that it should be infinite in it selfe but it is sufficient that it bee the righteousnesse of an infinite person And such is the righteousnesse of Christ as being the righteousnesse of him that is God such is not the righteousnesse of any meere creature which is an invincible argument as hereafter shall bee shewed to prove that wee are justified not by any righteousnesse in our selves but onely by imputation of Christs righteousnesse § IX And yet this imputation of Christs righteousnesse without which there can be no salvation is denied not onely by the Papists but by some others hereafter to be mentioned in the fifth chapter of this booke who seeme to have beene drawne to this opinion by this argument of the Papists which I will therefore in this place answer for their satisfaction If
say they Christs righteousnesse and merits whereby hee redeemeth and saveth men should bee imputed unto us then should we thereby become Saviours and redeemers of others but this latter is false therefore the former Answere I deny the consequence of the proposition for first when we say that we are justified by imputation of Christs righteousnesse our meaning is this that the Lord accepteth for us and in our behalfe the obedience and mâ—…rits of Christ as if we had performed the same for our selves in our owne persons For as the merit of Christ is the common price of redemption sufficient for the salvation of all universally so it is the price for every particular and so is applyed to every particular not as the common price redeeming all but as the price of those soules in particular to whom it is particularly applyed Secondly the efficacie or effect of imputation dependeth upon the will of the imputer and therefore the force of it cannot be extended further than he extendeth it which is the justification of the parties to whom it is imputed but no further Thirdly the consequence of the proposition doth no more follow than if I should argue thus If by imputation of Adams transgression others are made guilty of sinne and damnation then they to whom Adams transgression is imputed are made the cause and fountaine of sinne and damnation in all others but of the first and second Adam we should conceive not as of private men but the first Adam is to be considered as the root of mankind in whom when he fell all sinned The second as the head of all that shall be saâ—…ed in whom as the head communicating his merits to his members all the faithfull have as his members fulfilled the Law and satisfied the justice of God for themselves The head and the body saith Thomas Aquinas are as it were one mysticall person and therefore the satisfaction of Christ belongeth to all the faithfull as to his members the Lord accepting in their behalfe the obedience and Merits of Christ as if they had performed the same in their owne persons not for others but for themselves And therefore by imputation of Christs righteousnesse they are not redeemers but redeemed For though Christ who is the Saviour of his body communicate to his members his obedience yet not his Headship nor his Mediatorship in respect whereof hee was and is both God and man Man to doe and suffer God to give infinite value and worth to that which his Person did or suffered for the justification and salvation of all those to whom his righteousnesse should bee communicated and imputed but not to make them redeemers and Saviours of others The righteousnesse of the head is of sufficient vertue to justifie and redeeme all the members to whom it is imputed but being imputed the merit thereof extendeth no further than to what end it is imputed that is to save the member not to make it a Saviour nor to confound the members with the head nor to take away the proportion that is and ought bee betweene the head and the members Fourthly to the Papists who confesse Christs satisfaction to be imputed unto us I returne the like argument If Christs satisfaction whereby he redeemed mankind bee imputed unto us then are we also redeemers of mankind But they will not not cannot inferre that therefore we are redeemers but that wee among others are redeemed § X. But that we are justified onely by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse I shall by the helpe of God fully prove hereafter in my whole fifth booke Here onely for a tast I will but point at two argumenss the former out of Rom. 4. 5. 6. 11. the basis or ground whereof is this that whom the Lord justifieth to them he imputeth righteousnesse Now this righteousnesse is either the parties owne or of another Not their owne for they are sinners and being sinners they cannot bee justified by righteousnesse inherent but righteousnesse is imputed to them without workes that is without respect of any obedience performed by themselves Therefore it is the righteousnesse of another That other is no other nor can be any other but Christ onely therefore by imputation of his righteousnesse we are justified The second shall bee out of 2 Cor. 5. 21. As Christ was made sinne for us so are wee made the righteousnesse of God in him By imputation of our sinne to him Christ who knew no sinne was made sinne and a sinner for us therefore by imputation of his righteousnesse which here is called the righteousnesse of God we who are sinners in our selves are made righteous not in our selves but in him CAP. IV. Whether wee are justified by the passive righteousnesse of Christ only § I. NOw I come to the private opinions of some of our Divines concerning the matter and some of our justification For some as touching the matter doe hold that we are justified by the passive righteousnesse of Christ onely Of these men some doe not hold the matter of justification to bee the passive righteousnesse of Christ it selfe but a righteousnesse morte Christi partuÌ„ purchased by the death of Christ as the meritorious cause thereof viz. remission of sinnes which they not without absurdity say is imputed to us For what is remission of sinne but the not imputing of it If therefore wee bee justified by imputation of the remission of sinne then are we justified by the imputation of the not imputing of sinne Againe the authors of this opinion confound justice with justification for they say that remission of sinne is our justice and that justification is nothing also but remission when indeed neither the one nor the other is justice but an action of God imputing righteousnesse and not imputing sinne unto us Others hold that by the passive righteousnesse of Christ it selfe meaning thereby his death and passion we are justified as by the onely matter of justification imputed to us But that wee are not justified by the passive righteousnesse of Christ alone it may appeare by these reasons § II. By what alone the Law is fully satisfied by that we are justified and by what alone the Law is not fully satisfied by that alone wee are not justified By the whole righteousnesse of Christ that is to say the righteousnesse of his person that is his holinesse or habituall righteousnesse the righteousnesse of his life which was his obedience or actuall righteousnesse the righteousnesse of his death and passion which is obedientia crucis or his passive righteousnesse the Law was fully satisfied or fulfilled but by the passive obedience alone of Christ the Law was not fulfilled therefore by the whole righteousnesse of Christ and not by the passive onely we are justified The proposition is thus proved there is no justification before God without perfect and compleat righteousnesse for without that no man can stand in judgement before God and to imagine that
matter and merit of our justification But neither his death nor obedience had beene effectuall to our justification if he had not risen from the dead As the Apostle sheweth 1 Cor. 15 17. If Christ bee not raised your faith is vaine yee are yet in your sinnes For if Christ had not risen againe it had beene an evidâ—…nce that he was not the Sonne of God and then could not his obedience or sufferings have beene meritorious for us But by his resurrection hee was mightily declared to be the Sonne of God in regard whereof it was said Thou art my Sonne this day have I begotten thee and being God his obedience and sufferings are of infinite and all sufficient merit and value vertue and efficacie for the justification and salvation of all that beleeve in him And againe what benefits Christ merited for us by his obedience even untill death the same being risen he applyeth and giveth to those that beleeve God having raised him and exalted him with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance to Israel and remission of sinnes Christ therefore was given unto death that hee might by his sufferings satisfie for our sinnes the penalty thereunto belonging and he did rise againe that by application of his merits we might bee justified Righteousnesse therefore shall be imputed to those that beleeve in the resurrection of Christ or rather in Christ raised againe who as he gave himselfe to bee a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or price of ransome for our sinnes so he did arise againe that by effectuall application of his merits we might bee justified So that whom by his death and obedience he redeemed meritoriously then he doth effectually justifie and save by his life and the severall actions thereof viz. his resurrection ascension sitting at the right hand of his Father as our King and Priest his comming againe to judgement who therefore shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods children it is God that justifieth who is hee that condemneth It is Christ that dyed yea rather that is risen againe who is even at the right hand of God who also maketh intorcession for us § IV. In the words following Bellarmine answeareth a secret objection if remission of sinnes be ascribed to Christs death and renovation to his resurrection then belike remission and renovation be two severall actions proceeding from divers causes contrary to that which hath beene delivered For prevention whereof he saith It is to be noted that the death of Christ which is the price of our redemption was not onely the cause of the remission of sinne but also of internall renovation And the like as he saith afterwards may bee said of the reâ—…urrection For according to the doctrine of the Catholike Church these two cannot bee severed fâ—…rasmuch as one and the same grace viz. charity being through the merit of Christ infused and inherent in us doth both blot out or extinguish our sinnes and also adorneth the soule with righteousnesse wherefore though the Apostle might have ascribed both remission and renovation either to Christs death or to his resurrection yet he chose rather distinctly to attribute remission to his death and renovation to his resurrection propter similitudinem because of the likenesse which the extinction of sinne hath with the death of the body and spirituall renovation with the resurrection of the body whereunto I answer briefly first that though the death and resurrection of Christ in respect of their efficacie though remission and renovation alwayes goission and renovation then in justification there are two actions proceeding from two causes secondly that these foure distinct benefits remission of sinne and acceptation of us as righteous in Christ which are the parts of justification wrought both of them by imputation of Christs righteousnesse which is the one and onely forme of justification likewise the dying unto sinne or mortification and the rising of the Sonle from the grave of sinne which is our first resurrection or vivification which are the two parts of sanctification those foure actions I say proceed from two causes and that in twofold respects For remission of sinne is procured by the merit of Christs death and dying unto sinne is ascribed to the vertue of his death the imputation of Christs merits whereby wee are both absolved from sinne and accepted as righteous is ascribed to his resurrection whereby his merits are applyed unto us for our justification and the grace of rising from the grave of sinne to the vertue of his resurrection for by the same power whereby Christ did rise againe are wee raised from sinne to newnesse of life § V. His second allegation is Rom. 5. 21. That as sinne reigned unto death so grace may reign by justice to life everlasting through Iesus Christ our Lord where by justice opposed to sin he saith is meant inward renovation Ans. 1. We deny not but that in all the faithful there is a two fold righteousnesse the one imputed which is the righteousnesse of justification the other infused and inherent which is the righteousnesse of sanctification which he calleth renovation If therfore the Apostle did speake here of righteousnesse inherent yet this place would make nothing against us For we confesse that as sin reigneth in the children of disobedience by producing the workes of iniquity so the grace of God or the Spirit of grace doth reigne in the faithful by bringing forth the fruits of righteousnes But this is not the righteousnesse of justification but that wherein our sanctification doth consist But indeed the Apostle here doth not speake either only or chiefly if at all of inherent righteousnesse Neither doth hee in this place make an opposition or antithesis betweene sinne and righteonsnesse to which supposition Bellarmines argument is grounded but betweene the kingdome of sinne reigning unto death and the kingdome of grace reigning by righteousnesse unto everlasting life through Iesns Christ our Lord. Now the righteousnesse wherein the kingdome of grace especially consisteth is the righteousnesse of justification by faith whereupon followeth peace of conscience and joy in the holy Ghost Rom. 14. 17. compared with Rom. 5. 1. 2. which being not our righteousnesse as all inherent justice is but the righteousnesse of God is chiefly yea in the cause of justification is onely to bee sought after Phil. 3. 8 9. Rom. 10. 3. Secondly as in all the chapter from the twelfth verse to the end the opposition which is made is of Adams sinne to Christs obedience so in this place as the sinne of Adam was the cause of death so Christs obedience of life the opposition is not of inherent righteousnesse to inherent sinne but of Christs righteousnesse to Adams sinne § VI. His third allegation is out of Rom. 6. 13. Doe not ye exhibit your members as instruments of iniquity unto sinne but exhibit your selves to God as of dead men alive and your members
true â—…aith may bee severed from charity lib. 6. cap. 3. The first oâ—…t of Ioh. 12. 42 43. § 1. The second out of 1 Cor. 13. 2. § 2 3. 4. The third out of Iam. 2. 14. § 5. The fourth because in the Church there are both good and bad § 6. The fifth from the â—…ature of faith and charity § 7 8 9. The sixth from an absurdity § 10. The seventh Testimonies of Fathers § 11. Whether iustifying faith may be without speciall apprehension of Christ. lib. 6. c. 4. No iustifying faith but that which laieth hold on Christ. § 1. To beleâ—…ve in Christ is to receive and embrace him § 2. Two degrees of faith the former specially apprehending the other actually applying Christ. § 3. Of the former degree § 4. Of the latter § 5. The necessity of this speciall apprehension to iustifioâ—…tion § 6 7. The Popish obiections against speciall faith lib. 6. cap. 4. § 8. Their obiections concerning fiducia affiance § 9. By alively assent men beleeve in Christ. § 10. That affiance is not faith § 11. The subiect of faith lib. 6. cap. 5. vid. subiect The obiect of faith lib. 6. cap. 6. vid. obiect Of the actor effect of faith which is to iustifie First whether indeed it dâ—…th iustifie or only dispose to iustification lib. 6. cap. 7. § 1 2. Secondly whether faith doth iustifie formally § 3. The Papists cavill that we debase faith § 4. which themselves have 〈◊〉 § 5. Thirdly whether faith doth iustifie alone lib. 6. cap. 8. the state of the â—…troversie § 1. The explanation of the three termes Fides ibid. Iustificat § 2. Sola § 3 4 5. Our proofes § 6. Testimonies of Scripture § 7. Reasons § 8 9. 10 11. Testimonies of Fathers and other â—…ters in all ages lib. 6. cap. 9. Bellarmines arguments that faith dâ—…th not iustifie aloue lib. 6. cap. 10. This question he disputeth three waies ail which are impertinent § 1 2. The first that it doth not iustifie alone by way of disposing which bee proveth by five principall arguments the first because there are seven dispositions whereof faith is one which discourse of the seven dispositions is idle and impertinent lib. 6. cap. 10. § 3. VVhether any preparative dispositions be indeed required § 4. Of the first disposition which is faith lib. 6. cap. 10. § 5. His argument because it but beginneth iustification and therefore dâ—…th not instâ—…fie alone § 6. His first proofe Heb. 11. 6. § 7. His second Rom. 10. 13 14 § 8. His third Ioh. 1. 12. § 9. Testimonies oâ—… Fathers that faith is the beginning § 10. His reasons § 11. Of feare the second disposition lib. 6. cap. 11. § 1 2. ad 6. Of hope the third disposition lib. c. 11. § 6. c. Of love the fourth lib. 6. cap. 12. 1 2. c. ad 9. Of 〈◊〉 the fifth lib. 5. cap. 12. § 9. 10. The sixth disposition a purpose and desire to receive the Sacrament lib. 6. c. 12. § 11. The seventh a purpose of a new life lib. 6. cap. 12. § 12. His second principall argument because faith being alone and severed from charity and other graces cannot 〈◊〉 lib. 6. cap. 13. His third principall argument from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the causes which may bee given why faith doth iustifie alone lib. 6. cap. 14. which are â—…hree First authority of Scriptures § â—… 3 4. Secondly â—…he will and pleasure of God § 5. Thirdly because it is the property of faith alone to receive Christ. § 6. that is to 〈◊〉 and to apply him § 7. 8. His â—…ourth principall 〈◊〉 from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faith dâ—…th 〈◊〉 lib. 6. cap. 15. I. Because it iustifieth as a causâ—… â—… â—… c. ad 7. II. As the beginning of righteousnesse § 7 8 9. III. As the merit § 10. c. ad finem capitis His fifth principall argument from two principles viz. first from the formall cause of iustification Lib. 6. cap. 15. § 17. Secondly from the â—…ecessity oâ—… good workes for if faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would 〈◊〉 alone lib. 7. 〈◊〉 5. § 1 2. That good workes are necessary by way of efficiency § 3. VVhether faith doth save alone lib. 7. cap 5. § 15. Bellarmines reasons to the contrary § 16. Feare The second disposition iâ—… iustification according to the councell of Trent lib. 6. cap. 11. The finall cause of iustification see End Forme The formall cause of iustification the imputation of Christs righteousnesse l. 1. cap. 3. § 1. 7. lib. 5. per totum Private opinions of some Divines concerning the forme of iustification lib. 1. cap. 5. Their depravation of our assertion as if wee held that wee are formally iust by Christs righteousnesse lib. 1. cap. 5. § 2. Their errours § 3. The private opinioâ—…s concerning the matter and the forme of iustification very dangerous lib. 1. cap. 5. § 13 14. G God The principall cause of iustification lib. 1. cap. 2. § 1. c. The righteousnesse of God by which we are iustified is the maine doctrine of the Gospell lib. 1. cap. 1. § 1. It is called the righteousnesse of God because it is the righteousnesse of Christ who is God lib. 4. cap. 2 3 4. Gospell The difference betweene the Law and the Gospell lib. 7. cap. 4. § 3. The acceptions of the words Law and Gospell either more large or more stâ—…ict § 3 4. Bellarmines disproofe of the difference by uâ—… given § 5. Because in the Gospell is contained the Doctrine of good workes ibid. Whether the promise of salvation made to our obedience doth prove the merit of good workes Eternalll life promised in three respects First as a free gift lib. 7. cap. 4. § 6. Secondly as our inheritance § 7. Thirdly as a free reward § 8. The Example of Gods dealing with Abraham § 9. Though eternall life bee the reward of our obedience yet it is not merited by it § 10. Some places of Scriptures which the Papists understand of causes are to bee understood as notes § 11. Or evidences § 12. Three other answeres § 13. Testimonies wherein upon condition of obedience eternall life is promised in the Gospell alleaged by Bellarmine § 14. The I. Matth. 5. 20. lib. 7. cap. 4. § 14. II. Matth. 19. 17. § 15. III. Testimonies out of the Apostles § 16. IV. Out of the Prophets Ezec. 18. 21. § 17. V. From the condition of faith § 18. Bellarmines second argument from the differences betweene the Law and the Gospell § 19. Eight differences betweene the Law and the Gospell assigned by Bellarmine § 19. 20. Grace The moving cause of iustification l. 1. cap. 2. § 2. VVhat is meant by the word Grace lib. 3. The Papists by the grace of God by which we are iustified understand the habit of grace inherent in us lib. 3. cap. 1. § 1. The divers acceptions of the word Grace § 3. The distinction of Grace § 3. The state of the question concerning Grace
our obedience our sanctification standeth wherefore faith which justifieth alone is but one of those many graces wherein besides our obedience our sanctification doth consist CAP. III. Of the Essentiall causes of Iustification viz. The matter and the forme § I. BUt let us come to the essentiall causes of justification that is to say the matter and the forme The matter of justification considered as it is an action of God is that which the Lord imputeth unto us for righteousnesse and accepteth as our righteousnesse and that is the righteousnesse of Christ which I noted in the definition when I said imputing to a beleeving sinner the righteousnesse of Christ. The Papists confounding not onely justice and justification but also the matter which is the materiall cause and the subject say that the matter of justification is the soule of man or at the least the will of man because that is the seat of justice whereas indeed of justification though passively understood not the soule or the will is the subject but the person or the whole man For justification is totius suppositi of the person and not of any part or faculty of man But for the better clearing of this point let us briefly consider other not unlike actions First when Rebecca arrayed or clothed her sonne Iacob with the raiment of Esau her elder sonne the matter of this action was that which being applyed unto him did clothe him viz. Esau's garment the forme of that action was the applying of it to him which was the indution or putting it on For she clothed him by putting upon him Esau's garment So the Lord justifieth us by putting upon us our eldest brothers righteousnesse which is our wedding garment Which similitude is used not only by Saint Ambrose but also by Pighius himselfe as heereafter shall bee shewed The matter therefore of justification is Christs righteousnesse the forme is the imputing thereof Secondly the actions of redemption reconciliation and justification in substance are the same As therefore the Lord redeemeth us and reconcileth us by applying unto us and accepting for us the righteousnesse and merits of Christ as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or price of ransome and as the propitiation for God was in Christ reconciling the world to himselfe 2 Cor. 5. 19. so hee justifieth us by applying unto us and accepting for us the same righteousnesse and merits of Christ as our righteousnesse As the matter therefore of our redemption is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or price of ransome which Christ payed for us the matter of reconciliation is the propitiatory sacrifice which Christ offered for us the matter of justification is Christs righteousnesse which hee had and performed for us so the forme of redemption as it is Gods action is the applying unto us the price of ransome which Christ payed and the accepting of it in our behalfe the forme of reconciliation the applying unto us the propitiation made by Christ and accepting of it in our behalfe the forme of justification the applying or imputing of Christs righteousnesse unto us and accepting it in our behalfe In like manner the Papists if they would consider Iustification as an action of God should according to their owne doctrine conceive that of their first justification whereby as they teach a sinner is made righteous by infusion of righteousnesse the matter is the righteousnesse infused or inherent the forme the infusion thereof because according to their doctrine the Lord in the first justification maketh a man righteous by infusion of righteousnesse The Papists confesse after a sort the righteousnesse of Christ to bee the merit of justification but they deny it to be the matter thereof whereas indeed it is both the matter as justification is the act of God imputing it the merit as justification is passively understood because for it wee are justified the matter I say of Gods justifying us the merit of our being justified And this may appeare by the contrary For justification as hath beene said and shall bee proved is opposed to condemnation As therefore sinne is not onely the matter of condemnation which is the imputation of sinne but also the merit both of the sentence and of the punishment by the sentence awarded so the righteousnesse of Christ is both the matter of justification as being that which God imputeth to us and also the merit both of the sentence of absolution and of eternall life unto which we are accepted § II. But of the matter and forme of justification whereof I am hereafter to treat at large of the matter in the whole fourth booke of the forme in the fifth I will here onely set downe briefly the orthodox doctrine of the reformed Churches and maintaine it against the private opinions of some protestant Divines who are not sound in these points The matter of justification is that righteousnesse wherein wee stand perfectly righteous before God This in many places is called the righteousnesse of God As Rom. 1. 17. 3. 21. 10. 3. 2 Cor. 5. 21. 2 Pet. 1. 1. And is therefore called the righteousnesse of God because it is the righteousnesse of that person who is God and therefore is not our righteousnesse but his not infused into us but inherent in his person and imputed to us being without us in him Heare then wee are to consider whether this righteousnesse of God be the righteousnesse of Christ as hee is God or as hee is mediator betwixt God and man the man Christ Iesus The righteousnesse of Christ as he is God is the essentiall righteousnesse of the Godhead By which dwelling in man Osiander supposed them to be justified But this being the essentiall and uncreated righteousnesse of God which is his essence and therefore himselfe cannot be the righteousnesse of any who is not God and therefore if we should be justified thereby we should also bee deified Againe the essentiall righteousnesse of God being the essence of God and the very Godhead cannot be communicated to any creature much lesse can it become the accidentall righteousnesse of a creature And farther it being the righteousnesse of the Godhead is the common righteousnesse of the whole Trinity the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost And therefore if we should be justified thereby we should be justified by the righteousnesse of the Father and of the holy Ghost as well as by the righteousnesse oâ—… the Sonne § III. It is not therefore the righteousnesse of the Godhead Is it then the righteousnesse of the Manhood I answer it is the righteousnesse of Christ our Mediator who is both God and man which he in his humanity had and performed in the dayes of his flesh for us And this is to bee understood not of a part but of the whole righteousnesse of Christ which was either inherent in the man Christ or performed by him whether to fulfill the Commandements or to satisfie the Curse of the Law for
God the formall cause in the word Grace the meritorious cause in the word redemption the disposing cause in the word faith all of them almost depraved or misapplyed by Bellarmine For neither is the true efficient cause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he calleth vocabulo nimis diluto Gods liberality signified by the word gratis but the false 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or meritorious cause is by this word excluded and the true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the merit of Christ included in the word redemption As if he had said we are justified gratâ—…s in respect of us that is without any cause or desert in us without any worthinesse of ours but not gratis in respect of Christ by whose pretious death and merits we are justified Neither by Grace is meant iustice given and infused of God which hee saith is the formall cause of justification but the grace of God as I have shewed signifieth the gracious favour of God which is not the formall cause of justification but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the efficient or moving cause Neither is redemption passively understood the meritorious cause of our justification for that as well as reconciliation or justification it selfe is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fruit and effect of Christ his death and obedience which as they are the matter and meritorious cause of our justification so also the price and merit of our redemption How then are we said to be justified through the redemption that is in Christ Iesus either by a metonymy of the effect for the cause redemption being put for Christs satisfaction or paying of a price of ransome for us by which we were redeemed or else we are said to be justified by his redemption as we may be said to be justified by remission of sinnes For by Christ wee have redemption that is remission of sinnes Col. 1. 7. Ephes. 1. 14. and so Occumenius expoundeth these words by the redemption c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But how is he justified by the forgivenesse of sinnes which wee obtaine in Christ Iesu. Neither is faith the disposing cause as he saith for then a man might have a true lively justifying faith and not bee actually justified which is contrary to the Scriptures Act. 13. 39. Ioh. 5. 24. 6. 47. but the instrumentall cause which is therefore said to justifie because the object which it receiveth doth justifie in which sense the same benefits which wee receive from Christ are ascribed to faith Now the object of faith being the righteousnesse of Christ which is out of us in him it is evident that when wee are said to bee justified by faith it is meant that wee are not justified by righteousnesse inherent but by that righteousnesse which faith doth apprehend § II. Yea but Bellarmine will prove by divers arguments that Grace in this place doth not signifie the gracious favour of God first because the favour of God was sufficiently signified by the word gratis For hee that justifieth freely doth it out of good will and liberality therefore that addition by grace doth not signifie the favour it selfe but some thing else that is to say the effect of that favour I answere that the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Hebrew Chinnam is a particle exclusive of any cause price worth or desert in us which may be shewed by many examples Where it signifieth first without cause or desert As where it is said they hated me 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is without any cause in me or desert of mine Ioh. 15. 25. ex Psalm 35. 19. and vers 7. where Symmachus readeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psalm 69. 4. So Ezech. 14. 23. 1 Sam. 19. 5. 25. 31. 1 King 2. 32. Psalm 109. 3. 119. 161. Lam. 3. 52. Secondly freely without paying any price as Exod. 21. 11. Numb 11. 5. 2 Sam. 24. 24. Esai 52. 3. 5. Mat. 10. 8. Apoc. 21. 6. 22. 17. So that this exclusive particle was inserted not to set downe the true cause of justification but to exclude the false that we are justified freely without any cause in us or desert of ours or price paid by us meerely by the grace of God through the redemption which is in Iesus Christ. And thus is the word expounded by all Writers almost both Old and New and those as well Papists as Protestants Ambrose as you heard gratis saith he quia nihil operantes nec vicem reddentes sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei freely because working nothing nor making any recompence they are justified through faith alone by the gift of God Augustin Prorsus gratis das gratis salvas qui nihil invenis unde salves multum invenis unde damnes Altogether freely thou givest and freely thou savest because thou findest nothing for which thou shouldest save and thou findest much for which thou maist condemne Oecumenius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 freely that is without any good deeds of thine thou art saved and againe as bringing nothing else but faith and after because all have sinned therefore all that beleeve in Christ are justified freely bringing onely faith to their justification Hugo Cardinalis glossa interlin gratis i. sine meritis So Thomas Aguinas and other Popish Writers yea Bellarmine himselfe to bee justified freely is to bee justified without merit without workes This particle therefore sheweth not by or for what wee are justified but by or for what wee are not justified § III. His second reason because the preposition per when it is said per gratiam being not a note as hee saith of the efficient cause is not rightly applied to the favour or good will of God which is the efficient cause but either to the formall cause or to the meritorious cause or to the instrument For wee could not well say that God doth justifie us per favorem aut per suam benevolentiam by his favour or by his good will but wee say well by grace inherent though not very well by his grace inherent for that which is inherent is ours though from him by the merit of his sonne by faith by the sacraments First I answere that the preposition is not in the originall text where the Apostle doth not say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as noting in Bellarmines conceit the formall cause but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as noting the antecedent or moving cause which is principium actionis as is usuall in the like actions which the efficients working per se are done naturâ arte consilio or voluntate c. in which wee doe not say per naturam per artem c. And therefore this objection is very frivolous Secondly I answer that per in Latine and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke are very often applyed to the efficient cause whereof even in the New Testament there are as I suppose more examples than there bee leaves whereof some are attributed to God as Rom. 11. 36.
Gal. 1. 1. Heb. 7. 21. to the Sonne Ioh. 1. 3. Col. 1. 16. Heb. 1. 6 c. to the holy Ghost Rom. 5. 5. 1 Cor. 12. 8 9. And to omit other examples which are innumerable to the attributes of God which are the prime motive causes of all his actions as by the will of God 1 Cor. 1. 1. Eph. 1. 1. Col. 1. 1. Rom. 5. 32. 2 Cor. 8. 5. by the grace of Iesus Christ wee shall bee saved Act. 15. 11. who beleeved by Grace Act. 18. 27. called by his grace Galath 1. 15. by the tender mercies of our God Luk. 1. 78. Thirdly to Bellarmine in this place denying the preposition per to be rightly applied to the efficient cause I oppose Bellarmine in the twelfth chapter of the same booke affirming that the particle per doth signifie the cause efficient as Pro. 8. per me Reges regnant c. His third argument The good will of God cannot bee in vaine but alwayes performeth and worketh that good which hee willeth to any For whatsoever he willeth that he doth Psal. 115. 3 c. Answ. All this is true in respect of his will decreeing any thing which is absolute and is called voluntas beneplaciti but not in respect of his will prescribing or requiring any thing which is conditionall and is called voluntas signi of which will the Apostle speaketh in the place cited by Bellarmine 1 Th. 4. 3. This is the wil of God even your sanctification Otherwise by Bellarmines argument all men should bee holy because as hee saith God would have them truely just and holy Therfore saith he if justifying grace be the favour and goodwill of God and God doth not favour nor wish well in vaine but maketh us holy and blamelesse such as he would have us to bee then it followeth that to be justified by grace is not onely to bee reputed just and not to bee so but to be truly just holy and blamelesse Answ. This argument doth not prove the particular point for which it is brought namely that by grace is meant grace inherent and not the gracious favour of God But if it were ought worth it would serve to prove the maine question that although grace did signifie the favour of God when it is said that wee are justified by his grace yet this place would prove that wee are also made just by grace inherent For whom the Lord favoureth and wisheth well unto his benevolence is not in vaine to him but to whom hee willeth good hee worketh it making them truely just and holy whom by his grace hee justifieth For hee hath elected us that wee might bee holy Eph. 1. 4. and this is his will our â—…anctification All this wee freely confesse that whom God justifieth he maketh just first by imputation and truly and perfectly as hee justifieth secondly by infusion as hee sanctifieth But the Papists must at length learne to distinguish betwixt justification and sanctification For as wee have said before wee are justified by grace as it signifieth the gracious favour of God onely but wee are sanctified not onely by his gracious favour as the efficient but also by his graces infused and inherent in us as the matter § V. His fourth argument consisteth of sixe slender proofes put together which are scarce worth the answering That justifying grace â—…aith hee is not onely the favour of God but a gift inherent in the soule it may bee understood by the divers attributes and names thereof As first that it is called a gift a gift which wee receive a gift given by Christ a gift given by measure Secondly that it is compared to essence Thirdly that it is compared to light To the first I answere that the gracious love and favour of God is said in the scriptures to bee given that is vouchsafed unto us even the grace whereby wee were elected and predestinated to the adoption of children according to the good pleasure of his will by which wee are called justified and saved 2 Tim. 1. 9. God hath saved and called us with an holy calling not according to our workes but according to his owne purpose and grace which grace was given us in Christ Iesus before secular times having thereby graciously accepted us in his beloved Eph. 1. 6. Behold saith Saint Iohn how great love the Father hath given us that wee should be called the children of God 1 Ioh. 3. 1. For to so many as received Christ hee gave power to bee the sonnes of God even to them that beleeve in his name Ioh. 1. 12. § VI. Yea but it is such a gift as wee doe receive Very like for giving and receiving are relatives and therefore what God giveth us we doe receive namely as hee giveth it but hee doth not give all things by infusion and therefore hereof it doth not follow that what we receive in inherent but that onely which hee giveth by way of infusion Now hee hath vouchsafed us his grace whereby hee elected redeemed adopted justified us not by infusion but by acceptation in Christ which grace wee receive by the hand of faith and whom hee hath graciously accepted in his beloved they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made partakers of that grace which notwithstanding is in God and not in them But let us consider his proofe Rom. 5. 11. receiving the abundance of grace and of the gift os righteousnesse Answ. By grace here is meant gracious favor neither doth the Apostle here say the gift of grace but the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousnesse For where these two are joyned together grace and gift grace signifieth gracious favour the gift of grace the fruit and effect of that favour being some benefit bestowed whether reall or relative The former is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the grace of God the latter is properly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And this is prooved out of the 15. verse where is mention both of the grace of God and of the gift by grace and that which is here called the abundance of grace and vers 15. the abounding grace is elsewhere called the superabundant riches of his grace Ephes. 2. 7. that is of his gracious favour which in the same Chapter to the Romans vers 20. is said to have superabounded where sinne did abound which without great absurdity cannot bee understood of grace inherent Neither is the gift of grace or of righteousnesse here mentioned inherent but this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which came upon us to justification is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 guilt which came upon all men 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto condemnation that is to say the merit of Christs obedience opposed to the guilt of Adams fall as the whole context doth prove But as wee were made sinners by Adams fall the guilt thereof being imputed unto us so we are made righteous by Christs obedience the merit thereof being imputed unto us §
God grounded upon the infallible authoritie of God the relator and finally not being ignorant that we hold the proper object of faith to be the truth But we hold that it is seated both in the understanding and in the will and my reason brieâ—…ely is this because it is a voluntary assent and is so defined not onely by some of the ancient Fathers but also by the ancient Philosophers who as Thcodoreâ—… reporteth doe define it to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a willing assent of the soule Thâ—…refore to beleeve is an act both of the understanding and of the will Of the understanding as it is an assent of the will as it is voluntary Even as liberum â—…rbitrium as it is arbitrium belongeth to the understanding and as it is liberum to the will not that we seate it in two divers parts of the soule but onely in the mind that is the reasonable or intellectuall part though it worketh upon the affections also For the better understanding whereof wee are to know that when the holy Ghost is pleased to worke the grace of faith in the soules of any of the elect which ordinarily he doth by the ministery of the Gospell he openeth their hearts as he did the heart of Lydia to assent to the Gospell which he doth first by illuminating their understanding and opening the eyes of their minde that they may rightly conceive and judge of the doctrine of salvation and secondly by opening as it were the eares of the mind and enclining the will to affect and embrace what the understanding hath judged and approved to be true and good The understanding therefore approving and the Will which is intellectus extensus and ordinarily followeth the judgement of the practick understanding embracing the doctrine of the Gospell which promiseth salvation by Christ to all that beleeve the mind which containeth both these faculties being thus opened by the holy Ghost doth williugly assent to the doctrinâ—… of the Gospell concerning salvation by Christ. Faith therefore is a voluntary assent of the mind to the promise of the Gospell unto which the acts of both the faculties of the mind concurre of the understanding to judge that the thing propounded to be beleeved is true and good I meane that the promise is true and the thing promised good of the Will to accept and to embrace that for true and good which the understanding hath judged to be such Out of both which ariseth the voluntary assent of the minde which wee call faith This faith thus wrought by the holy Ghost the Spirit of regeneration being lively and effectuall worketh upon the heart and affections which also being renewed by the holy Ghost readily follow the willing assent of the minde both to affect Christ to desire to bee made partakers of him to love him and torest upon him for salvation and also to dis-affect and to detest those things which are repugnant to the Doctrine of the Gospel the chiefe whereof is Sinne. § III. Now that the act of the will doth concurre to faith and that faith which is an habit of the minde is seated as well in the will as in the understanding is a thing testified by the Fathers and confessed by the Schoole-men and by the Moderne Doctors of the Romane Church And first for the Fathers Clemens Alexandrinus saith that faith it the willing assent of the soule and so Theodoret doth define it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ambrose Fides non necessitatis sed voluntatis res est Faith is a matter of will and not of necessity therefore the Apostle saith not that wee domineere over your faith for dominion is cause of necessity and againe â—… to beleeve or not to beleeve it is an act of the Will Augustine Grace therfore preventeth or goeth before faith otherwise if faith prevent it then also the will prevenâ—…eth it quia fides sine voluâ—…late â—…on potest esse because faith cannot be without Will Againe what is it to beleeve but to consent that the thing is true which is said consensio autemutique volentis est and consenting undoubtedly is of him that is willing Every man when he willeth beleeveth cum credit volens credit and when he doth beleeve hee doth willingly beleeve Voluntate utique credimus verily we beleeve with our will Fides in credentium voluntate consistit faith standeth in the will of the beleevers And writing upon Ioh. 6. 44. What say we here brethren if we be drawne unto Christ then wee beleeve against our wills No saith hee A man may enter into the Church nolens against his will hee may come to the Altar nilling hee may receive the Sacrament nilling credere non potest nisi volens hee cannot beleeve unlesse hee bee willing And lastly in the elect the will is prepared of the Lord that therefore belongeth to faith quâ—… in voluntate est which is in the will § IV. Bonaventure it were not virtuovs to beleeve if it were not voluntary ipsum velle credere est essentiale ipsi fidei to beleeve willingly is essentiall to faith it selfe Vnto the being of the vertue of faith with the act of reason or understanding concurreth the act of the Will Faith never should be a vertue though it did enlighten the understanding never so much if it did not also rectifie the will Thomas Aquinas writing on Rom. 10. 10. Signanter autem dicit corde creditur id est voluntate he â—…peaketh remarkeably men beleeve with the hearr that is with the Will For all other things which appertaine to the outward worship of God 〈◊〉 potest a man may doe them nilling sed credere non potest nisi volens but none can beleeve that is not willing for the understanding of him that beleeveth is not determined to assent unto the truth by necessity of reason as of him that hath science but by the Will Againe Intellectus credâ—…ntis determinatur ad unum non per rationeâ—… sed per voluntatem Credere est actus intellectus assentientis veritati divinae ex imperio voluntatis à Deo motae per gratiam Credere est actus intellectus secùndum quod movetur a voluntate ad assentiendum procedit autem hujâ—…smodi actus à voluntate ab intellectu Actus fidei dicitur consistere in credentium voluntate in quantum ex imperio voluntatis intellectus credibilibus assentit Gabriel Biel the act of faith is to beleeve which is an act of the understanding assenting to the truth proceeding from the command of the will quiâ—… nullus credit nisi volens because no man beleeveth that is not willing as Saint Augustâ—…e teacheth § V. Cardin all Contarenus actus fidei quam vis sit elicitus ab intellectu est tamen imperatus à 〈◊〉 Salmeron Paul saith men beleeve with the heart to exclude fayning
to three heads The first is the authority of Gods word For if the Scriptures any where expresly say that faith alone doth justifie it must he beleeved though no other cause could be rendred The second is the will of God justifying namely because it hath pleased God to grant justification upon the onely condition of faith The third is the nature of faith it selfe because it is the properâ—…y of faith alone to apprehend justification and to apply it unto us and to make it ours Besides these I have rendred other causes the chiefe and principall whereof is this because we are justified not by any righteousnesse inherent in our selves but onely by the righteousnesse of Christ which being out of us in him is imputed onely to them that beleeve and is received onely by faith § II. But these three causes or reasons which he mentioneth will not easily be remov'd the first the authority of the Scriptures this being the maine doctrine of the Gospell Yea but saith Bellarmine it is no where said in expresse termes that faith alone doth justifie when we saith he have expresse termes that a man is justified by workes and not by faith onely Iam. 2. 24. Answ. To the place in the Epistle of Iames I shall answere fully in his due place Onely here I say thus much That Saint Iameâ—… speaketh not of the justification of a sinner before God by which he is made or constituted just of which our question is but of that whereby a just man already justified before God may be approved declared and knowne both to himselfe and others to be just And that the Apostle Iames speaketh not either of workes as causes but as signes of justification or of the habit of true faith but of the profession of faith or faith professed onely and concludeth that a man is justified that is knowne and approved to be just not onely by the profession of the true faith but by workes also a godly conversation being as it were the life and soule of the profession and without which it is dead But though in expresse tearmes it be not said in so many words and Syllables that faith doth justifie alone yet this doctrine is by most necessary consequence deduced from the Scriptures And what may by necessary consequence be deducted out of the Scriptures that is contained in the scriptures as all confesse Wherunto may be added that the Fathers so conceived of the doctrine of the scriptures who with one consent as you have heard have taught according to the scriptures that by faith we are justified alone And the Papists must remember that by oath they are bound to expound the scriptures according to the coÌ„sent of the fathers § III. Now that this doctrine is contained in the Scriptures I have plentifully proved before and something here shall bee added There are but two righteousnesses onely mentioned in the Scriptures by which wee can bee justified either that which is prescribed in the Law which is a righteousnesse inherent in our selves and performed by our selves or that which is taught in the Gospell which is the righteousnesse of Christ inherent in him and performed for us The former is the righteousnesse of the Law or of workes the latter is the righteousnesse of faith A third righteousnesse by which wee should bee justified cannot be named And betweene these two there is such an opposition made in the Scriptures that if wee bee justified by the one we cannot by the other If therefore the Scriptures teach that wee are justified by faith and not by workes it is all one as if they said that wee are justified by faith alone If it bee all one to say by faith and not by the workes of the Law or by faith alone then saith Bellarmine I demand whether all workes and every Law be excluded or not For if all workes be excluded then faith it selfe which Ioh. 6. 29. is the worke of God and if every Law then the Law of faith and consequently faith it selfe and so to be iustified by faith shal be nothing else but to be justified without faith Answ. it is plaine that by the Law is meant the Law of workes and by the workes of the Law all that obedience which is prescribed in the Law Now in the Law which is the perfect rule of righteousnesse all inherent righteousnesse is prescribed Then saith Bellarmine faith it selfe and the act of faith is excluded from the act of justification I answere first in this question the Apostle opposeth faith to workes and therefore faith is not included under workes Secondly faith as it is either an habit or an act and so part of inherent righteousnesse doth not justifie but as hath beene said relatively in respect of the object which being received by faith doth justifie as it was the brâ—…sen serpent apprehended by the eye which did heale and not the eye properly § IV. Againe the Scriptures teach that we are justified gratis gratiâ per sanguinem Christi per fidem Gratis that is freely without respect of any good workes done by us no not by the workes of righteousnesse which wee have done Tit. 3. 5. but by his meere grace and favour when we had deserved the contrary through the bloud and alone satisfaction of Christ received onely by faith To the word gratis Bellarmine answereth that it excludeth our owne merits which indeed can be none but not the free gifts of God as love and penitencie and the like for then faith also should be excluded That followeth not for when wee are justified by faith onely we are justified gratis gratis saith the Apostle freely by his grace through the merits of Christ by faith bringing onely faith to justification as the Fathers have taught and that not to bee any essentiall cause of our justification but onely to be the instrument and hand to receive Christ who is our righteousnes and therfore it is the condition required on our part in the covenant of grace The rest as love and hope and repentance c. being not the conditions of the covenant but the things by covenant promised to them that beleeve Vpon the condition of faith which is also the free gift of God the Lord promiseth remission of sins and justification and to those who are redeemed and justified by faith he doth by oath promise the graces of sanctification So that faith only on our part is required to the act of justification besides which we bring nothing else thereunto but love and the rest of the graces as Augustine saith of workes non precedunt justificandum sequuntur justificatum and therefore wee are justified by faith alone § V. And by this the second head is also proved namely that it is the good pleasure of God to grant justification upon the condition of faith alone If ye looke into all the promises of the Gospell ye shall find that they interpose only the
freely professe that by how much wee have received the greater favours from God in redeeming us and bringing us into the liberty of his children in freeing us from sinne and from the yoake of the Law by so much the more are we bound to obedience not to be justified or saved by it but to testifie our thankefulnesse and to glorifie God who hath beene so gracious unto us c. Much more might be said concerning Christian liberty but this is as much as is pertinent to the question in hand If any desire to bee better informed in this point I referre them to my treatise of Christian liberty which I published many yeaâ—…es agoe CAP. V. That good Workes are not necessary by necessity of Efficacie § I. ALL this while Bellarmine as we have seene hath wandred from the question but now he saith he will come neerer unto it For now hee will prove the necessity of good workes not onely by way of presence but by wâ—…y of efficacie But to what will he prove them necéssary to justification no such matter But yet that is the question which hee ought to prove if hee will disprove justification by faith alone that good workes doe concurre to justification as causes thereof For though they were as they are not causes of Salvation yet it is manifest that they are consequents and therefore no causes of justification So that Bellarmine though hee be come neerer the question yet he is not come home to it But perhaps it will be said that Bellarmine prevented this objection when he first propounded this as his fifth principall argument to prove that faith doth not justifie alone because good workes are necessary to Salvation His argument may thus be frarned If faith did justifie alone then it would save alone but faith doth not save alone without good workes which are necessary to Salvation in those that are come to yeares Therefore faith doth not justifie alone without good workes which are so necessary to Salvation etiam hominibus justificatis even to them that are justified that without them faith alone doth not save Answ. The proposition is denied first by Bellarmine himselfe who teacheth though falsely that not all who are justified shall bee saved when notwithstanding the Apostle saith â—…hom the Lord hath justified he also hath glorified And further he holdeth that they who are justified may utterly and finally lose their justification though they lose not their faith and farther that they may also lose their faith which as he absurdly teacheth is lost by any act of infidelity and consequently both their justification and Salvation Yea but saith Bellarmine their justice cannot be lost nor their Salvation whiles they have faith if they be justified by faith onely But Bellarmine himselfe saith though falsely that the faith of them who are justified may be lost and with it their Salvation and therefore by his doctrine a man bee justified by faith and yet not be saved by it Secondly it is denied by some of the Fathers who though they teach that faith alone sufficeth to justification as you have heard yet deny that it alone sufficeth to Salvation because some other things as namely good workes are thereunto required To the assumption that saith alone doth not save If such a faith be meant as is alone severed from Charity and void of workes I doe confesse that it neither saveth nor yet justifieth I doe not say alone but not at all But if he speake of a true lively faith in Christ which purifieth the heart and worketh by love of which onely we speake and understand it relatively as we doe then I constantly affirme that faith in Christ alone that is Christ alone received by faith is the onely meritorious cause of our Salvation and that neither workes nor any other graces are causes of salvation unlesse hee meane caussas sine quibus non which are no causes § II. But for the further proofe of his consequences Bellarmine saith that we cannot deny them because Luther teacheth that a Christian man cannot lose his salvation unlesse he will not beleeve and that the Lâ—…therans affirme that salvation as well as justification is to bee ascribed to faith alone Answ. Wee can deny what either Luther or those that are called Lutherans doe affirme without warrant of Gods word therefore this was but a slender proofe Howbeit we doe not deny that assertion of Luther nor the like which though full of true comfort yet are most maliciously calumniated by the Papists as if hee taught men not to care what sinnes they commit so that they can say they have faith Whereas Luther delivereth speeches of that kinde to comfort the distressed consciences labouring under the burden of sinne assuring them that although their sinnes bee many and great yet they ought not to despaire if they can finde in their heart to beleeve in Christ. Which is most true For though our sinnes be many the mercies of God are more though great yet the merrits of Christ are greater And though the Lutherans doe say that salvation as well as justification is to bee ascribed to faith alone yet that is no proofe of Bellarmines consequence but a flat deniall of his assumption which it behoveth him to prove Upon these things thus premised Bellarmine inferreth that all the testimonies which afterwards namely in his fourth Booke he was to alleage out of Scriptures and Fathers to prove that good workes are so necessary to salvation even to men that are justified that without them faith alone doth not save them doe also prove that faith alone doth not justifie which is the thing saith hee which wee have undertaken to prove which notwithstanding wee doe constantly deny protesting against this inference of Bellâ—…mine and affirming that although good workes be so necessary to salvation as that that faith which is without them doth not save a man yet that doth not hinder our assertion that faith doth justifie alone because they doe not concurre to the act of justification at all and much lesse as the causes thereof for they follow justification though ordinarily they goe before salvation and howsoever that faith which is alone severed from charity and destitute of good workes doth neither justifie as I have shewed heretofore nor save yet notwithstanding faith relatively understood that is Christ received by faith doth save alone § III. But to returne to his fourth Booke though Bellarmine still doe wander yet I must be content to follow him To prove therefore that good workes are necessary to salvation by necessity of efficiency as causes thereof hee useth three kindes of proofes testimonies of Scriptures sentences of Fathers and reason Out of the Scriptures hoe produceth tenne testimonies besides some whole Epistles The first testimony Heb. 10. 30. For patience is necessary for you that doing the will of God ye may receive the promise Here first saith he wee have the terme necessary and
c. 1. l De catechiz rudil c. 4. m Rom. 10. 14. 17. n De lapsis serm 5. Love the fourth disposition His first Testimony Eccles. 2. 10. juxta lati nameditionem a 2 Tim. 1. 6. 12. 〈◊〉 13. Heb. 2 11. b Lib. 1. Cap. 4. §. 11. 1 Ioh. 3. 14. Concil Arausican Caâ—…ult Bèllarmines answeres to our arguments The first 1 Ioh. 4. 19. Our second argument c Eph. 2. 1 5. Joh. 5. 25. Col. 2. 13. Rom. 8. 6 Whether the beginnings of grace be graces d Mat. 12. 20. c Rom. 8. 23. Our third argument f Esai 64. 5. 2 Sam. 11. 27. c. 12. 10 14. g Rom. 8. 7. His fifth disposition is Petencie h Mat. 27. 3 5. Bellarmines proofes His sixth disposition a desire and purpose to receive the Sacrament His seventh disposition a purpose of a new life De justis lib. 1. cap. 14. Faith being alone doth not justifie ergo it doth not justifie alone Our answere Bellarmines proofes that faith may bee alone a De iustif l. 1. c. 14 § sed haec responsio b In Gal. 2. c Antidot ad conc trid sess 6. can 28. d 1 Ioh. â—…â—… e De persever c. 10. §. 7. f Rom. 10. 4. g De justif l. 1. cap. 15. h Lib. 6. cap. 2. 3. De iustif l. â—… cap. 16. Three causes The first cause authority of Scriptures a Lib. 7. c. 8. b Supr cap. 9. Our first argument c Supr cap. 8. Bellarm. obiect d Ro. 3. 28. 4. 5 Out second argument e Lâ—… 1. 73 74 75. Heb 8. 10. Ier. 31. 33 34. The second cause the will of God * Esa. 53. 11. Bellarmines objections that other conditions are required f Ioh. 5. 12. 20. Ioh. 6. â—…7 g Rom. 10 14. The third cause because it is the property of faith onely to receive Christ. Bellarmines first cavill What it is to apprehend Christ. h Ioh. 6. 54. His second cavill from the Sacraments i Rom. 4 11. De iustif l. 1. cap. 17. Bellarmines first reason because faith is a cause His first reason that faith is a cause because the prepositions ex and per are attributed unto it a De justif l. 2. c. 3. §. deinde praepositio His first instance from the contrary b Joh. 6. 29. c Rom. 10. 4. d Photius apud Oecumen in Rom. 10 4. What cause Bellarmine maketh faith to be e Bellarm. de gratiâ—… lib. arb l. 1. c. 6. The difference of the acts of faith justifying and sanctifying f Arist. Physic. l. 2. c. 3. His second reason because faith is the beginning of Iustice. Bellarmines first proofe out of Rom. 4. 5. h Psal. 106. 30 31. His second proofe out of 1 Cor. 3. 11. i Esai 28. 16. Ephes. 2. 20. k De fide operibus c. 16. l Heb. 6. 1. His third testimony Act. 15. 9. His third reason because faith doth obtaine and after a sort merit iustification l Sess. 6. cap. 8. m Act. 10 43 Act. 13. 38 39. n De boâ—…is opeâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. â—… c. 9. § sciendum o 1. â—… 2. ae q. 114. art 9. His first proofe Luk. 7. 50. p Ioh. 3. i4 15. q Ioh. 6. 40. His second proofe out of Mat. 15. 28. Mark 7. 29. His third proofe from the example of Abraham r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 His fourth proofe out of Rom. 10. 1â—… 14. s Cap. 10. §. 8. t Ioel 2. 32. His fifth proofe out of Heb. 11. Ten testimonies out of Augustine 1 Retract l. 1. c. 33 2 Epist. 106. ad Paulinum 3 Epist. 144. ad Anastasium 4 De Spiritu litera c. 13. 5 Ibid. â—… 30. 6 De fide operibus c. â—…1 7 Deprâ—…destin ss c. 7. 8 De gratiâ—… lib. arbitr c. 14. 9 Epist. 105. ad Sixtum u Luk. 18. 13. * Bellar. degâ—…atia lib. arbitr lib. 1. cap. 14. §. hanc esse Solet Augustinus meritum appellare quemlibet actum bo num ratione cu ius aliquid aliud accipimus x De poenit l. 2. c. 12. y Joss 6. cap. 8. De justis l. â—… cap. 18. z De justif l. 2. * Lib. 4. 5. The first calumniation that we deny the necessity of good workes a Tit. 3. 8 14. b Iude 4. c 1 Tim. 6. 6. d Matth. 7. 21. 25. 46. God works necessary first by a privative necessity e Jam. 2. 14. 20. 26. f Esai 61. 3. g Matth. 3. 10. h Luk. 13. 6. i Mat. 21. 19. k Heb. 6. 8. l Mat. 25. 3 12. m Mat. 3. 12. n Mat. 25. 32 33. o Iohn 8. 34. p Gal. 4. 30. q 2 Tim. 3. 5. r Mat. 24. 51. Necessary by a positive necessity and so of infallibility first in respect of Gods decree s Ephes. 1. 4. 2 Thes. 2. 13. t Rom 8. 29. u 1 Iohn 3. 3. * Deut. 29. 29. x Rom. 8. 30. y 1 Cor. 6. 9 10. Gal. 5. 21. Ephes. 5. 5 6. Secondly in respect of Gods Word a 2 Cor. 5. 17. b Rom. 8. 1. c Gal. 5. 24. d 1 Cor. â—… 30. e 1 Ioh. 5. 6. Ioh. 19. 34 35. f Eph. 3. 17. g Rom. 8. 9. h Ioh 3. 3. Thirdly in respect of Gods Oath i Heb. 6. 18. k Luk. 1. 73 74 75. l Ioh. 8. 34. m vers 36. n Rom. 6. 18. o 1 Cor. 6. 19. Servi quia servati Secondly by necessity of precept or of duety p Rom. 12. 1 2. 2 Cor. 5. 9. Heb. 12. 28. That we may shew our selves thankefull first by loving him q 1 Ioh. 4. 19. r Rom. 5. 5. s 1 Ioh. 5. 3. Ioh. 14. 15. t 1 Thess 4. 3. u Rom 6. 22. * Eph. 1. 4. x 1 Cor. 10. 31. Esa 61. 3. Towards our Neighbour y Heâ—… 12. 13. z Rom. 12. 17. a Act. 24. 16. b Heb. 10. 24. 2â—… Cor. 9. 2. c Tit. 2. 8. Rom. 2. 24. 2 Sam. 12. 14. 1 Pet. 2. 12. d Gal. 6. 10. e Mic. 6. 8. Towards our selves f Deu. 28. 15 c. Psal 84. 11. Luk. 1â—… 28. Thirdly by necessity of the signe g Jam. 2. 18. h 2 Pet. 1. 10. i Rom. 8 30. k Psal. 15. Psal. 24. 3 4. l Act. 26. 8. 20. 32. m 1 Pet. 1. 17. Mat. 16. 27. Rom. 2. 6. Apoc. 22. 12. n 2 Cor. 5. 10. o Mat. 25. 46. Ioh. 5. 29. Fourthly necessitate medis p Aug. in Psal. 109. q De gratia lib. arbitr lib. 2. cap. 13. r Esa. 30. 21. s De gratia lib. arbitr in sineâ—… The second calumniation t Esa. 64. 6. u Phil 3 8 9. In what sense we deny works to justifie Proved first from all the five articles before handled a Rom. 11. 6. Ephes. 2. 8 9. b Rom. 4. 5 â—… Foure other reasons Our sifth argument c Lib. 4. d De justif li. cap. 19 Rom 3. 27 28. Rom. 9. 20. Rom. 3. 2 5 6. Gal. 2. 16. Gal. 3. 10 1â—… Eph. 2. 8. 9. Phil. 3. 8. 9.