formall cause of iustification they call it the righteousnesse of God but how the righteousnesse of God imputed to vs nothing lesse but that which is infused into vs. The words of the Councell are these Vnica formalis causa put a iustificationis est iustitia Dei non qua ipse iustus est sed qua nos iustos facit qua videlicet ab eo donati renouamur spiritu mentis nostrae non modo reputamur sed verè iusti nominamur sumus iustitiam in nobis recipientes vnusquisque suam secundum mensuram quam Spiritus sanctus partitur singulis prout vult secundum propriam cuiusque dispositionem cooperationem Quanquam enim nemo posset esse iustus nisi oui merita passionis Domini nostri Iesu Christi communicantur id tamen in hac impi◠iustificatione fit dum eiusdem sanctissimae passionis merito per Spiritum sanctum charitas Dei diffunditur in cordibus eorum qui iustificantur atque ipsis inhaeret c. The onely formall cause to wit of iustification is the righteousnesse of God not that whereby himselfe is iust but that whereby he makes vs iust namely wherewith he hauing endowed vs wee are renewed in the spirit of our minde and are not onely reputed but nominated and are really iust receiuing righteousnesse in our selues each according to his measure which the holy Ghost diuideth to euery one euen as he will and according to euery mans disposition and cooperation For although no man can be iust but hee to whom the merits of the passion of our Lord and Sauiour Iesus Christ are communicated yet that is wrought in this iustification of a sinner while by the merit of the same holy passion the loue of God is by the holy Ghost shed abroad in the hearts of those who are iustified and is inherent in them c. Thus a man may see by the Councels expresse words that though they name imputation which they call the communication of Christs righteousnesse as the formall cause of our iustification yet they meane nothing else but that Christ hath merited that charity should be infused into our hearts whereby we should be iustified which in summe is as much to say as Christ became a Sauiour by whose merit euery man might bee made his owne Sauiour and that by another kinde of righteousnesse than that of Christ imputed That this is the sense of the Councell witnesse her chiefe Interpreters For if they had not finely found out this witty sense of the imputation of Christs righteousnesse it is much to be feared they had Anathemarized the very name of it and throwne it into the fire of their Index expurgatorius wheresoeuer they had found it But this and other cleare truths in Scripture they can so dextrously handle as they can easily euacuate them by turning them to a most sinister sense and so are the lesse affraid to name them and to seeme to auouch them Otherwise as the history of this Councell tels vs the very name of imputation found very harsh intertainment among the most of their Schoole-doctors and Soto himselfe confesseth Quod verbum mihi semper suspectum in suspicionem detuli coram sancta Synodo which word saith he to wit Imputation I alwaies hauing suspected brought it into suspicion before the holy Synod And a little after although he commend the Canons of Colen accounting them as the buckler and bulwarke of faith yet saith he they as happely more secure of the aduersaries than safe haue vsed that word of Imputation where they say That the chiefe head of iustification is the remission and ablution of sinnes by the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ. But yet the Councell of Trent and Church of Rome are not so barren of inuention as not to bee able easily to reconcile this Catholicke word Imputation to the Church of Rome and to make it a Roman-Catholicke For by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse they haue learned to vnderstand that Christ hath merited an infusion of grace into vs whereby we are iustified For confessing the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to be the formall cause of our iustification they would teach vs out of Philosophy that Formalis causa est res illa vel qualitas quae in est subiecto that the formall cause as Soto saith is that thing or quality which is inherent in the subiect for the forme saith he is said in relation to the matter to which it giues a being by inherency Pari ergo modo c. As therefore the aire is not luminous or lightsome formally by the light that is in the Sun but by the light it receiueth in it selfe from the Sunne Constantissimum est c. it is a most constant truth That neither are wee formally iust and accepted by the righteousnesse which is in Christ but by that which himselfe hath conueyed into vs. Wee are saith hee made iust by Christs righteousnesse as by the efficient cause but not as by the formall cause But Vega peremptorily in his 7. book and 22. chapt intituled Of the impossibility of Christs righteousnesse to be the formall cause of our iustification concludeth thus in his first argument Superfluum est ab omni philosophia alienum ad hoc ipsum ponere aliam aliquam iustitiam videlicet iustitiam imputatiuam Christi It is superfluous and abhorring from all philosophy to put any other righteousnesse for a formall cause of our righteousnesse as the imputatiue righteousnesse of Christ. Therefore according to Romane-Catholicke diuinity which is most humane philosophy the formall cause of a mans righteousnesse must be inherent in him and his owne and not the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to vs. But yet the same author afterwards seemeth to shake imputation by the hand and to be good friends with it where he saith Non est adeo inuisum nobis hoc vocabulum vt credam nunquam nos posse hoc in proposito benè illo vti This word Imputation is not so odious vnto vs as that I thinke wee may neuer vse it well to this purpose Verè namque sanè ac latinè possumus dicere ad satisfactionem meritum imputatam esse generi humano iustitiam Christi in passione sua iugiter imputari omnibus qui iustificantur satisfaciunt pro peccatis suis vitam aeternam suis bonis operibus merentur For wee may truely and soothly and in plaine termes say that vnto satisfaction and merit the righteousnesse of Christ in his passion is imputed to mankinde and is continually imputed to all men that are iustified and doe satisfie for their sins and by their good works do merit eternall life And much more to this purpose And a little after hee saith Non transit iustitia Christi realiter ab illo in iustificatos Christs righteousnesse doth not really passe from him into those that are iustified nor by it are we formally iustified But imputation is of God
which ioynes the merits of Christ vnto vs and makes them ours after a sort in as much as for his merits sake hee giueth vs righteousnesse whereby wee are righteous Cum enim per iustitiam Christi c. For seeing by the righteousnesse of Christ mankinde hath satisfied for their sinnes and by it is reconciled to God and the gates of Paradise are thereby vnlocked and all that are iustified or satisfie or merit at Gods hand seeing by his merits they are iustified and reconciled to God and satisfie for themselues and merit increase of grace and blessednesse surely it cannot be denied but that to mankinde and all so iustified Christs righteousnesse is or may be imputed to satisfaction and merit So Vega. I neede passe no other censure vpon this Romane-Catholicke doctrine than that of Gregory Deo maledicunt cum se ab illo accepisse vires intelligunt sed tamen de eius muneribus propriam laudem quaerunt They blaspheme God when they acknowledge they haue receiued strength from him and yet from his gifts seeke their owne praise And St. Augustine in his Soliloquies saith sweetly Vnde gloriabitur omnis caro Nunquid de malo Haec non est gloria sed miseria sed nunquid gloriabitur de bono nunquid de alieno Tuum Domine est bonum tua est gloria Qui enim de bono tuo gloriam sibi quaerit non tibi quaerit hic fur est latro similis est diabolo qui voluit furari gloriam tuam Qui enim laudari vult de tuo dono non quaerit in illo gloriam tuam sed suam hic licet propter tuum donum laudatur ab hominibus ◠te tamen vituperatur quia de dono tuo non tuam sed suam gloriam quaesiuit Qui autem ab hominibus laudatur vituperante te non defendetur ab hominibus iudicante te ne◠liberabitur condemnante te Whereof shall all flesh reioyce Of euill This is not glory but misery But shall hee glory of good What of anothers good Thine O Lord is the good thine is the glory For he who of thy good seekes glory to himselfe and not to thee hee is a theefe and a robber and like the deuill who would haue robbed thee of thy glory For he that would be praised for thy gift and doth not therein seeke thy glory but his owne this man though for thy gift hee be praised of men yet hee is dispraised of thee because of thy gift he sought not thine but his owne glory But hee that is praised of men being disallowed of thee shall not be defended of men when hee shall be iudged of thee nor absolued when condemned of thee I haue been the more copious in citing these two authors Vega and Soto because both they were grand-Sticklers in the Councell and vndertooke to write these things as Commentaries vpon this sixt Session of Iustification as we haue sufficiently noted before So that what the Councell hath couched in the Text in fewer words these haue amplified and expressed more at large to the end that no man might mistake the Councels minde and meaning no not in the middest of her mistie and cloudy equiuocations Thus they haue learned to doe with imputation the very name whereof had so startled the Councell for the time as men doe with the Serpent The Serpent with her very aspect at first affrights the beholder but being taken and her teeth pulled out men are then not affraide to carry her in their bosomes So the imputation of Christs righteousnesse was at the first sight terrible to the Church of Rome assembled in the Councell of Trent no lesse than the gastly Owle was to the Pope and his Cardinalls in the Councell of Lateran which appeared to them in steede of their holy Ghost but finding meanes to take Christ the Antitype of that health-giuing brasen Serpent and to pull out his teeth to wit the truth of the imputation of Christs righteousnesse whereby sinne and death are bitten and stung to death lest it should bite and sting all their merits to death they dare now freely and familiarly carry the Serpent in the bosome of their bookes handling imputation at their pleasure without any perill at all to Papall satisfaction Bellarmine hath also learned to play with the word imputation Homo iustificatus non egit imputatione alienae iustitiae qua iniustitia propria inhaerens tegatur A man iustified needeth not the imputation of anothers righteousnesse whereby his owne inherent vnrighteousnesse may be couered And in the tenth Chapter of the same booke Christus nostra iustitia non quòd iusti simus ea iustitia quae est in Christo nobis imputata Christ is our righteousnesse not that we are iust by the righteousnesse which is in Christ imputed vnto vs Sic igitur nobis imputatur iustitia eius quoad satisfactionem quam pro nobis praestitit sed non propterea nos iusti id est mundi immaculati haberi possumus si verè in nobis peccatorum macula sordes inhaereant So therefore is Christs righteousnesse imputed to vs in regard of satisfaction which he performed for vs but for all that we cannot bee holden for iust to wit cleane and immaculate if the spots and staines of sinne by yet truely inherent in vs. So this is the generall voyce of the Councell of Trent and the Church of Rome to allow of no other imputation of Christs righteousnesse but such as by his merits wee haue an infusion of grace whereby we merit and satisfie God in our iustification And so they admit of no other formall cause of iustification but an inherent righteousnesse in themselues and out of Christ. Thus we haue seene what the Romane-Catholike faith is touching Iustification and the formall cause of it CHAP. V. The Catholike Faith concerning iustification and of the terme and forme of Iustification NOw to know the true nature of Iustification it much imports vs to consider in what sense this word Iustification is to be vsed and taken in the iustification of a sinner The Pontificians or Papists would restraine the sense of it to the etymologie of the Latine word Iustificare as much say they as Iustum facere from whence they would conclude their inherencie of selfe-iustification wherein they doe as some Lawyers that by the mistaking or misapplying of a word can ouerthrow the whole right of a mans cause Indeede St. Augustine saith Quid est aliud iustificati quà m iusti facti ab illo scilicet qui iustificat impium vt ex impio fiat iustus Aut certè it a dictum est iustificabuntur ac si diceretur Iusti habebuntur iusti deputabuntur What else is it to be iustified but to be made iust namely of him who iustifieth the vngodly that of impious he may be made righteous Or surely it is so said They shall be iustified as if it were said
They shall bee accounted iust they shall be reputed iust So he Thus we see though St. Augustine following the etymologie of the word take iustificare to iustifie or make iust yet hee meaneth nothing else but the accounting or reputing iust and not the infusing of grace whereby to be made iust And Bernard also saith Adde huc vt credas quod per ipsum tibi peccata donantur Hoc est testimonium quod perhibet in corde nostro Spiritus sanctus dicens Dimissa sunt tibi peccata Sic enim arbitratur Apostolus Gratis iustificari hominem per fidem Adde to this that thou beleeue that by him thy sinnes are forgiuen thee This is the testimonie which the holy Ghost beareth in our heart saying Thy sinnes are forgiuen thee For so the Apostle concludeth That a man is iustified freely by faith But let vs heare from the holy Ghosts own mouth in the Scriptures he will leade vs into all truth To iustifie in Scripture is vsually taken in a iudiciall sense as beeing properly a iudiciall word iustification beeing opposed to condemnation The Hebrewes haue one word which signifies to iustifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it is still applyed to such a iustification as a man stands vpon in a iudiciall tryall As Genesis 44. 16. Mah nits tadhac how shall wee iustifie our selues said Iudah to his brother Ioseph in regard of the cup found in Beniamins sacke which seemed now to be brought to aiudiciall Tryall So 2. Sam. 15. 4. Absolon wisheth hee were Iudge of the Land that hee might doe euery man iustice or iustifie him Reade also for this purpose Deut. 25. 1. Psal. 51. 4. 1 Kings 8. 32. Pro. 17. 15. Esay 5. 23. 43. 26. Matth. 12. 37. 1. Cor. 4. 4. and many other places in Scripture to this purpose doe plainely shew how this word Iustifie is properly taken namely to acquit or cleere to pronounce or declare one iust by the sentence of the Iudge This sense of iustification the Church of Rome cannot endure they smother or at least smooth it ouer by slight of hand as a matter of no moment Whereas indeede there is nothing that will more directly leade vs to the true vnderstanding of the nature of iustification than the consideration of this word taken in a iudiciall sense wherein the holy Ghost doth vse it namely to acquit and absolue a man and pronounce him iust by sentence of iudgement This sheweth that the point of iustification of a sinner is not so light a matter as Papists and profane persons would make it No it is a Case to be tried at the barre of Gods iudgement-seate in whose sight shall no man liuing bee iustified Holy Iob while hee pleaded with his opposite friends hee wanted not matter for his iustification but when once the Lord God summons him out of the whirle-winde before his throne and bids him girde vp his loynes like a man Iob stands not now vpon his vprightnesse but confesseth I am vile what shall I answer thee I will lay my hand vpon my mouth c. Iob 40. 4. and 42. 5. I haue heard of thee by the hearing of the eare but now mine eye seeth thee Wherefore I abhorre my selfe and repent in dust and ashes Yea hee had said before Chap. 9. 15. Whom though I were righteous yet would I not answer but I would make supplication to my Iudge for God is a righteous and seuere iudge and who may stand in his sight when he is angry when hee sits to iudge For the heauens are not cleane in his sight how much more abominable and filthie is man which drinketh iniquitie like water Iob 15. 16. If therefore our iustification be such as must proceede from Gods iudgement seate and must be sentenced by Gods owne mouth it neerely concernes euery Mothers Sonne to bee well aduised vpon what ground we stand what euidence wee can bring to cleare ourselues to satisfie our vnpartiall Consciences to stop the mouth of the accusing Diuell and to abide the fierietriall of that Iudge who is euen a consuming fire and will condemne euen the least sinne to the pit of hell But that wee may not mistake the true acception of iustification we are to consider iustification in a two-fold relation or respect either as it hath relation to God or to man before whom also we are said to be iustified but in a different yea opposite respect whereof we shall haue occasion to speake hereafter Here wee speake of Iustification in the first relation Now this iustification of a sinner in the sight of God whereof wee speake proceedeth from a iudiciall tryall In this sense it is vsed by the holy Ghost Rom. 8. 33 34. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect It is God that iustifieth who is he that condemneth It is Christ that dyed yea rather that is risen againe c. This iustification the Lord Iesus doth oppose to condemnation Iohn 5. 24. where speaking of iudgement vers 22. he inferreth Verily Verily I say vnto you Hee that heareth my word and beleeueth on him that sent me hath euerlasting life and shall not come into condemnation but is passed from death vnto life And like as Iesus Christ was condemned by a iudiciall proceeding Pilate giuing sentence though according to such euidence as was most vntrue in it selfe so all those for whom Christ was thus iudicially condemned shall be iudicially iustified and acquitted But this wil appear more clearly in setting down the formall cause of our iustification To speake to the capacity of the simple By formall cause is meant that which giues a being to iustification as forma dat esse the forme of a thing giues being vnto it That therefore which makes a man perfectly iust is called the formall cause of his iustification Now the Pontificians would hence conclude That inherent qualities must be the formall cause of iustification alledging the authority of Philosophers who say That the formall cause is the thing or quality which is in the subiect as the soule of man is in the body And therefore they exclude the righteousnesse of Christ whereby he is formally iust from being the formall cause of our iustification because say they Christs righteousnesse is in himselfe not in vs. But no maruaile if these Pontificians doe wrest the Maximes of Philosophers from their natiue sense when they dare so familiarly force the Scriptures themselues The Philosophers speake of a physicall formality but the holy Scriptures speake of the iustification of a sinner in the sight of God the forme whereof is relatiue and not physically inherent in vs. But be it so that the formall cause must alwayes be in the subiect to which it giues a being the formall cause then of iustification must be inherent Wherein must it bee inherent In vs No but in iustification which is the subiect of this inherent formall cause For if inherent grace bee the formall cause of iustification then
by way of relation iustification is the subiect of inherent grace For wee speake here of the formall cause of iustification not of the formall cause of man as if hee were the subiect wherein iustification is a quality inherent But to answer their mis-applyed philosophicall diuinity The forme of a thing is not alwayes a quality inherent as in the subiect where it is but sometimes it is onely adherent and extrinsicall by way of relation As that I am the sonne of such a man the formall cause hereof is not inherent in me but it is originally and relatiuely from my father that begate mee giuing a being to my sonship respectiuely to him So a man set at liberty by the fauour and meanes of another the very forme of his freedome was the others act in freeing of him not inhering in him that is freed but rather adhering vnto him Yea the Pontificians themselues confesse and Vega for one that the formall cause of mans redemption is a thing extrinsicall to wit the oblation of Christ on the Crosse and that the free fauour of God for the merit of Christ is the formall cause of remission of sinnes If therefore the forme of our redemption and remission of sinnes is not within vs but without vs why not as well the forme of our iustification the cause whereof is Christs redemption and the effect of it remission of sinnes In a word it is not with a forme as with an accident the being of an accident is the in-being of it Not so of a forme where being or modus essendi consists not necessarily in the inhering in the subiect whose formall cause it is but it may as well be extrinsicall by conferring a vertue and power whereby the Causatum receiueth the formality of its being But to leaue Philosophy and return to Diuinity it is yet in question whether the matter of this iustification be within vs or rather without vs. The Romane-Catholicke faith teacheth that it is within vs but the Catholicke faith concludeth that the formall cause of our iustification is without vs not within vs. This is that Catholicke doctrine which the Scriptures teach when they ascribe our iustification to faith apprehending that which is without vs where by apprehending is not meant a bare vnderstanding or knowing as Soto in the name of his Romane-Catholickes would haue it but it is also a laying hold vpon and applying of the thing beleeued We haue shewed afore how the Pontificians take the word Imputation namely for a participation of Christs righteousnesse so farre forth as thereby some other righteousnesse being merited is infused into vs and inherent in vs. But the true Catholickes hold otherwise that imputation is of a thing without vs being apprehended and applied by faith So that the thing imputed is that which is by faith apprehended As it is said of Abraham that hee beleeued God and his faith was imputed to him for righteousnesse Rom. 4. 3. Now the obiect of Abrahams faith was God yea God promising in regard of which obiect Abrahams faith is imputed to him for righteousnesse Not the act of Abrahams faith being but an instrument but the obiect of it is imputed As we may say we are iustified by the act of faith relatiuely to the obiect Christ not for the act of it Abraham beleeued God and his faith was imputed to him for righteousnesse But how is this sufficient to iustifie a man to beleeue God or the promise of God that it should be said to be imputed to man for righteousnesse I answer To beleeue Gods promise is to haue an eye of faith vpon Christ who is the substance of all Gods promises and in whom all the promises of God are Yea and Amen 2. Cor. 1. 20. So that God in Christ is the obiect of faith imputed to the beleeuer for righteousnesse But here an obiection crosseth my way cast in by the aduersary of the truth Vega who saith Dixi c. I said that this faith of the Mediator is that to which for the most part and chiefely the Scriptures doe attribute our iustification yet we beleeue also saith he that faith taken generally as it relieth vpon diuine truth may also iustifie a man Nor are wee in that errour wherein some are to thinke that the onely faith of iustification promised or of saluation in Christ doth iustifie vs or is imputed vnto vs for righteousnesse For saith he Noahs faith of the future deluge as Paul witnesseth was imputed to him for righteousnesse and he was appointed the heire of righteousnesse which is by faith in that he beleeued God fore-telling the floud and a hundred yeares before it came began to build the Arke for the safety of his house And to Abraham also as the history of Genâ—sis plainely teacheth it was imputed for righteousnesse because hee beleeued that his posterity should bee multiplied as the starres of heauen So that hence hee concludes that not onely to faith in Gods promises in Christ is righteousnesse imputed but to faith in generall beleeuing Gods truth such as is not in the compasse of Gods promises in Christ but either speculatiue precepts or morall doctrines or other Propheticall predictions or historicall relations So that by the Pontifician doctrine other faith besides that in Gods promises in Christ may be imputed to a man for righteousnesse As Noahs faith in building the Arke against the floud and Abrahams faith in beleeuing Gods promise concerning the multiplication of his seed I answer that no faith is or can bee imputed to a man for righteousnesse but that which hath respect vnto Christ and the promises of God in him But Noahs faith in preparing the Arke to saue himselfe and his family from the floud was imputed to him for righteousnesse True this confirmeth the Catholicke doctrine of the imputation of faith as it lookes vpon Christ for what was the Arke but a Sacramentall type of Christ as Augustine saith Christus figuratus est in Noe in illa Arca orbis terrarum Quare enim in Arca inclusa sunt omnia animaliae nisi vt significarentur omnes gentes Christ is figured in Noe and in that Arke of the whole world for why in that Arke were included all creatures but that all Nations should be signified by them And there hee applies that promise to Abraham Gen. 22. 18. In thy seed shall all the Nations of the earth be blessed And for Abrahams faith in Gods promise what seed of Abraham was this in whom all the Nations of the earth should be blessed Was it not Christ Yes Christ so saith Augustine in the forenamed place Christus in ea prophetia occultus erat in quo benedicuntur omnes gentes Christ saith he was hid in that prophesie in whom all the Nations are blessed But the Apostle or rather the holy Ghost by the Apostle is the best interpreter of that prophecie Gal. 3. 16. Now to Abraham and his seed were the
promises made Hee saith not and to seeds as of many but as of one And to thy seed which is Christ. And this was that promise of God which Abraham beleeuing his faith was counted to him for righteousnesse as it is there in the sixt verse euen as Abraham beleeued God and it was accounted to him for righteousnesse Therefore Vega's diuinitie hath very much failed him in propounding these two examples of Noah and Abraham to proue the iustification of his generall Faith whereas we plainely see both these Patriarches faith had speciall and principall reference and respect to Christ Iesus And therefore their faith was reckoned to them for righteousnesse For the other examples which Vega there addeth in generall out of the eleuenth to the Hebrewes they are all of the same nature and all confirme this infallible and vndeniable truth That the promises of God in Christ and Christ alone with all his righteousnesse is the obiect of that Faith which is reckoned to Abraham to Noah and to euery beleeuer for righteousnesse Here then comes in the true formall cause of our iustification namely Christ himselfe with all his righteousnesse which being apprehended by faith it is imputed vnto vs for righteousnesse This is it that giues a true being to iustification Iustification therefore consists in the imputation of Christ and his righteousnesse comprehending also all the promises of God in him apprehended by faith Now concerning this Catholicke doctrine of imputation of Christs righteousnesse by faith the Scriptures are very pregnant in the proofe of it This Gospell hath testimonie before the Law in the Law and in the Prophets and is confirmed by Christ and his Apostles Before the Law to omit other examples wee haue two famous ones that of Noah and Abraham of whom wee spake euen now who are layd downe for exemplary patterns yea and liuely types to all beleeuers Noah before the floud and Abraham after the floud and before the Law which St. Paul doth especially note to put a difference betweene faith and the workes of the Law in the point of iustification In the Law also we haue two principall types liuely shadowing this doctrine of imputation The first we finde in Leuiticus 1. 4. And hee shall put his hand vpon the head of his burnt-offering and it shall bee accepted for him to make attonement for him The burnt offering was a figure of Christ sacrificed for vs vpon the crosse the man that brings this burnt-offering is a type of euery true beleeuer and the hand which hee putteth on the head of the sacrifice is faith laying hold on Christ and as it were owning him for our proper sacrifice which God accepteth to bee an attonement for vs a sacrifice of a sweet sauour vnto the Lord. The Apostle applies this sacrifice with the fruits of it to Christ Rom. 5. 11. Wee reioyce in God through our Lord Iesus Christ by whom we haue receiued the attonement Also Ephes. 5. 2. Walke in loue as Christ also hath loued vs and giuen himselfe for vs an offering and a sacrifice to God of a sweete smelling sauour Christ is then this burnt-offering our attonement with God and an offering of a sweete sauour vnto the Lord. Now the instrument or hand whereby Christ is apprehended and applyed to euery true Beleeuer is Faith It was the hand of Faith which the diseased woman in the Gospell touched Christ her Sauiour with and fetched vertue out of him To whom the Lord said Daughter be of good comfort thy faith hath made thee whole goe in peace This the Apostle doth also liuely set out Rom. 3. 25. Whom God hath set forth to wit Iesus Christ to be a propitiation through faith in his blood to declare his righteousnesse for the Remission of sinnes that are past through the forbearance of God to declare at this time his righteousnesse that hee might be iust and a iustifier of him that beleeueth in Iesus How fully doth the Apostle parallel and compare this truth with that type A second type of our righteousnesse or iustification by imputation of Christ vnto the beleeuer in the time of the Law is set downe Num. 21. 8. 9. The Lord said vnto Moses make thee a fiery serpent and set it vpon a pole and it shall come to passe that euery one that is bitten when he looketh vpon it shall liue and Moses did so and the serpent-bitten-man looked and liued The brazen Serpent was a type of Christ the serpent-bitten-man is euery sinner whom that old serpent hath already stung with sinne as he did our first Parents The looking on the brazen serpent so lifted vp vpon a pole is the faith of the beleeuer beholding Christ lifted vp vpon his Crosse. This Christ Iesus himselfe applyeth Ioh. 3. 14. 15. As Moses lifted vp the Serpent in the wildernesse euen so must the sonne of man be lifted vp that whosoeuer beleeueth in him should not perish but haue eternall life A most sweet collation of the truth with the type shewing that as faith is the hand of the soule laying hold vpon the bloudy sacrifice of Christ for our atonement with God so faith is also the eye of the soule so to looke vpon Christ crucified as to bee thereby cured of all the deadly wounds of sin and so to liue eternally The Prophets also are full of testimonies to confirme this doctrine of iustification by imputation Esa 53. 4. Surely hee hath borne our griefes and carried our sorrowes yet we did esteeme him stricken smitten of God and afflicted as if hee had beene a malefactor But he was wounded for our transgressions hee was bruised for our iniquities the chastisement of our peace was vpon him and with his stripes are wee healed All wee like sheepe haue gone astray we haue turned euery one to his owne way and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of vs all And vers 8. he was cut off out of the land of the liuing for the transgression of my people was he stricken Though he had done no violence neither was any deceipt in his mouth yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him he hath put him to griefe when thou shalt make his soule an offering for sinnes he shall see his seede c. Here wee see most liuely set downe a mutuall imputation of our iniquities vnto Christ and of his merits vnto vs. And then the Prophet vers 11. sheweth by what meane or instrument this righteousnesse of Christs obedience is imputed to vs By his knowledge shall my righteous seruant iustifie many for hee shall beare their iniquities By his knowledge or by the knowledge of himselfe that is by faith in him knowing and acknowledging seeing and beholding him with the eye of faith to bee that Lambe of God before the shearer taking away our sinnes for hee hath borne our iniquities The Prophet Ieremy also doth set this downe most sweetly by a reciprocall or mutuall relation betweene Christ and his Church calling Christ
iudged as a sinner as Esay saith He was numbred with the transgressours and hee bare the sinne of many Now that Christ is said to bee made sin in the abstract and we to be made righteousnesse in the abstract not righteous in the concrete as Logicians speake Lyra saith Ideo in abstracto dicitur iustitia Dei vt efficeremur perfectè iusti we are said to be made the righteousenesse of God in him in the abstract that is perfectly iust And that is wee are made iust but relatiuely in respect to Christ as he was made sinne but relatiuely in respect of vs we are made the righteousnesse of God in him as hee was made sinne for vs and in vs to wit in ourperson as wee haue said So he is called The Lord our righteousnesse Yet true it is that Christ might be said to be made sinne to wit the sacrifice for sinne though not so properly in this place But if Papists will wrangle and wring out this sense from this place because the Glosse saith so let them remember that as Lyra's Glosse saith As we are made perfectly iust by Christ so was he made a perfect sacrifice for vs to free vs both à culpa poena from the fault and the penaltie and not a lame sacrifice or imperfect to free vs onely à culpa but not à poena as Papists say reseruing the punishment for their purgatorie But of this hereafter Howsoeuer if they will needes take sinne there for the sacrifice for sinne yet Christ was so the sacrifice for sinne as must necessarily imply the imputation of our sinnes vpon his person But enough of this place which one place is enough to proue the formall cause of our iustification to be the righteousnesse of Christ imputed vnto vs. It followeth therefore that the formall cause of our iustification that which makes vs truely iust in the sight of God yea before Gods iudgement seate is the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to vs and that no otherwise than our sinnes were imputed to him whereby hee was made a malefactor not by hauing our sinnes in him but vpon him He bore our sinnes vpon him saith Peter So Esay Hee bare the sinnes of many and was numbred with the transgressors Hee is the truth of the type of those two goates Leuit. 16. the one slaine the other let goe figuring the humanity the slaine Goate and the diuinity of Christ the scape Goate or the slaine Goate the death of Christ and the scape Goate his resurrection For he dyed for our sinnes and rose againe for our iustification which his rising againe from the dead is liuely shadowed in the scape Goat on which Aaron put both his hands confessed ouer him all the iniquities of the children of Israel putting them vpon the head of the Goate sending him away by the hand of a fit man into the wildernesse where those sinnes should neuer be seene more vers 21. Hee was that Ioshua the high Priest our Iesus or Iehoshua and high Priest who offering himselfe vpon the Crosse was clothed in filthy garments euen with the menstruous cloth of our sinnes imputed vnto him or imposed vpon him As Chrysostome applies that place to Christ that we might be clad in the glorious robes of his righteousnesse put vpon vs As the ordinary Glosse vpon this place saith excellently Iesus est indutus sordidis vestibus quia qui peccatum non fecit pro nobis peccatum factus est Sed haec sordida vestis est ei abâ—ata cum nostrae deleuit peccata vt quia ille sordidis indutus est vestibus nos resurgentes in eo semper candida habeamus vestimenta Iesus hath filthie rayment put vpon him because he that did no sinne was made sinne for vs. But this filthy rayment was taken from him when he had cancelled our sinnes that because he was attired in filthy rayment we rising againe in him may alwayes haue white garments vpon vs. That we as Iacob being cladde in the sweete smelling robes of our elder brother Christ might bee accounted as a field which the Lord hath blessed and so receiue the blessing of the birth-right in our elder brothers name As the type is very pregnant to this purpose whereupon Ambrose saith thus Iacob primogeniturae benedictionem obtinuit veste fratris maioris natu indutus fic vestis Christi optimum odorem spirat c. Iacob clothed in the garment of his elder brother obtained the blessing of the birth-right so the garment of Christ doth yeeld a fragrant smell c. And againe Quod Isaac odorem vestium olfecit fortasse illud est quia non operibus iustificamur sed fide quoniam carnalis infirmitas operibus impedimento est sed fidei claritas factorum obumbrat errorem quae meretur veniam delictorum That Isaac smelled the odour of the garments haply it is to signifie that we are not iustified by workes but by faith because carnall infirmity is an impediment to workes but the glory of faith doth shadow the errour of our workes and procureth pardon of our sinnes The conuert Prodigall had the fatte Calfe slaine for him and the best robe put vpon him Euery sinner is this Prodigall yea that beleeuing repenting theefe hanging vpon the Crosse as Saint Augustine compares them together Iesus Christ is the fatte Calfe killed for vs his righteousnesse is that best robe put vpon vs. So St. Augustine applyeth it Proferat hic pater stolam illam primam induat filium immortalitate quem secum videt in cruce pendentem mactet vitulum saginatum hominem illum susceptum etiam pro latronibus crucifixum Let the father bring forth that best robe let him clothe his sonne with immortality whom he seeth crucified with Christ let him kill the fatte Calfe that man taken and crucified euen for theeues And the ordinary Glosse saith Adducite vitulam id est praedicate Christum mortem eius insinuate Bring forth the fat Calfe that is preach Christ and put men in minde of his death Nor is that an obscure type of Christ clothing vs with his righteousnesse which wee finde Gen. 3. 21. where the Lord God doth make coates of skinnes and therewith clotheth the man and the woman No doubt of skinnes of beasts sacrificed types of Christ. The Scripture it selfe leades vs to this construction so often mentioning the putting on of Christ as Gal. 3. 26. 27. Being by faith in Iesus Christ made the children of God and such saith the Apostle haue put on Christ. Now what is it to put on Christ but to make him wholly ours As the king of Babel is said to put on Egypt as a garment in token that it was become wholly his Ier. 43. 12. Christ standing before Pilate to be iudged as he tooke the purity of our nature in his conception so now hee put on the impurity of our guilty persons in his condemnation And by the way behold
here may be fitly moued Quest. Whether the obedience of the whole Law of God wrought by Christ for vs is auaileable as to redeeme vs from the punishment of sinne so to purchase vnto vs eternall life in heauen The reason of the question is because not the Law if it had beene for euer perfectly fulfilled by Adam had any promise of that eternall life and immediate vision in heauen but only of this life Heauen is not within the Couenant of workes Answ. True it is that the fulfilling of the Law in it selfe simply considered hath no proportion with that endlesse life aboue For the first Adam was of the earth earthly and all his happinesse promised vpon the condition of keeping the Law for ought is reuealed or can be demonstrated was terrestriall But now forasmuch as the Law is fulfilled by Christ this obedience reacheth to a higher reward because there is a higher promise made than that of the first Adam Because Christ the second Adam is the Lord from heauen the Eternal whose Kingdom is not of this world but of a better a heauenly whose house is not made with hands So that his obedience to the Law in regard of his person becomes a rich and inestimable purchase of that better Kingdome for vs. For as is the heauenly such are they that are heauenly to wit the generation of God in and by Iesus Christ 1 Cor. 15. 48. 49. 50. vide Iohn 3. 13. No man ascendeth vp to heauen but he c. Thus haue we proued out of the holy Scriptures how the formall cause of iustification or that which giues a perfect being to our iustification making vs perfectly iust in the sight of God is the imputation of Christs righteousnesse vnto vs and that euen of his whole righteousnesse actiue in his life and passiue in his death And that the formall cause of our iustification is not within vs but without vs not inherent but by imputation may easily appeare from the maine difference betweene the first Couenant and the second The first Couenant was that which was made with Adam in Paradise Doe this and liue the second that made with man after his fal Beleeue and liue So the first Couenant was of workes the second of faith the first of an inherent righteousnesse of our owne the second of a righteousnesse without vs not our owne simply but by relation namely made ours to wit Christs righteousnesse who of God is made vnto vs righteousnesse called in Scriptures the righteousnesse which is of faith Not to obserue and know this difference well is the ready way to leade men into all errour of this mysterie of God The Apostle doth notably set downe this difference between the first and second Couenant as termes infinitely opposite and admitting of no reconciliation Rom. 10. 3. when hee saith that the Iewes being ignorant of Gods righteousnesse and going about to establish their owne righteousnesse haue not submitted themselues to the vnrighteousnesse of God For Christ is the end of the Law for righteousnesse to euery one that beleeueth For Moses describeth the righteousnesse which is of the Law that the man which doth those things shall liue by them But the righteousnesse which is of Faith is to confesse with thy mouth the Lord Iesus and to beleeue in thy heart that God raised him from the dead and thou shalt be saued Also Rom. 11. 6. If it be by grace it is no more of workes otherwise grace is no more grace but if it bee of workes then it is no more grace otherwise worke is no more worke Also Rom. 4. the Apostle setting downe this same opposition betweene the Couenant of workes and of faith saith on this wise v. 2. c. If Abraham were iustified by workes he hath whereof to glory but not before God For what saith the Scripture Abraham beleeued God and it was counted to him for righteousnesse Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace but of debt but to him that worketh not but beleeueth on him that iustifieth the vngodly his faith is counted for righteousnesse Euen as Dauid also describeth the blessednesse of the man vnto whom God imputeth righteousnesse without workes saying Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiuen and whose sinnes are couered Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sinne What clearer Testimonies Yea this did God himselfe teach vs not obscurely by his own act Gen. 3. For when Adam had forfeited the first Couenant which was of workes made with him in Paradise before his fall and after his fall had made with him another Couenant to wit of faith in Christ the promised seede of the woman What doth God thereupon Hee shuts man out of Paradise and from the Tree of life lest putting forth his hand hee should take of it and liue for euer What is meant hereby Paradise was not only the place but also did signifie the happy condition of Adams blessednesse which he was to enioy in his innocencie the Tree of life was a sacrament and symbol of life appointed as a speciall meanes to preserue man from dying or decaying in his naturall strength so long as he continued in his obedience But by disobedience hee forfeited the Couenant brake the condition lost his former happinesse and was depriued of the meanes of that life wherein hee should haue liued for euer vpon earth Now God shutting him out from the earthly Paradise the place of earthly blisse and from the Tree of life the sacrament and symbol of immortalitie and hauing shewed vnto him another Tree of life in the middest of the Paradise of God to wit Iesus Christ who is very God and eternall life which whosoeuer by reaching out the hand of Faith eateth of shall liue for euer God I say doth hereby plainely teach vs that in attaining to the heauenly Paradise by the Tree of life Iesus Christ wee must not haue any more to doe with the things pertaining to the first Couenant now altogether forfeited and from which Adam and his posteritie is for euer banished neuer to returne or intermeddle there any more Gen. 3 22. 23. 24. Therefore to teach and beleeue the doctrine of an inherent righteousnesse whereby to attaine eternall life is euen as it were in despite of God and of his holy Angels the Cherubims keeping the way of the Tree of life to reuiue the old Couenant of workes againe and with the hand of the body to wit good workes reach out to take of the tree of life This is a Babylonish confounding of the two Couenants which stand vpon such irreconcileable termes of difference Is there no more difference betweene Do this and liue and Beleeue and liue betweene mans owne righteousnesse and Gods righteousnesse the establishing of the one being the abolishing of the other Nor is it to purpose that these Babylonians alledge that they ascribe their inherent righteousnesse to God as the author of it and by whom
them as an Idoll Onely Christ is that sacred and mysticall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that fish in whom is found our tribute-money to satisfie the Maiesty of God This money must bee stamped no where but in Gods owne Mint as the pure siluer Oare of it is no where found but in Gods owne Mynes the holy Scriptures no other Image or Superscription must be vpon it but that of Iesus Christ and none may tender or offer it vp to God but onely Christ. 1. Tim. 2. 6. There is one God and one Mediator betweene God and man the man Christ Iesus who gaue himselfe a ransome for all This pure ransome more pure more precious than gold will endure no mixture no allay of any other mettals much lesse of any drosse But inherent righteousnesse in vs though dipped in Christs bloud as hauing receiued a tincture from it as they say if wee offer it to God for currant payment hee will easily perceiue it counterfeit coine of our owne mynting of our owne inuenting no better than Alcumy little siluer but much drosse in it euen the drosse of humane inuention and corruption which if it bee brought to Gods touch turnes colour if put in the Skale of the Sanctuary is found too light if cast into the Test of Gods fiery iustice it is blown all away in smoke As Esay saith Thy siluer is become drosse thy wine mixt with water And as Ieremy saith Reprobate siluer shall men call them because the Lord hath reiected them Our inherent righteousnesse call it Christs merits or what you will is at the best but as Piscis in arido The fish while it is in the sea liueth moueth is full of strength and agility but vpon the dry land it straight loseth all his vigour motion and life it selfe and quickly putrefieth euen so the merits and righteousnesse of Christ being in him as in their proper element are most liuely and vigorous strong and auaileable to satisfie Gods iustice and to plunge all our sinnes into the deepe bottome of the bottomlesse deepe of his mercies by that sweete smelling sacrifice of himselfe once offered but take any part of these merits of Christ out of him and put them into our dry and parched sandy soules and they become of no life of no validity to make the least satisfaction for the least sinnes yea in this respect they stinke in the nostrils of God Our soules are but broken Cisternes to contain this pure water of life God could neuer yet finde any thing in vs in vs I say but onely faith whereby to iustifie vs and this faith not as a worke of ours iustifying vs but as an instrument applying Christ by whom in whom and for whom wee are iustified If God iustifie vs for righteousnesse inherent or dwelling in vs then God should bee said to iustifie the godly but the Scripture saith otherwise That God iustifieth the vngodly Rom. 4. 5. Now to him that worketh not but beleeueth on him that iustifieth the vngodly his faith is counted for righteousnesse where faith being opposed to working cannot be said to iustifie as it is a work A notable testimony to proue that our iustification is not from within vs but from without vs not in vs but on vs not of him that worketh but of him that beleeueth in him that iustifieth Whom the godly Nay but the vngodly As Augustine saith Tu Domine benedicis iustum sed eum prius iustificaa impium Thou Lord doest blesse the iust but first he being vngodly thou iustifiest him As if hee had said Being first vngodly thou diddest iustifie him and then being iust thou Lord doest blesse him How then comes this forraine righteousnesse vpon an vngodly man The Apostle sheweth His faith is counted for righteousnesse How His faith layes hold on Christ who is the Lord our righteousnesse being made vnto vs of God wisedome and righteousnesse and sanctification and redemption that according as it is written He that glorieth let him glory in the Lord. But will the Pontifician say Doe you call the graces of Christ in vs counterfeit coyne drosse reprobate siluer c. Yes if ye reckon it for pay to satisfie Gods iustice withall in this sense in vs it is meere counterfeit drosse reprobate siluer coyned in the Mint of Satans forgeries It is but as the Sunne-beame vpon a dung-hill raysing vp a stinking vapour in stead of a sweete odour in Gods nostrils But the graces of God in vs flowing from our head Christ Iesus in whom wee are first iustified by faith are the matter of our sanctification and the consequent fruits and effects of our iustification Thus they are a Well of liuing waters springing vp in vs vnto eternall life Thus they are a garden of spices yea of costly Spicknard yeelding a fragrant smell while the Sunne of righteousnesse shines vpon them Thus are they more pure and precious than gold yea than much fine gold Thus are they so many precious stones to paue our way that leades to the Kingdome of Heauen Yea thus so many peerelesse Pearles which adorne our Crowne of grace here and shall much more gloriously imbellish and beautifie our Crowne of glory hereafter Thus all our good works and words and thoughts are precious euen in Gods sight through Christ. They will stand before his mercy seate but they dare not stand before the Tribunall of his strict and seuere iustice They dare come before God as a proofe of our faith and obedience but not as a price of our sinne and disobedience And at the best cause we haue to pray Gods mercy for them but in no case to pay his iustice with them Now there be many reasons why inherent righteousnesse is no formall cause of our iustification in the sight of God First because it is a meere humane inuention It hath no warrant in Gods Word and consequently no warrant at all Will the Pontificians herein as they are willing in other things stand to the iudgement of their father Aristotle Hee saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All things are better determined according to the Law than according to mans will for it is no sure rule Tertullian said of an errour of Hermogenes about the creation of the world of a pre-existent matter Scriptum esse doceat Hermogenis officina Si non est scriptum timeat Let the shop of Hermogenes shew this to be written If it be not written let him feare Now iustification is a fundamentall doctrine that cannot stand but vpon the Sciptures Iustification is by faith and faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God The word is neare thee euen in thy mouth and in thy heart that is the word of faith which we preach for with the heart man beleeueth to righteousnesse and with the mouth confession is made to saluation Let Pontificians feare to frame such a iustification as they finde not in the Scriptures Secondly because inherent righteousnesse doth not only
we to the Chrystall fountaines of Christs truth CHAP. VII The Catholike Faith of the Doctrine of Faith as the sole immediate Instrument to apprehend and apply the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to vs to our Iustification as beeing the effectuall meane of our vnion with him HAuing seene what credit Faith carryeth among the Pontificians in the work of Iustification which at the best is allowed no more but eyther to dispose and make a man the more apt that also with the helpe of other disposing graces to receiue Iustification which notwithstanding for all his Faith he may faile and come short of or else to come in for a share but must be content with the least share or none at all among other graces as Charity Penance Martyrdome and such like all which take place of Faith in Iustification Let vs now come to take an estimate of Faith according to the standard of Catholike Doctrine weighing it in the most vnpartiall ballance of the Sanctuary Nor doe we purpose in this place to speake particularly and punctually of the propertie and kinde of Faith whereby a man is said to be iustified as referring that to the more proper place but wee will content our selues so to speake of faith here in generall as the only immediate instrumentall cause in vs whereby we come to bee made righteous in the sight of God For as our Iustification is by the Imputation of Christ and his righteousnesse vnto vs so the only instrumentall meane comming betweene to apply and effectually to worke this imputation of Christ to vs is the act of beleeuing which is the property of Faith As Augustine saith Fidelis est à fide fides à credendo A beleeuer hath his name of Faith and Faith of beleeuing As the Apostle saith With the heart man beleeueth to righteousnesse Faith is the hand of the soule which applyes the sacrifice of Christ for sinne It is the hand that puts on the Robe of the righteousnesse of Christ our elder brother vpon vs by the sweete smell whereof God being well pleased bestoweth the blessing of heauen and earth vpon vs of grace and glorie and all Yea faith hath another singular propertie that it is as it were the ligament or sinew which fasteneth and vniteth euery faithfull member to the head Christ Iesus from the influence of whose fulnesse we receiue and grace for grace And the Councell of Trent seemeth to professe as much though with limitation and restriction to her owne reserued sense saying Nam â—ides nisi adeam spes accedat charitas neque vnit perfectè eum Christo neque corporis eius viâ—um membrum efficit For Faith say they vnlesse hope and charitie bee added vnto it doth neither perfectly vnite with Christ nor make a liuing member of his body The Councell neede not here equiuocate for the matter as if she did admit of our spirituall vnion with Christ by Faith indeed but such a Faith as hath hope and charitie ioyned with it whereas in truth her meaning is that not Faith so much as Hope and Charitie doe vnite vs to Christ sith Hope and Charitie make the vnion perfect which faith doth not Yea Charity and Penance as her intimous Vega saith doe more closely vnite vs to Christ than Faith doth But we shall discusse and discouer this mystâ—rie more cleerely when we come to speak of the kinde of Faith required in Iustification In the mean time suffice it vs that we haue the Councels confession That Faith at least with the helpe of Hope and Charitie doth vnite vs to Christ. And though Vega preferre Charitie and Penance before Faith in this worke of vniting with Christ yet thereby hee doth not altogether exclude Faith Faith therefore according to the Pontificians conâ—ession hath at least a share though the least according to their allowance in working our vnion with Christ. But the Catholicke beliefe ascribeth this worke of vnion with Christ primarily yea and solely to Faith namely as the immediate and onely instrument of Gods spirit in vs. Now our iustification by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse stands in our vnion with Christ. This is confeâ—led of all That whatsoeuer we receiue from Christ it is by vertue of our mysticall vnion with him And saith it is that worketh this vnion not Faith as Pontificians teach before it bee formed by Charity To which Faith only Vega ascribeth a certaine vnion with Christ Comparamus enim nobis Spiritum sanctum iustitiam facimusque vt Christus inhabitet in nobis per Eidem informem aut saltem per â—idem vt prius est natura quà m formetur For saith he wee get vnto our selues the holy Ghost and righteousnesse and doe cause Christ to dwell in vs by Faith vnformed or at least by Faith as it is by nature before it bee formed So that by this doctrine a dead Faith or that which differeth not from the Faith of Diuels doth cause our vnion with Christ or Christ to dwell in vs. But let vs see how Vega cleereth this doctrine from this imputation A little after in his second question of faith and workes taking vpon him as he is very venterous to answer an argument brought to proue that Paul excludes no beleeuer from saluation where he saith The righteousnesse of God by the Faith of Iesus Christ vnto all and vpon all that beleeue To this place saith Vega many commonly say that Paul said not Vnto all and vpon all that beleeue him but in him which is onely proper to those that haue charitie and by loue tend vnto him Aliud enim inquiunt est credere Deo quod est ei â—idem adhibere aliud credere Deum quod est credere Deum esse aliud credere in Deum quod est credendo amare credendo diligere credendo in eum ire eius membris incorporari For it is one thing say they to beleeue God that is to giue credit vnto him another thing to beleeue God that is to beleeue that God is and another to beleeue in God that is by beleeuing to loue him by beleeuing to affect him by beleeuing to goe into him and to bee incorporate into his members They are the words of St. Augustine vsed by him very frequently throughout his workes and by name in his nine and twentieth Tract vpon Iohn which Vega quoteth Well how doth Vega auoyde this Argument concerning Faith in Christ bringing saluation vpon all that beleeue Nihil valet hoc refugium commune Non enim habetur graece â—i neque in eum sed absolute dicitur In omnes super omnes qui credunt This common refuge saith hee is nothing worth For it is said absolutely Vnto all and vpon all thatbeleeue the Greeke hath not him or in him Note here good Reader that these Pontificians howsoeuer they would magnifie and preferre their vulgar Latine translation before the originall Hebrew and Greeke yet where it makes not for them they can
of Gods spirit but of mans spirit so that if such proue all abortiues and dead borne it is no maruaile But the sons of God we cannot be till we be in Christ which is till we beleeue in Christ as Gal. 3. 26. Ye are all the children of God by faith in Iesus Christ therefore before this faith in Iesus Christ we are not the children of God no not so much as the Embrio in the first conception But the new creature must bee in Christ Iesus as the Apostle saith Gal. 6. 15. So when Christ himselfe speakes of regeneration to Nicodemus Ioh. 3. instructing him therein how it is begun in a man hee tels him in the continuation of his speech that this appertaines to those that beleeue in the son of man vers 15. and vers 16. For a man to be regenerate or made the son of God by adoption he must be in the son of God by beleeuing in him Where Christ also opposing faith to vnbeliefe saith those are condemned already that beleeue not hauing no part in the regeneration therefore before faith in Christ no regeneration at all no cleansing no sanctification but all condemnation Againe Christ is made vnto vs sanctification 1. Cor. 1. 30. vnto vs in him Of him are ye in Christ Iesus therefore while out of Christ no sanctification So the adoption of children is by Iesus Christ Ioh. 1. 5. therefore no sons no regeneration but in Iesus Christ. Likewise Ioh. 15. 2. Euery branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away So vers 4. As the branch cannot beare fruit of it selfe except it abide in the vine no more can ye except ye abide in mee â—or without me yee can doe nothing Therefore while a man is out of Christ vntill by faith he be ingrafted into Christ the true Vine from whom hee receiueth the liuely sappe of a new life hee can doe nothing nothing that is good nothing that is acceptable to God no worke of new obedience or sanctification But some may say Regeneration is wrought by the Spirit of God in vs and so may be before faith in Christ and consequently before we come to be actually in Christ. To which I answer True it is that the Holy Ghost is the immediate efficient cause of our regeneration But how doth he worke regeneration in vs namely by working in vs faith in Christ which faith is the very immediate instrument whereby the Holy Ghost doth regenerate sanctifie and cleanse vs sith the Holy Ghost by this faith ingrafteth and vniteth vs into Christ in whom we are regenerate and made the sonnes of God Now that faith is the instrument of our regeneration and sanctification it is euident Acts 15. 9. 26. 18. So that the very first and prime act of Gods sanctifying spirit in vs is to worke faith in vs by which faith in Christ as by a noble instrument the Holy Ghost vniting vsto Christ as members to the head doth regenerate vs and so makes vs the adopted sons of God And before faith in Christ we cannot say wee haue Gods sanctifying spirit in vs I say in regard of prioritie of time For this sanctifying spirit in the same moment that he sanctifies vs he workes faith in Christ in vs by which he regenerates and sanctifies vs. But they re-ioyne by a distinction and say that this repentance which prepares the way to faith and layes the foundation of regeneration is not acceptable to saluation but only to fit prepare vs thereunto and to make vs the more capable of it In this distinction they do much please themselues but they confound themselues in their distinction For they affirme againe that this precedent repentance of theirs is regeneration and sanctification and newnesse of life inchoatiue begun at least in part A bold assertion Is it regeneration begun and in part and being acceptable is it not acceptable to saluation Is not regeneration a worke of our saluation And though regeneration should be begun in this repentance in neuer so small a degree a worke it is of our saluation if it bee true regeneration Logicians know that Magis minus non variant speciem A man in the first conception is a man though imperfect and inchoatiue But they reply again That they do not say this preuious repentance is acceptable to saluation of it self but as it hath relation to faith coÌ„ming after whereby it becomes acceptable A pretty shift And yet they say again That repentance goeth before faith not in the precedency of time but in nature only in the order of causes Now if this repeÌ„tance go before faith in the order of causes then repentance must cause saith so this absurdity wil follow That the effect must giue a form being at least a well being vnto the cause if so be faith the effect consequent of repeÌ„tance as they say make the same acceptable But how doe they proue that this their repentance goes before faith in Christ in nature and in the order of causes They proue it out of Matth. 21. 32. where Christ taxing the infidelity of the Pharisees wherein they came behinde the very Publicans faith Iohn came to you in the way of righteousnesse and ye beleeued him not but the Publicans and the Harlots beleeued him and ye when ye had seen it repented not afterward that ye might beleeue him Hence they conclude That repentance must goe before faith as the cause of it alledging Christs words thus Ye repented not that ye might beleeue But leauing out him That ye might beleeue Him to wit Iohn Baptist as it is in the text which implieth what kinde of faith Christ there meaneth to wit an assent to the truth of Iohns doctrine The place thereby comes to bee preuerted For Credere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ei is the faith of assent but Credere in cum that is in Christum is the iustifying faith So that by that place alledged if repentance goeth before faith in the order of causes then certainly that repentance is the cause of no other faith but the faith of assent there spoken of which is not all one faith with the iustifying faith But they which affirme thus yet confess that repentance doth not go before the faith of assent which they terme also the Euangelical faith but that its an effect consequent therof And here by the way I might take iust occasion to shew the absurdity of those that distinguish betweene Euangelicall faith and the faith of Christ as if Euangelicall faith were onely a generall assent to the truth of the Gospell whereas a generall assent and Euangelicall faith are as different as this and the faith of Christ are all one for Euangelicall faith looketh vpon the Gospell not onely as a true history but as the mysterie of God in Christ it embraceth it as the Gospell preaching Christ the Sauiour yea preaching Christ to euery beleeuer of this Gospell in particular As
spem vitae aeternae After this disposition or preparation doth follow iustification it selfe which is not onely the remission of sinnes but also sanctification and renouation of the inner man by a voluntary receiuing of grace and of gifts Whence a man of vniust is made iust and of an enemy a friend that he may be an heire according to the hope of eternall life To which also agreeth the eleuenth Canon of this Session Si quis dixerit homines iustificari vel sola imputatione iustitiae Christi vel sola peccatorum remissione exclusa gratia charitate quae in cordibus eorum per Spiritum sanctum diffundatur atque illis inhaereat aut etiam gratiam qua iustificamur esse tantum fauorem Dei anathema sit If any man shall say that men are iustified either by the onely imputation of Christs righteousnesse or by the onely remission of sins excluding grace and charity which is shed abroad in their hearts by the holy Ghost and is inherent in them or else that the grace whereby we are iustified is onely the fauour of God Let him be Anathema In these words of the Councell is infolded the very mysterie of iniquity For their iustification is composed partly of remission of sins and partly yea principally of sanctification as they call it and renouation of the inner man and to this is added mans free-will And thus their vniust man is made iust Note also how in the Canon they name the imputation of Christs righteousnesse as one of the ingredients in this composition of iustification But the plaine truth is this imputation they quite shut out from hauing any thing to doe with their iustification as this very terme of imputation had no good entertainment in the Councell And note againe how they denie the grace of iustification to be the onely fauour of God reseruing a roome for mans merit contrary to that of the Apostle Rom. 3. 24. Being iustified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Iesus Now by the way let vs see what the Pontificians meane by Imputation For this purpose I will insert here a saying of Pighius though otherwise a Pontifician writer which Soto answereth and laboureth to cleare from suspicion of heresie Pighius hauing considered sundry places of Scripture as in the Psalmes and Iob c. that the Saints of God dare not bring their own inherent righteousnesse to the strict triall of Gods iudgement Ex his confecit Pighius c. saith Soto Pighius thence concludes That our inherent righteousnesse if it be strictly examined by the diuine rule is not perfect but we are iustified rather by that righteousnesse of Christ imputed vnto vs. Which he exemplifieth that as Iacob hid vnder the habit of his elder brother the true first-borne receiued his fathers blessing so wee receiue glory vnder anothers person to wit Christ. Now how doth Soto with all his subtilty acquit his Pighius from being an hereticke in so saying Haes omnia saith hee all these things by one word of equiuocation are detorted to a finister sense Who can euer doubt but that we the sons of Adam which by our owne nature and ability can bring no merits or worthinesse into Gods presence can pretend or couer our faults with the onely righteousnesse of Christ in whose right we are sonnes and heires of the Kingdome But when wee say Christs the genetiue case wee doe not meane the subiect of inherency that the sense should bee The righteousnesse which is in Christ as the heretickes grossely erre but it is a note of the efficient cause that the sense should bee The righteousnes which is that of Christ being accepted of God nos influit doth poure into vs so Soto Thus we see by what a pretty neate distinction he would assoile his brother Pighius from being an herericke although hee speake the same thing with vs. Only I pitie Soto his sottishnesse that while hee would haue Pighius to meane by our righteousnesse our naturall righteousnesse which may not abide Gods strict tryall he remembers not vpon what instances Pighius inferred this his true Catholicke conclusion For his instances by Soto his owne allegation were holy Iob and holy Dauid who disclaimed their owne righteousnesse But I hope Soto will not say these were now naturall men and vnregenerate Now for the clearer vnfolding of this mysterie let vs hear their great champions what they in their voluminous commentaries vpon this Session meane by Iustification Soto makes a threefold iustification Prima genuinaque notio huius nominis inquit est acquisitio iustitiae nempe ex iniusto iustum fieri The prime and proper notion of this word Iustification saith he is an acquisition of righteousnesse namely of vniust to be made iust As calefaction or heating of cold to be made hot according to the Text of the Councell which saith Thus the vniust man is made iust So they take Iustificare to be as much as iustum facere to make iust Secunda c. the second notion and next to this is saith he that it signifieth an augmentation of righteousnesse The first of these he compareth to that originall righteousnesse that Adam once had which importeth a rectitude or right ordering of the whole man which he proues diuinely out of Aristotle in the fift of his Ethicks And the second hee proueth Apoc. 22. 11. Qui iustus est iustificetur adhuc He that is iust let him be iustified still But in this as in many more their Latin Translation will not abide the touch of the originall which saith He that is righteous let him be righteous still or let him doe righteousnesse still The like place he bringeth out of Ecclesiasticus but with the like felicitie and successe And he alledgeth that of St. Iames You see that a man is iustified by workes and not by faith only By which words saith hee hee had contradicted Paul where he saith Arbitramur hominem iustificari per fidem non ex operibus Wee iudge that a man is iustified by faith and not of workes vnlesse Paul had spoken of the former iustification and Iames of the latter Although saith he we will declare in his proper place how our workes also doe concurre in iustification Nisi quod Paulus loquitur de praecedentibus Vnlesse that Paul speaketh of precedent workes I suppose he meaneth workes going before iustification So hee Where you see he speakes very perplexedly yet so as hee cannot dissemble his meaning For the iudicious Reader may well perceiue that hee would faine force that speech of the Apostle Rom. 3. 28. Therefore we conclude that a man is iustified by Faith without the deeds of the Law to be meant of that faith going before iustification which they rancke among their preparatory workes for that is their fides informis their faith without charity as yet vnformed as they say sauing that herein he forgets himselfe for the Apostle speakes
of iustitification by faith not of faith disposing or preparing a man to iustification But of this more hereafter In the third place saith he the name of iustification is further vsed to signifie the absoluing of a guiltie person in iudgement and pronouncing of him to bee quit For which he alleageth Prou. 17. 15. and Deut. 25. 1. But this saith he is not much different from the first acception of the word but rather altogether of neere affinity to it Yet this third signification saith Soto is no where in Paul nor in the Scripture where any mention is made of our iustification by Christ. See this crafty shuffler how hee can packe this close to the first kinde of acception of this word iustification as if it were all one with it or neere a-kinne vnto it and yet he can say of this last that it is not to be found in Paul although he could finde the first to be in Paul at least in his owne strained sense But is not the word Iustifie as it is taken in the last sense to wit to absolue or acquit as it were in iudgement vsed by Paul yea and that also where mention is made of our iustification by Christ What meaneth then that which the Apostle saith Rom. 8. 33. 34. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect It is God that iustifieth who is he that condemneth It is Christ that dyed or rather that is risen againe who is euen at the right hand of God who also maketh intercession for vs. Note the Apostle vseth here the termes of a iudiciall triall Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods Elect who shall accuse them who shall bring in euidence against them It is God that iustifieth And if God the Iudge do iustifie who shall condemne Yea but how shall God iustifie a sinner It is Christ that dyed He dyed for our sinnes Rom 4. 25. or rather which is risen againe And He rose againe for our iustification Rom. 4. 25. c. So you see here is iustifying taken for absoluing in iudgement and it is in Paul and that where mention is made of our iustification by Christ. Therefore Soto bewrayes eyther grosse ignorance in denying or egregious malice in dissembling such a cleare truth And no maruell if he cannot or will not finde iustification vsed for absolution iudiciall in Paul or in the Scripture where mention is made of our iustification by Christ. For indeed iustification in this sense is the condemnation and confusion of Popish iustification as we shall see in the due place Vega also another Champion in this Councell he speakes the same language of Babylon and saith there is a twofold iustification as Doctors meaning the Schoole-men say The first and second The first iustification when a man of vniust is made iust The second when of iust a man becomes more iust The first he defineth thus The first iustification is a certaine supernaturall change whereby a man of vniust is made iust The second thus It is a supernaturall change whereby a man of iust is made more iust And these also are either actiue or passiue actiue in regard of God working this iustification first and second in vs and passiue in regard of man himselfe who is changed from bad to good and from good to better But for the actiue iustification as it is wrought by God and so proues derogatory from mans excellency Vega sleights it as rather obscuring than clearing his definitions But as for the third kinde of iustification which is iudiciall to be pronounced and accounted iust before the Tribunall seate of iustice Vega giues it no better entertainment than his brother Soto saying That the Doctors intermit and let passe this kinde of iustification as impertinent to the purpose And so it is indeede very impertinent to their Pontifician purpose and very incommodious as the wicked complaine that the righteous man is not for their profit sith contrary to their waies Wisd. 2. 12. But for other distinctions of iustification Vega is very liberall in summing them vp together as Iustitia Christiana Mosaica politica oeconomica legalis moralis particularis actualis habitualis acquisita insusa inharens imputata externa interna fidei operum practica theologica pharisaica sincera philosophica supernaturalis and so in infinitum But enough of such blundring distinctions So then the iustification of the Church of Rome is properly to make one iust that was vniust and to make one of iust more iust Yet here it will be worth our noting to obserue the legierdemaine of the Councell of Trent and the Pontificians in their distinction of first and second righteousnesse or iustification For the Scriptures speaking of a twofold iustification one by faith another by workes vpon which ground the ancient Fathers also do distinguish a two-fold righteousnesse one in the sight of God the other in the sight of men the Pontificians also that they may seeme to speake the same language they haue their distinction too of a first and second righteousnesse yet so as destroying the nature of the first iustification by faith whereby we stand iust in Gods sight they so qualifie the matter as either they make nothing at all of their first righteousnesse or they doe altogether confound it with their second righteousnesse inherent and so by their distinguishing they make iustification and sanctification all one But the learned Cardinall Contarenus writing a little before the Councell of Trent and was afterwards one of the Councell in his tract of iustification speaking of these two iustifications saith That by the one to wit the imputation of Christs righteousnesse by faith we are iustified before God by the other which is inherent we are iustified before men But Babylon confounds all together iustification and sanctification In the next place let vs consider how they vnderstand this making iust This iustification saith the Councell consists partly of remission of sinnes partly of the imputation of Christs righteousnesse and partly of sanctification and renouation of the inner man and so of inherent righteousnesse Now here lies the knot of the mysterie to be resolued first it were well if the Chuch of Rome did meane truely and sincerely in naming remission of sins and imputation of Christs righteousnesse in the point of iustification Secondly if at the best they did vnderstand them aright yet to ioyne vnto them inherent righteousnesse of our owne will be found no iust dealing But to allow of no iustification at all saue that which is inherent in vs bewrayes deepe deceit and double hypocrisie in once naming remission of sins and the imputation of Christs righteousnesse which they vtterly shut out from hauing any society with inherent righteousnesse in the worke of iustification as a little before we premonished Now concerning the imputation of Christs righteousness what do they understand by it The Councell it selfe tels vs chap 7. where speaking of the
velint fateri praedestinatos esse qui per Dei gratiam fiant obedientes atque permaneant iam tamen fateantur quod eorum praeueniat voluntatem quibus datur hâ—c gratia Now these men saith hee with whom wee haue to deale are so much remote from the Hereticall peruersnesse of the Pelagians that although they will not be brought to confesse that they which by the grace of God are made obedient and remaine so are predestinated yet notwithstanding they confesse that this grace preuents the will of those to whom it is giuen But how Augustine discouers their deceit Ideo vitque ne gratis dari credatur gratia sicut veritas loquitur sed potius secundum praecedentis merita voluntatis sicut contra veritatem Pelagianus error obloquitur This must be so forsooth lest grace should be thought to be giuen gratis as the truth speaketh but rather according to the merits of mans precedent will as the Pelagian errour gain-saieth the truth So that in the conclusion the Pelagians and Pontificians with their confederates conspire in the maine not onely to diminish but euen to demolish the glory of God The second precious thing which thou wouldest destroy is the saluation of the elect Thou to make a reprobate by thy carnall reason to become at the best a formall hypocrite puffed vp with the swelling pride of his selfe-righteousnesse wouldst destroy that gracious purpose of God in sauing impotent man which purpose of God is the onely cause of the effectuall sauing of men For take away this purpose of God and no man should be saued And not onely Gods purpose to saue some whom he will doth in time effectually bring them vnto the state of grace in Christ but also is so farre from making them carelesse as it makes them the more carefull to continue in the state of grace Yea not only so but God doth endowe all his with a care and minde and will and power to continue in his fauour and grace And to this end all things worke together cooperate for good to them that loue God to them that are called according to his purpose Hath God giuen me the grace of faith to beleeue in his Sonne Iesus Christ whereby I come now to know what I knew not before namely that I am of the number of Gods elect preordained to saluation before the foundation of the world Am I hereupon carelesse how I liue because I haue receiued the euidence of Gods fauour towards mee in Christ Nay now I begin to be more carefull than euer before that I may also attaine to the end of my saluation And I am so much the more encouraged hereunto not onely because I am ordained of God vnto it but because now the Spirit of Christ dwelleth in me strengthening incouraging comforting confirming mee more and more in the obedience of faith and sealing me vp vnto the day of Redemption I know that God hath appointed to saue me but not without meanes He hath made the meanes easie vnto me and he hath giuen mee both a minde power to obserue the conditions where I through carnall infirmity still dwelling in me faile yet still the means is in my way which is to be renewed by repentance humiliation and obedience I cannot now euer be resolued that because I know I am one of Gods elect therefore I will sinne and liue as I list but because I am one of Gods elect redeemed by Iesus Christ therefore my whole resolution is continually to set forth the prayses of him that hath called mee out of darknesse into his maruellous light St. Iohn was of another minde than these men where 1. Ioh. 3. speaking of our knowledge and assurance of our blessed estate in and through and with Christ he addeth vers 3. He that hath this hope purgeth himselfe euen as hee is pure So that the more certaine our faith and hope is of eternall life the more carefull it makes vs of fitting and preparing ourselues thereunto For he that hath this hope purgeth himselfe Tell me a Prince being borne heire apparant to a Kingdome because he is assured that none can preuent him of his right is he therefore carelesse of his course of life running riot and playing the young Prodigall and not rather disposeth himselfe or at least is carefully brought vp vnder Tutors and Gouernours for that end that by learning obedience in his youth and nonage he may know the better how to Command when he comes to weald the Scepter Now the Child of God by his new birth is borne heire apparant to the kingdome of glorie therefore while he is in his minoritie in the Principalitie of grace and because now he hath many infallible arguments to assure him of the Kingdome is he either himselfe so carelesse or is his heauenly Father so improuident as not euery way to furnish him with those graces beseeming such a Prince whereby he may in time be throughly furnished and accounted worthy to sit with Christ in his Throne Because old Symeon had a reuelation by the Holy Ghost that he should not see death before he had seen the Lord's Christ Did he therefore as knowing God to be true in his promise neglect his ordinary meate and other meanes for the sustentation and preseruation of his life because he was to liue certainely vntill he should see the Lord 's Christ Because King Ezechias had a gracious promise from God that he should recouer of his pestilent disease and within three dayes be able to goe vp vnto the house of the Lord and moreouer that he had fifteene yeeres added of God vnto his dayes was Ezechias therefore carelesse of vsing the meanes for his recouery which the Lord had prescribed and so for the prolonging of his life which the Lord had promised Did he not according to Gods direction take and apply the lumpe of dry Figgs to the plague-sore and so recouered so that within three dayes he went vp vnto the house of the Lord to offer the Sacrifice of praise So the elect of God being now effectually called to the state of grace they haue a promise from God that they shall neuer see death that spirituall death which Christ speaks of till they see the Lord 's Christ face to face and know him by beatificall vision euen as they are knowne are they therefore carelesse of the spirirituall food of their soules the Word and Sacraments whereby they are preserued till they come to the fruition of this beatificall vision And being desperately sicke of the pestilence of sinne and hauing health promised and remedy prouided are they therefore so carelesse as not to put forth the hand of faith to apply Christ that lumpe of figgs that cluster of grapes that balme of Gilead to their pestilential sore that recouering perfect health thereby they may after three dayes be raised vp and be able vpon the feet of their holiest affections to ascend vnto the house of the Lord not