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
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
we our selues had suffered But yet let vs see a little further into the language of the Fathers concerning this point Onely by the way seeing Vega cannot finde the word Imputation once mentioned among the ancient Fathers let him looke but St. Augustines Epist. 106. to Bonifacius or as some copies haue it to Paulinus and there hee shall finde these words Cur meritis praeueniri gratia perhibetur quae gratia non esset si secundum meritum imputaretur Why is grace said to be preuented by merits which should not be grace if it were imputed according to merit Yea how often doth Augustine mention the Apostles words where he saith Fides imputaretur ad iustitiam Faith is imputed vnto righteousnesse But let vs contend not so much for the word as for the thing it selfe which wee shall finde the Fathers to abound in St. Ambrose writing vpon the 39. Psalme saith Totus ex persona Christi iste Psalmus est Iustitiam meam dicit licet non arroganter homo dicere possit Iustitiam suam qui Deo credit fidem suam sibi reputarâ— ad iustitiam confitetur This whole Psalme is of the person of Christ therefore hee saith My righteousnesse though also a man that beleeues in God and confesseth that his faith is reputed to him for righteousnesse may without arrogancy say his righteousnesse Now although Ambrose say speaking of Christ Iustitiam meam in stead of Iustitiam tuam as it is in the originall and also in the vulgar Latine he following some other copy yet hereby wee may see his vnderstanding in the mysterie of Christ namely how Christs righteousnesse comes to bee our righteousnesse our faith being imputed to vs for righteousnesse as the Scripture saith Sauing that Ambrose vseth the word Reputing for Imputing differing very little in the sound but nothing at all in the sense The same Ambrose writing vpon the Epistle to the Galatians where hee opposeth the righteousnesse of the Law and that of Christ one against the other vpon these words for if there had beene a Law giuen which could haue giuen life verily righteousnesse had beene by the Law saith Iustitiam hanc dicit quae apud Deum imputatur iustitia id est fidei quia lex habuit iustitiam sed ad praesens quia non iustificaret apud Deum remittere enim peccata non potuit vt de peccatoribus faceret iustos he saith that righteousnesse which of God is imputed to wit the righteousnesse of faith sith the Law also had a kinde of righteousnesse but temporary that could not iustifie with God for it could not forgiue sinnes and so of sinners make men to bee iust So that here is another ancient Father vsing the very word Imputation And a little after vpon these words As many as haue beene baptized into Iesus Christ haue put on Christ saith Hoc dicit quia credentes dum immutantur Christum induunt quando hoc appellantur quod credunt This he saith because beleeuers while they are changed doe put on Christ when they are called that which they beleeue So that by St. Ambrose his doctrine our iustification is by imputation of grace by faith in the putting on of Christ. And St. Austine besides the former alledged place where he defineth iustification to be a making of one iust by accounting him so or by deputing reckoning him iust saith in Psa. 32. Nolo vos interrogare de iustitia vestra sortassis autem nemo vestrum audeat mihi respondere iustus sum sed interrogo vos de fide vestra Sicut nemo vestrum audet dicere Iustus sum sic nemo non audet dicere Fidelis sum Nondum quaero quid viuas sed quaero quid credas responsuruses credere te in Christum Non audisti Apostolum Iustus ex fide viuit fides tua iustitia tua I will not aske you of your righteousnesse for haply none of you dare answer me I am righteous but I aske you of your faith As none of you dare say I am iust so you dare not but say I am a beleeuer I demand not yet how thou liuest but how thou beleeuest thou wilt answer me thou beleeuest in Christ. Hast thou not heard the Apostle The iust shall liue by faith Thy faith is thy righteousnesse And vpon the 30. Psalme the same Father doth further cleare his minde touching imputatiue righteousnesse vpon these words of the Psalme Rid mee and deliuer mee in thy righteousnesse Nam si attendas ad iustitiam meam damnas me In tua iustitia â—rue me est enim iustitia Dei quae nostra fit cum donatur nobis Ideo autem Dei iustitia dicitur ne homo se putet à seipso habere iustitiam For if thou lookest vpon my righteousnesse thou condemnest mee In thy righteousnesse deliuer me for it is the righteousnesse of God which is made also ours when it is giuen vnto vs. And therefore is it called Gods righteousnesse lest man should thinke that he hath righteousnesse of himselfe Now what righteousnesse doth this holy man meane here The righteousnesse of God made ours by infusion of grace into vs So I know the Pontificians would be ready to interpret this place But let St. Augustine be his owne interpreter who addeth in the very next words Sic enim dicit Apostolus Paulus Credenti in eum qui iustificat impium So saith the Apostle Paul To him that beleeueth in him that iustifieth the vngodly Quid est Qui iustificat impium Qui ex impio facit iustum deputatur sides eius ad iustitiam What is that Which iustifieth the vngodly Who of vngodly and wicked makes iust his faith is deputed for righteousnesse Yea this holy man is so farre from ascribing the least part of iustification to any inherent righteousnesse in vs as that he excludes euen faith it selfe as it is a worke from being any meritorious cause of our iustification For elsewhere speaking of Gods election and vocation of grace and not of workes alledging the examples of lacob and Esau the one loued the other hated euen in the wombe before either of them had done good or euill c. that the election of God might stand not of workes c. Si autem verum est quod non ex operibus inde hoc probat quia de nondum natis nondumque aliquid operatis dictum est vnde nec ex side quae in nondum natis similiter nondum erat And if it be true that it is not of works and from thence he proues it because it was said of them before they were borne and before they had done any thing whereupon neither was it in respect of faith which likewise as a worke was not as yet in them being yet vnborne And againe Iustificati gratis per gratiam ipsius ne fides ipsa superba sit Nec dicat sibi quis si ex fide quomodo gratis quod enim fides meretur cur
of a sinner For saith hee Penance is the immediate cause or immediate disposition and as it seemeth sufficient with Gods grace to our iustification yea it perfecteth and consummateth our iustification But Faith is not such a neer disposition to iustification and it remaineth in sinners and our iustification is but as it were initiated by it It is euident therefore that the most potent cause of our iustification is penance and therefore that we are iustified it is to be imputed to it and not to faith So he Nay such is the Pontifician hatred against Faith that Vega Trents Interpreter denyes euen Faith that is formed by grace and charity as they say to bee sufficient to iustification As he saith Quamuis eo ipso quod aliquis per fidem iustificetur fiat fides illius formata tamen non sequitur quod per eam vt formatam acquiratur iustitia Et ideo neque debent loca quae tribuunt iustitiam fidei restringi ad fidem formaetam Although a mans iustification by Faith implyeth that his Faith is formed to wit a true Faith yet it followeth not that by it as it is formed righteousnesse is obtained And therefore neyther those places which attribute righteousnesse to Faith ought to bee restrained to true Faith or Faith that is formed Such a hard conceit haue the Pontificians of Faith formed or vnformed But now forasmuch as the Scriptures doe euery where ascribe so much to faith in the point of iustification how doe they answer the Scriptures in this point Surely Vega according to his rare dexteritite vndertakes that taske too produceth fiue reasons why the Apostle hath done most prudently oftner to attribute iustification to faith than to any other vertue The first is Because faith is the foundation and fountaine the prime cause and roote of our saluation which saith he St. Augustine hath shewed in his Booke of the Predestination of Saints alledging Cornelius for an example whose Prayer and Ames-deeds were done in faith that by them saith Vega he might be brought to the Faith of Christ. Now note here I pray you a notable tricke of legier-demain in this Tridentine Champion who was of one spirit with that Councell For doth he giue these titles to faith calling it with the Councell the fountaine and foundation the roote and originall of our saluation for any good will hee beares faith or that herein he preferres it before other graces Nothing lesse For a little before hee had giuen faith such a blow and that with Aristotles philosophicall fist as that hee hath made this very foundation to stagger againe Plus enim quam omnia c. For saith he this is of more weight than all that are brought for the commendation of faith towards God that we are more straitly vnited to him by our louing of him and by sorrow for offending of him and a purpose to our vtmost endeauour to please him for the time to come then we are vnited by faith Which being the formost in our iustification it comes hindmost and furthest off from perfection according to that axiome in Philosophy Priora generatione posteriora perfectione The first in generation the last in perfection But passe wee to his second reason which is much like the former Because saith he all our workes which concurre to iustification haue their meritorious force from faith and faith from none else besides Thirdly Therefore is our saluation fitly attributed to faith because there is no stronger cause to moue a sinner to those things which on his part are requisite to his iustification Fourthly It was conuenient that the Apostles in their Epistles and Sermons should commonly impute and attribute our iustification vnto faith Indeede Vega's copie hath sanctification haply mis-printed sauing that they confound iustification and sanctification together But why so commonly impute iustification to Faith namely because forsooth the Apostles had to doe with sundry sects and therefore were so to attemper their exhortations as to draw them from their sect to the Christian Faith Nor is it lawfull saith Vega hence to inferre that there are no other things better than those which are more often commended So by this reason we are to vnderstand that the doctrine of iustification by Faith so often commended and preached by the Apostles in their Epistles was not therefore so much and so often pressed and preached as if it were the best doctrine but that other doctrines according to Vega's estimate might be better but as if the Apostles only temporized with those times and persons with whom they had to doe As if it appertained not to all Abrahams seede by promise to whose Faith righteousnesse was imputed nor was it written saith the Apostle for him onely that it was imputed to him but for vs also to whom it shall be imputed if we beleeue on him that raised vp Iesus our Lord from the dead Therefore it is by Faith that it might bee by grace to the end the promise might bee sure to all the seede both Iewes and Gentiles which walke in the steps of that Faith of our Father Abraham O Vega be not so impiously iniurious yea sacrilegious to rob vs of the inheritance of our Faith vnder a colour as if iustification by Faith had beene a temporary purchase and merchandize for those Apostolicall times and as if now the intaile were quite cut off from Abrahams race Or if yee Pontificians will bee such malignant enemies to iustifying Faith whereby Abraham and all his seede are and shall bee iustified to the worlds end then confesse your selues to bee quite cut off from being Abrahams seede His fift reason why iustification is most commonly ascribed to faith is because Faith is that only disposition to which among all our workes it might principally bee attributed without perill of our pride and the iniurie and derogation of Gods grace For seeing faith is the gift of God and a kinde of testimony of Gods grace towards vs in as much as it is attributed to our faith it is attributed to the grace and mercy of God and not to our strength that no flesh shall glory in his presence But why then Vega do you teach the doctrine of iustification another way and the onely way to puffe men vp with pride and so to empty them of all grace As Bernard saith Non est quâ— gratia intret vbi iam meritum occupauit Grace findes no way to enter where merit hath already taken vp the roome And againe Deest gratiae quicquid meritis deputas That is detracted from grace whatsoeuer is imputed to merits Dost thou commend the admirable wisedome of God in teaching man to ascribe the iustification of Faith to the mercy and glory of God and yet dost thou adde iustification of thine owne workes to robbe God of his glorie and thy selfe of all grace puffing vp thy selfe with pride in steade thereof But leaue we these puddles of errour and come
further he explaines himselfe thus Inter gratiam praedestinationem c. Betweene grace and predestination this is the onely difference that predestination is the preparation of grace and grace is the gift or donation of predestination Or as a little after Grace is the effect of predestination But will the Pontifician say Mans free-will is not for all this excluded from being an ingredient at least in preparation Augustine in the same place snuts free-will quite out of doores yea from setting one foot vpon the threshold or entry to iustification Ideo ex fide vâ— secundum gratiam firma sit promissio omni semini non de nostrae voluntatis potestate sed de sua praedestinatione promisit Promisit enim quod ipse facturus erat non quod homines quia et si faciant homines bona quae pertinent ad colendum Deum ipse facit vt illi faciant quae praecipit non illi faciunt vt ipse faciat quod promisit Alioquin vt Dei promissa compleantur non in Dei sed in hominum est potestate quod à Domino promissum est ab ipsis redditur Abrahae Non autem sic credidit Abraham sed credidit danc gloriam Deo quoniam quae promisit potens etiam facere non ait praedicere non ait praescire nam aliena facta potest praedicere atque praescire sed ait potens etiam facere ac per hoc facta non aliena sed sua That is It is therefore of faith that according to grace the promise might be sure to all the seede he promised not out of any respect to the power of our will but of his predestination For he promised not that which men but which himselfe was about to doe because though men doe those good things which belong to Gods worship hee causeth them to doe those things which hee hath commanded they doe not causâ— him to doe that which hee promised Else that the promises of God should bee performed it is not in the power of God but of men and that which the Lord hath promised is by them performed to Abraham But Abraham did not so beleeue God but hee beleeued giuing glory to God because what he had promised he was able also to doe he saith not to fore-tell he saith not to fore-know for hee is able to fore-tell and fore-know other mens workes but hee saith hee is able to doe meaning hereby not others workes but his owne So this holy man For otherwise saith he a little after Per hoc vt promissa sua Deus possit implere non etiam in Dei sed in hominis potestate hereby it should come to passe that it rested not in Gods power to bee able to fulfill his promises but in mans power St. Augustine therefore admits of no mixture of mans free-will concurring with Gods grace in preparing him to receiue the promise of God touching iustification as being built vpon the eternall decreâ— of Gods predestation as an effect springing from the cause And Epist. 107. Vital The will is prepared of the Lord saith he How Quia praeuenit hominis voluntatem bonam nec cam cuiusquam inuenit in corde sed facit For God preuents the good will of man nor doth hee finde thie good will in anie mans heart but makes it se. And the same Father in his exposition of the Epistle to the Galathians vpon these words Induerunt Christum They haue put on Christ saith thus Filii fiunt participatione sapientiae id praeparante atque praestante Mediatoris fide quam fidei gratiam nunc indumentum vocat Vt Christum induti sint qui in eum crediderunt They are made sonnes by the participation of wisedome which is prepared and performed by faith in the Mediator which grace of faith he now calleth a putting on So that they haue Christ put on them which haue beleeued in him Faith then so prepares as it also performes the worke of iustification whereas Popish faith may as they say prepare and yet faile to performe And writing to Simplicianus he comes directly to the point Quaeritur vtrum vel fides mereatur hominis iustificationem an verò nec fidei merita praecedant misericordiam Dei sed sides ipsa inter dona gratiae numeretur Misericors Deus vocat nullis hoc vel fidei meritis largiens quia merita fidei sequuntur vocationem potius quam praecedunt It is demanded whether faith doe merit mans iustification or else neither the merits of faith do go before the mercie of God but euen faith it selfe is reckoned among the gifts of grace The mercifull God calleth bestowing this grace no not vpon any merits of faith because the merits of faith rather follow vocation than goe before it And againe in another place Ante fidem non debentur homini nisi mala pro malis retribuit autem Deus indebitam gratiam bona pro malis Before faith nothing is due to a man but euill for euill but God doth reward a man with vndeserued grace to wit good for euill Where hee speakes of sauing faith iustifying not of common faith preparing And in his one hundred and fifth Epistle to Sixtus his fellow Priest Restat vt gratuitum Dei donum esse fateamur si gratiam veram idest sine meritis cogitamus Wee are to confesse that to bee a free gift of God if we consider the true grace that is without merits Now the true grace is that whereby a man is iustified and saued but this grace is a free gift without merits therefore no merits goe before the grace of iustification And Bernard sweetely Non est quò gratia intret vbi iam meritum occupauit Et deest gratia quicquid meritis deputas Grace hath not where to enter where merit hath already taken up the roome And you detract from grace whatsoâ—uer you attribute to merits And againe Ergo iam plena confessio gratiae ipsius gratiae plenitudinem signat in anima confitentis Now then a plenary acknowledgement of grace is a signe of the fulnesse of grace it selfe in the soule of him that thus confesseth it And thus consequently out of the Fathers wee conclude as the Catholicke doctrine of the Church in those primitiue times That there is in man no worke of preparation whereby to merit by congruitie the grace of iustification which is the freegift of God without our merits And St. Augustine plainely discouers vnto vs the puddle whence this doctrine of merit of congruitie first issued namely from Pelagius Qui cos remunerandos dicit qui bene vtuntur libero arbitrio ideo mereri Domini grattam debitum cius reddi fatetur who saith they are to bee rewarded which vse well their free will and thereby merit the grace of God which he confesseth to be renared as due to their free will This accordeth with Romish Schoole diuinitie teaching That homini operanti
Fourthly because mans will doth not cooperate with Gods grace as a co-agent and fellow-worker in the first act of mans conuersion but Gods grace is the Agent and mans will is the Patient that effectually calleth and wee effectuously come that strongly drawes vs and we by the vertue thereof sweetly not compulsarily freely not frowardly and not now passiuely but actiuely do runne after Christ as St. Augustine saith The will to beleeue God worketh in man and in all his mercie preuenteth vs. And againe If we be drawn to Christ then we beleeue vnwillingly But none can beleeue vnlesse he be wiiling for he is drawne to Christ to whom it is giuen to beleeue in Christ. He is the mightie Agent in conuerting vs and wee thereby become meeke Patients in being conuerted Turne thou me saith chastised Ephraim and I shall bee turned Thou art the Lord my God Surely after that I was turned I repented and after that I was instructed I smote vpon my thigh c. And it is a thing not vnworthy the obseruation that euen in their vulgar Latine Translation which they preferre before all others yea before the originals themselues wheresoeuer any is exhorted to conuersion to God the Verbe is alwaies put in the passiue signification as Conuertere or Conuertimini Be thou Conuerted or be ye Conuerted and neuer in the actiue Conuerte te or Conuertite vos Conuert thou or Conuert you your selues which might sufficiently conuince all Pontificians that the worke of our conuersion is not a matter of cooperation shared betweene mans will and Gods grace but passiue in vs and actiue in God Hee conuerteth by his grace and wee are thereby willingly conuerted Contrary to the Trent Doctrine saying That a man is disposed by grace to conuert himselfe Fiftly because the whole glorie of our conuersion to Christ is to bee ascribed to Gods grace alone not as the Trent Fathers professe in a few Hypocriticall words while they deny it in the maine dint of their doctrine but in sinceritie and truth without equiuocation of any merit of congruitie in vs preparing and disposing vs to be capable of iustification Finally because they ranke faith among those other workes of preparation as if it had no other hand in the worke of iustification but onely as a disposing cause So as a man may haue faith before he come to be iustified yea and such a faith also as a man may haue it and yet neuer attaine to iustification Contrary to St. Augustine Iustificatio ex fide incipit Iustification beginnes at faith as hereafter more fully For these causes the Catholicke faith abhorreth the Romane-Catholicke-doctrine touching their preparation to iustification But say some who may claime kindred either with Pelagians or Pontificians although the merit of congruitie bee not admitted as an inducement to iustification yet there are some workes required of vs as matter of preparation to faith in Christ which though it bee not meritorious yet it is acceptable to God For example Repentance is a worke necessarily proceeding and so preparing a man to faith in Christ which Repentance being in vs before faith in Christ it is notwithstanding acceptable to God Indeede I deny not but the Pontifician forge can affoord vs such scoria enough But what Repentance is this A true Repentance say they It had neede if it bee acceptable to God Wherein consists it It is say they a sorrow for sinne past and a purpose of amendment for the time to come But is this sufficient to true Repentance Yes say they Ahab and the Nineuites repented and was not their Repentance true sith God accepted it and thereupon reuoked or at least reiourned the sentence denounced Indeede Ahabs Repentance was a true hypocriticall Repentance so the Nineuites Repentance was a true carnall Repentance as the faith of diuels is said to be a true faith which the Pontificians challenge for their onely true faith Is this true faith therefore acceptable to God But was the Repentance of Ahab and of the Nineuites acceptable to God because God for the present forbore to punish them It followes not because God forbare them that therefore their Repentance was acceptable to him For how can the action bee acceptable when the person is not But their persons were not acceptable to God For Ahab was a damned Idolater and a most wretched wicked person who had sold himselfe to the diuell and the Nineuites were heathenish infidels out of Christ. But till wee be in Christ our persons are not accepted of God for in him only God is well pleased And before faith in Christ wee are not in Christ therefore before faith in Christ no action of ours is acceptable to God yea no way acceptable not onely as these would haue it not acceptable to saluation as such obiecters themselues confesse but not acceptable towards it as these affirm For while we are out of Christ all our actions are abominable before God much lesse acceptable to him And so much the more abominable they bee and so much the lesse acceptable by how much the more wee esteeme them acceptable or endeauour to please God by them As God himselfe saith Matth. 3 17. This is my beloued Sonne in whom I am well pleased With whom is God well pleased in his Beloued The Apostle applyeth it Ephes. 1. 6 To the praise of the glorie of his grace wherein hee hath made vs accepted in the Beloued Therefore no acceptation with God but of those that are actually in the Beloued to wit in his sonne Iesus Christ. Nor doe wee feare â—rents Canon here thundring out her Anathema to any that shall say that all workes done before grace are sinnes or that the more a man endeauoureth to please God before faith in Christ the more deepely he endangereth himselfe to Gods high displeasure for we affirme this again and againe That all workes done before faith in Christ the more wee thinke therein to please God the more damnable they be because herein we set vp an Idoll of our handy-work in stead of Christ whereby to please God Much lesse as some haue dared to vent that before sauing faith in Christ there may be and afore begun in a mans heart by the meanes of preparatory graces as repentance and the like the worke of sanctification of regeneration of cleansing of the heart c. Than which doctrine what can bee more derogatory to Christ And what more contrary to the Scriptures which say If any man be in Christ he is a new creature therefore out of Christ no new creature no not inchoatiue in the least degree For if regeneration or sanctification or newnesse of life or cleansing of the heart may be begun without Christ what hinders that it may not bee also perfected without Christ Nay if regeneration bee but begun then there is a childe of God at least newly conceiued if not newly borne and brought forth Such conception is a false conception of winde not
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
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
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
imputation of Christs righteousnesse or in the remission of sinnes without our inherent righteousnesse as appeareth in the former Chapter What needes more testimony in such a cloud of witnesses Among all which not a word of any inherent righteousnesse not a word of infusion of grace not a word of hope and charity ioyned with faith as equally concurring much lesse precurring and out-stripping faith in the worke of iustification not a word of imputation so to bee vnderstood as if Christ did therefore merit that we might haue grace inherent or of our owne whereby to bee iustified in Gods sight Although true it is that the same ancient Fathers doe often call our inherent righteousnesse which is our sanctification by the name of iustification but they neuer say that hereby we are iustified in the sight of God In a word the consideration of the true difference betweene the first couenant and the second doth easily conclude the truth of this doctrine The first couenant made with Adam in Paradise was the couenant of workes Doe this and liue but the second couenant opposite to that is of grace Beleeue and liue as the Apostle doth notably oppose faith against workes in our iustification Therefore vnlesse wee would bring man againe into the estate of Adam in his earthly Paradise before his fall and so shut out Christ the second Adam to pleade iustification by workes is a monstrous dreaâ—â—e Therefore it was not for nothing that our first Parents were banished out of that earthly Paradise typically to teach them that now they had no more to do with that first condition of their creation the happinesse whereof depended vpon the couenant of workes but now they must seek a new Paradise that is a heauenly and that by a new and liuing way to wit by faith in Christ which is that couenant of grace opposite to the couenant of workes So opposite that as the Apostle saith If it be of grace then it is no more of workes otherwise grace is no more grace But if it bee of workes then is it no more grace otherwise worke is no more worke Rom. 11. 6. CHAP. VI. Of the instrumentall cause of iustification and first of the Romane Catholicke doctrine herein THE Councell of Trentputs no other instrumentall cause of iustification but the Sacrament of Baptisme which saith she is the instrument of faith without which faith no man could euer obtaine iustification Where notwithstanding shee would seeme not altogether to exclude faith as a party-instrument But because Baptisme is so vnderstood as an instrumentall cause as will require rather a particular discourse by it selfe wee will shew here what allowance they giue to faith in iustification That which the Pontificians ascribe to faith in the worke of iustification is either that it is a worke of grace preparing and disposing a man to receiue the grace of iustification as being the beginning of other graces and going before iustification as appeareth out of the Trent Councell Ses. 6. cap. 8. or else that it is a grace concurring with other graces infused and inherent as hope and charity and such like by which ioyntly a man comes to be iustified otherwise they allow faith no hand at all in iustification As may appeare in the Councell of Trent the sixth Session the ninth and eleuenth Canons Si quis dixerit sola fide impium iustificari c. If any man shall say that a sinner is iustified by faith alone c. And if any man shall say that men are iustified either by the onely imputation of Christs righteousnesse or by the onely remission of sinnes excluding grace and charity which is shed abroad in their hearts by the holy Ghost and is inherent in them or also that the grace whereby we are iustified is onely the fauour of God let him bee Anathema or accursed Whereupon Vega in his glosse vpon this place sets this downe for his prime conclusion Certissima fide est tenendum fidem solam absque operibus alijs neque satis esse ad iustificationem acquirendam neque ad tenendam acquifitam Wee are to hold by a most certaine beliefe that faith alone without other workes is neither sufficient to procure iustification nor being procured to preserue it And what those other workes bee hee telleth vs to wit first Baptisme secondly the Eucharist or the Masse thirdly Penance fourthly Confession and Absolution fiftly the keeping of the Commandements c. And againe Multipliciter posse hominem iustificari prima quidem ac communior magisque protrita via est per poenitentiam secunda dilectio Dei super omnia c. Wee say that a man may be iustified many waies The first and more common beaten way is by penance the second by the loue of God aboue all the third by martyrdome the fourth by prayer no doubt so many Pater-nosters and Aue-maries vpon beades and obseruing Cannâ—nicall houres the fift by the Sacraments of the Church and especially by Baptisme Penance and the Eucharist Penance you must note is in great request in the worke of iustification being here againe repeated and rancked in the middest betweene Baptisme and the Eucharist because in Penance there is not onely Confession to know what is in the conscience but satisfaction to tell what is in a mans purse if hee will deale by commutation And in the last place Probabilis est etiam sexta vt videtur via nempe per fidem It seemeth also probable that there is a fixt way namely by Faith But this way of faith comes lag in the reare and it is but probable neyther nay it doth but seeme probable The other wayes therefore are their common high-wayes of iustification this of Faith is onely a way of sufferance and that in some case of Necessitie yet with speciall restriction too as iustifying a man onely from originall sinne as Vega there addeth Videtur enim probabile c. For it seemeth probable that if a man be infected only with originall sinne and so soone as he should come to the vse of reason hauing heard the preaching of faith and seene miracles to confirme it should be willing to receiue it for the sauing of his soule by this onely that he giues credit vnto it hee should be iustified and haue his originall sinne pardoned But here mee thinkes Vega forgets himselfe in two things first that he puts faith in the last place which elsewhere he puts in the first Secondly that he attributes that to faith to wit the taking away of original sinne which eyther was taken away before in the baptized or if the party were not yet baptized Faith is not sufficient to iustifie him from originall sinne without Baptisme eyther in facto or in voto in deed or in desire Yea in the conclusion he saith peremptorily Non fides sed poenitentia primas partes tenet in reconciliatione peccatoris Not faith but penance hath the chiefe place in the reconciliation
procure vs the possession of heauen yet hee meanes not a solitary and dead faith but such a faith as is a liuing and sauing faith working by loue which hath as well a worke of sanctification in a holy life amongst men as of iustification by a holy beliefe in the sight of God For there is frequent mention of a twofold righteousnesse in the workes of ancient Fathers The one of iustification before God which is the righteousnesse of faith the other of iustification before men which is the righteousnesse of workes This second is via regni the way to the kingdome that other of faith is causâ—â—egnandi the cause of our reigning in this kingdome Saint Paul also disclaimeth all his former Phâ—risaicall life which as touching the Law was vnreprouable calling and accounting it but drosse and dung Nay now after his conuersion hauing walked holily and faithfully in his Apostolicall vocation and Ministery so that he knew nothing by himselfe yet what saith he Although I know nothing by my selfe yet am I not therby iustified but he that iudgeth me is the Lord. And renouncing all his inherent righteousnesse all his desire was to bee found in Christ not hauing his owne righteousnesse which is of the Law but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God by faith To omit the multitude of testimonies of holy men of God the fathers of the Church from time to time who in their writings doe renounce their own inherent righteousnesse as iustifying them in the sight of God Let vs for conclusion of this point adde a few memorable sayings vttered by dying men such as were of a holy life conuersation now agoing to appear before the dreadfull Tribunall of Gods most strict and vnpartiall iudgment now sealing vp their faith with their last breath Possidonius in his 27. Chapter of the life of Augustine tels a memorable story Augustine saith he told vs that hee heard a most wise and pious answer of Ambrose of blessed memory drawing neare his end which he much praised and commended for when that venerable Father lay vpon his death-bed and was desired of the faithfull standing about his bed with teares that hee would aske of the Lord a longer time of his Pilgrimage here he answered them I haue not so liued as that I am ashamed to continue amongst you nor yet am I affraid to dye because we haue a good Master And herein saith Possidonius our Augustine now aged did admire and praise his words as refined in the fire and weighed in the ballance For therefore is hee to be vnderstood to say Nor doe I feare to dye because wee haue a good Master lest he might be thought to trust and presume too much vpon his most sanctified life But I haue not so liued that I am ashamed to liue among you this he said in regard of that which one man might know of another for knowing the tryall of diuine iustice he said he relyed more vpon the goodnesse of his Lord than vpon his owne merits to whom also he prayed daily in the Lords Prayer Forgiue vs our debts c. Bernard when hee seemed to drawe his last breath being in a trance he thought he was presented before the Tribunall of his Lord And Sathan also stood opposite against him charging him with many wicked accusations And when hee had prosecuted all to the full then the man of God was to pleade for himselfe And being no whit terrified or troubled he said I confesse I am vnworthy nor can I obtaine the Kingdome of Heauen by mine owne merits But my Lord obtaining it by a double right to wit by the inheritance of his Father and by the merit of his passion contenting himselfe with the one hee bestoweth the other vpon mee by whose gift claiming it as mine owne right I am not confounded At this word the enemy went away confounded There is extant an exhortation of Anselme to a dying brother set downe in most sweet words When any brother seemeth to be extremely oppressed it stands both with piety and prudence that he be exercised by a Prelate or some other Priest with these questions and exhortations vnder written And first let him be demanded Brother doest thou reioyce that thou shalt dye in the faith and let him answer I do Confesse that thou hast not liued so wel as thou shouldest I confesse it Doest thou repent of it I doe repent Hast thou a will and purpose to amend if thou shouldst haue time to liue longer Yes Doest thou beleeue that the Lord Iesus Christ the Sonne of God dyed for thee I beleeue it Doest thou beleeue thou canst not bee saued but by his death Yea. Doest thou from thy heart thank him for this I doe Giue therefore while there is life in thee alwayes thankes vnto him and put thy whole trust in this his onely death Commit thy selfe wholly to his death Couer thy whole selfe with this death and wrap thy selfe wholly in it And if the Lord goe about to iudge thee say Lord I put the death of our Lord Iesus Christ betweene me and thy iudgment otherwise I will not contend with thee If he shall say that thou hast deserued damnation say thou I set the death of our Lord Iesus Christ betweene mee and my illdeseruings and assigne me the merit of his most precious passion for my merit which I my selfe should haue had but alas haue not Let him say againe I put the death of our Lord Iesus Christ betweene mee and thy wrath Let him also say three times O Lord into thy hands I commend my spirit And let those that stand about him answer Into thy hands O Lord we commend his spirit And he shall dye secure and shall neuer see death The same Anselme in his meditations as it were setting himselfe before the Tribunall of Gods iudgement whereby he declareth that neither the life of the regenerate nor good workes can stand against diuine iustice but onely Christ the Mediator saith My life doth terrifie mee for my whole life being exactly discussed and sifted doth appeare to me either to be sinne or meere barrennesse And if any fruit appeare therein it is either so counterfeit or imperfect or one way or other corrupt as it cannot but displease God for all of it is either sinnefull and damnable or vnfruitfull and contemptible But why doe I separate or distinguish vnfruitfull from damnable For if it be vnfruitfull it is damnable For euery tree which bringeth not forth good fruit shall be cast into the fire O therefore drie and vnprofitable tree worthy of eternall fire what wilt thou answer in that day when it shall be required of thee euen to a moment how thou hast spent all that time limitted and bestowed on thee to spend thy life in O extremity On the one side sinnes accusing on the other iustice affrighting vnderneath Hels horrible Chaos gaping aboue the
if this assurance were nothing else but a vaine confidence and boasting they say something But while they ioyne this certainty and assurance of Faith with vaine boasting they plainly discouer their masked hypocrisie by mixing and confounding the pure gold of Faith with mans drosse as if they were both one to be faithfully assured and vainly confident But this assurance whatsoeuer it is it must be in Heretickes and Schismatickes Catholickes must haue nothing to doe with it as being a vaine confidence Yet vaine as it is they confesse it to be a great and vehement enemy to the Catholicke Church to wit the Romane-Catholicke Church In which Church none must so certainly beleeue the remission of his sinnes as to exclude all doubting especially in regard of his owne indisposition and infirmity being fearfull of his owne grace and no maruaile if such be full of fearfull doubtings that build their saluation and iustification vpon their inherent grace But the conclusion is peremptory iust like the Serpent's in the third of Genesis beginning smoothly but ending roughly like the Sotherne winde Yee shall not dye at all So Trents conclusion is that no man can know by the certainty of faith whether he haue the grace of God or no. Furthermore the same Councell for the confirmation of the said Chapter to vphold their tottering vncertainty of faith hath planted three or foure Canons full charged with Anathemaes As Can. 12. Si quis dixerit Fidem iustificantem nihil aliud esse quam fiduciam diuinae misericordiae peccata remittentis propter Christum vel eam fiduciam solam esse qua iustificamur anathema sit If any man shall say that iustifying Faith is nothing else but a trust or confidence in the mercy of God remitting finnes for Christ or that this confidence or trust is that onely whereby we are iustified let him bee accursed Faith is then something else than a trust or confidence in Gods mercy What else namely a diffidence in Gods mercy And Can. 13. Si quis dixerit omni hominiad remissionem peccatorum assequendam necessarium esse vt credat certò absque vlla haesitatione propriae infirmitatis indispositionis peccata sibi esse remissa anathema sit If any shall say that it is necessary for euery man for the attainining the remission of sinnes to beleeue certainly and without any doubting of his owne infirmity and indisposition that his sinnes are remitted let him be accursed Note here another by-blow at the certainty of Faith but seeming to bee laid vpon the shoulders of humane frailty and indisposition as if remission of sinnes depended vpon our owne strength and disposition But I maruaile why the Pontificians so much distrust their owne indisposition about the certainty of iustification when they so much dignifie their naturall disposition vnto iustification saue onely that for the loue of their worldly pompe pleasure and profit one speciall proppe whereof is their vncertainty causing the simple seduced people to rest wholly vpon their Priest Pope and Purgatory as their last Sanctuary of their troubled soules they are not disposed to giue God the glory and to seale to themselues the comfort of iustification by the certainty of Faith which certainty of Faith they must needes extreamely hate when to disgrace it they are faine to disparage their owne strength and disposition which otherwise they do so much deifie adore And as if mans disposition in the state of grace being accompanied and assisted with grace came short of that disposition which goes before grace and as if mans disposition were not as able to confirme him in grace as to prepare him vnto grace But wee will not enuie them their indisposition to the assurance of grace no more than wee admire that grace of theirs which can giue no solid comfort and assurance to the soule and conscience But let vs heare what Trent further saith Can. 14. Si quis dixerit hominem á peccaetis absolui ac iustificari ex eo quod se absolui ac iustificari certò credat aut neminem verè esse iustificatum nisi qui credat se esse iustificatum hac sola fide absolutionem iustificationem perfici anathema sit If any shall say that a man is absolued and iustified from sinnes in that respect that hee certainly beleeueth hee is absolued and iustified or that none is truely iustified but hee that beleeueth he is iustified and that absolution and iustification is perfected by this sole faith let him be accursed Note here that the Councell of Trent differeth not one haires breadth from denying faith it selfe to bee absolutely necessary to iustification as wee shall more plainly discouer her minde herein hereafter And Can. 15. Si quis dixerit hominem renatum iustificatum teneri ex fide ad credendum se certò esse in numero praedestinatorum anathema sit If any shall say that a man regenerate and iustified is bound by faith to beleeue that hee is certainly in the number of the predestinate let him bee accursed And to conclude the 16. Canon is also annexed as a blade in this reede Si quis magnum illud vsque in finem perseuerantiae donum se certò habiturum absoluta infallibili certitudine dixerit nisihoc ex specialireuelatione didicerit anathema sit If any shall say by an absolute and infallible certainty that he shall certainly haue that great gift of perseuerance vnto the end except he shall know this by speciall reuelation let him be accursed Thus haue we set downe the whole mysterie of Pontifician vncertainty of faith in grosse as wee finde it ingrossed in the Councell of Trent For the further vnfolding whereof let vs consult the authenticke Commentaries of the Councell But first obserue we here what a deale of paines they haue bestowed about this one point of Vncertainty and that partly for the reasons formerly alledged in the beginning of this Chapter but principally doe they impugne this bulwarke of the Certainty of faith because it is a maine opposite to all their humane inuentions wherewith as so many ragges they haue patched vp their meritorious Capuchin-garment of iustification As the learned Chemnitius hath well obserued in his Examen vpon this point saying Nec sanè nullae sunt cansae c. Nor is it without cause saith hee that the Pontificians doe so eagerly contend for the maintenance of their Vncertainty for they well perceiue that the whole negotiation of Pontifician Merchandize is sustained by this meanes For the conscience seeking some certaine and firme consolation when it heares that faith it selfe euen when it apprehendeth Christ the Mediator ought to doubt of the remission of sinnes it begins to deuise a masse of inuentions as vowes pilgrimages inuocations of Saints Pardons Dispensations Croisadoes Buls Masses and a thousand such like being all but vntempered mortar to build their Castle of Vncertainty in the Ayre The conscience in this case being like the vncleane spirit in
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