say it doth The exclusive particle used by some of our Divines doth exclude infusion not imputation of righteousnesse as Bellarmine confesseth For wee doe hold though all perhaps have not so plainely expressed their meaning and some few have delivered their private opinions that remission of sinne is but a part of justification and that by imputation of Christs righteousnesse we are both absolved from our sinnes and also accepted as righteous in Christ and as heires of eternall life But Bellarmine howsoever he would seeme to acknowledge the concurrence of remission of sinne unto justification yet indeed excludeth it For by remission of sinne concurring to justification hee doth not understand the not imputing or forgiving of sinne but the extinction and abolition thereof wrought by the infusion of habituall righteousnesse which expelleth its contrary as heat doth cold and light darkenesse And howsoever there bee duo termini two termes in this motion or mutation as he conceiveth of justification as being a passage b or change from sinne to righteousnesse yet there be not two causes nor yet two distinct actions but the onely cause is justice infused and the action is but one and the same the infusion of righteousnesse expelling sinne Even as in creation which is transitâ—…s à non esse ad esse in illumination which is transitâ—…s à tenebris ad lâ—…cem in calefaction which is a passage from cold to heat But if this be all that is required in the Popish justification as undoubtedly it is the whole and onely forme thereof being infused of righteousnesse or as they love rather to speake righteousnesse infused their justification also not differing from that which the Scriptures call sanctification saving that they dreame of a totall mortification or deletion of sinne and of a perfect renovation then what is become of the absolving of â—…â—…tom the guilt of sinne by which wee are freed from hell and the acceptation of us as righteous in Christ by we are intitled to the kingdome of heaven Both which are wrought by imputation of Christs righteousnesse in which true justification doth consist For infused righteousnesse though it were perfect could not discharge us from our former debts and being unperfect as their owne consciences cannot but tell them it cannot entitle them to the kingdome of heaven Wherefore if they will be saved they must of necessity flee to the righteousnesse or satisfaction of Christ who hath fully satisfied the Law both in respect of the penalty by his sufferings and also in regard of the commandement by his obedience which obedience and sufferings being transient and gone so long since can no otherwise bee communicated unto them but by imputation Now if they can be content to acknowledge the imputation of Christs satisfaction which sometimes they doe and must doe if they will bee saved for there is no other meanes either to escape hell or to come to heaven then let them according to the Scriptures acknowledge this imputation of Christs satisfaction by which they are to bee acquitted and freed from the guilt of sinne and damnation and also accepted as righteous in Christ and heires of eternall life to be their justification As for the mortification of sinne and the renovation of us according to the image of God in true holinesse and righteousnesse both which are but in part and by degrees wrought in us by the Spirit of regeneration let them bee acknowledged to bee the two parts of our sanctification § II. But Bellarmine will needs have our renovation to be the righteousnesse of justification And this he indevoureth to prove by Testimonies of Scripture by the authority of Saint Augustine and by reason The texts of Scripture which he citeth are six The first Rom. 4. 25. who was delivered up for our sinâ—…es and rose for our justification From whence Bellarmine argueth thus to what the Apostle giveth the name of justification in that justification consisteth rather than in that unto which hee doth not give the name But to renovation in this place the Apostle doth give the name of justification and not to remission of sinne Therefore justification consisteth rather in renovation than in remission of sinne Before I answere I thinke good to advertise the reader againe that Bellarmine here by remission of sinne doth not understand the not imputing of sinne or as we in plaine English call it forgivenesse of sinne but the utter deletion the extinction the totall mortification of sinne And that hee doth foure times at the least signifie in this one passage Now I answer by denying his assumption because the Apostle in this place doth give the name of justification neither to remission nor yet to renovation which is not mentioned so much as once in all the Chapter Indeed in some other places the Apostle and his Disciple Saint Luke doe give the name to remission of sinnes that is to the not imputing of sinne or to the absolving and acquitting from sinne Rom. 4. 6 7 8. 〈◊〉 13. 38 39. but never to renovation § III. His assumption Bellarmine proveth because it cannot be doubtâ—…d but that the Apostles meaning was that Christ his death was a samplar or patterne of the death of sin that is saith he of remission or deletion of sins and that his resurrection was a samplar or patterne of our renovation and inward regeneration by which we walke in newnesse of life And is this the meaning of the Apostle Then be like wee are justified by imitation and not by imputation of Christs death and by imitation of his resurrection and then also by the same reason we are made sinners by imitation and not imputation of Adams transgression But indeed in this place the Apostle doth not propound by way of exhortation the death and resurrection of Christ as an example to bee followed in dying to sinne and rising to righteousnesse represented in Baptisme as hee doth in the sixth to the Romans where he exhorteth to sanctification as an inseparable consequent and companion of justification but by way of Doctrine hee speaketh of the death and resurrection of Christ as the cause of our justification of which he had spoken in the whole Chapter and even in the verses next going before that righteousnesse shall bee imputed to us as well as to Abraham if wee beleeve in him that raised up Iesus our Lord from the dead who was given by his father and by himselfe to us and for us that by the obedience of his life untill death but especially at his death he might satisfie for our sinnes and was raised from the dead that we might be justified and saved by his life which he liveth after his death Christ by his death and obedience did satisfie for our sinnes paying a full ransome for them and so did justifie us meritoriously and in that sense we are said to bee justified by his bloud and by his obedience both as the matter
and merit of our justification But neither his death nor obedience had beene effectuall to our justification if he had not risen from the dead As the Apostle sheweth 1 Cor. 15 17. If Christ bee not raised your faith is vaine yee are yet in your sinnes For if Christ had not risen againe it had beene an evidâ—…nce that he was not the Sonne of God and then could not his obedience or sufferings have beene meritorious for us But by his resurrection hee was mightily declared to be the Sonne of God in regard whereof it was said Thou art my Sonne this day have I begotten thee and being God his obedience and sufferings are of infinite and all sufficient merit and value vertue and efficacie for the justification and salvation of all that beleeve in him And againe what benefits Christ merited for us by his obedience even untill death the same being risen he applyeth and giveth to those that beleeve God having raised him and exalted him with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance to Israel and remission of sinnes Christ therefore was given unto death that hee might by his sufferings satisfie for our sinnes the penalty thereunto belonging and he did rise againe that by application of his merits we might bee justified Righteousnesse therefore shall be imputed to those that beleeve in the resurrection of Christ or rather in Christ raised againe who as he gave himselfe to bee a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or price of ransome for our sinnes so he did arise againe that by effectuall application of his merits we might bee justified So that whom by his death and obedience he redeemed meritoriously then he doth effectually justifie and save by his life and the severall actions thereof viz. his resurrection ascension sitting at the right hand of his Father as our King and Priest his comming againe to judgement who therefore shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods children it is God that justifieth who is hee that condemneth It is Christ that dyed yea rather that is risen againe who is even at the right hand of God who also maketh intorcession for us § IV. In the words following Bellarmine answeareth a secret objection if remission of sinnes be ascribed to Christs death and renovation to his resurrection then belike remission and renovation be two severall actions proceeding from divers causes contrary to that which hath beene delivered For prevention whereof he saith It is to be noted that the death of Christ which is the price of our redemption was not onely the cause of the remission of sinne but also of internall renovation And the like as he saith afterwards may bee said of the reâ—…urrection For according to the doctrine of the Catholike Church these two cannot bee severed fâ—…rasmuch as one and the same grace viz. charity being through the merit of Christ infused and inherent in us doth both blot out or extinguish our sinnes and also adorneth the soule with righteousnesse wherefore though the Apostle might have ascribed both remission and renovation either to Christs death or to his resurrection yet he chose rather distinctly to attribute remission to his death and renovation to his resurrection propter similitudinem because of the likenesse which the extinction of sinne hath with the death of the body and spirituall renovation with the resurrection of the body whereunto I answer briefly first that though the death and resurrection of Christ in respect of their efficacie though remission and renovation alwayes goission and renovation then in justification there are two actions proceeding from two causes secondly that these foure distinct benefits remission of sinne and acceptation of us as righteous in Christ which are the parts of justification wrought both of them by imputation of Christs righteousnesse which is the one and onely forme of justification likewise the dying unto sinne or mortification and the rising of the Sonle from the grave of sinne which is our first resurrection or vivification which are the two parts of sanctification those foure actions I say proceed from two causes and that in twofold respects For remission of sinne is procured by the merit of Christs death and dying unto sinne is ascribed to the vertue of his death the imputation of Christs merits whereby wee are both absolved from sinne and accepted as righteous is ascribed to his resurrection whereby his merits are applyed unto us for our justification and the grace of rising from the grave of sinne to the vertue of his resurrection for by the same power whereby Christ did rise againe are wee raised from sinne to newnesse of life § V. His second allegation is Rom. 5. 21. That as sinne reigned unto death so grace may reign by justice to life everlasting through Iesus Christ our Lord where by justice opposed to sin he saith is meant inward renovation Ans. 1. We deny not but that in all the faithful there is a two fold righteousnesse the one imputed which is the righteousnesse of justification the other infused and inherent which is the righteousnesse of sanctification which he calleth renovation If therfore the Apostle did speake here of righteousnesse inherent yet this place would make nothing against us For we confesse that as sin reigneth in the children of disobedience by producing the workes of iniquity so the grace of God or the Spirit of grace doth reigne in the faithful by bringing forth the fruits of righteousnes But this is not the righteousnesse of justification but that wherein our sanctification doth consist But indeed the Apostle here doth not speake either only or chiefly if at all of inherent righteousnesse Neither doth hee in this place make an opposition or antithesis betweene sinne and righteonsnesse to which supposition Bellarmines argument is grounded but betweene the kingdome of sinne reigning unto death and the kingdome of grace reigning by righteousnesse unto everlasting life through Iesns Christ our Lord. Now the righteousnesse wherein the kingdome of grace especially consisteth is the righteousnesse of justification by faith whereupon followeth peace of conscience and joy in the holy Ghost Rom. 14. 17. compared with Rom. 5. 1. 2. which being not our righteousnesse as all inherent justice is but the righteousnesse of God is chiefly yea in the cause of justification is onely to bee sought after Phil. 3. 8 9. Rom. 10. 3. Secondly as in all the chapter from the twelfth verse to the end the opposition which is made is of Adams sinne to Christs obedience so in this place as the sinne of Adam was the cause of death so Christs obedience of life the opposition is not of inherent righteousnesse to inherent sinne but of Christs righteousnesse to Adams sinne § VI. His third allegation is out of Rom. 6. 13. Doe not ye exhibit your members as instruments of iniquity unto sinne but exhibit your selves to God as of dead men alive and your members instruments
say they Christs righteousnesse and merits whereby hee redeemeth and saveth men should bee imputed unto us then should we thereby become Saviours and redeemers of others but this latter is false therefore the former Answere I deny the consequence of the proposition for first when we say that we are justified by imputation of Christs righteousnesse our meaning is this that the Lord accepteth for us and in our behalfe the obedience and mâ—…rits of Christ as if we had performed the same for our selves in our owne persons For as the merit of Christ is the common price of redemption sufficient for the salvation of all universally so it is the price for every particular and so is applyed to every particular not as the common price redeeming all but as the price of those soules in particular to whom it is particularly applyed Secondly the efficacie or effect of imputation dependeth upon the will of the imputer and therefore the force of it cannot be extended further than he extendeth it which is the justification of the parties to whom it is imputed but no further Thirdly the consequence of the proposition doth no more follow than if I should argue thus If by imputation of Adams transgression others are made guilty of sinne and damnation then they to whom Adams transgression is imputed are made the cause and fountaine of sinne and damnation in all others but of the first and second Adam we should conceive not as of private men but the first Adam is to be considered as the root of mankind in whom when he fell all sinned The second as the head of all that shall be saâ—…ed in whom as the head communicating his merits to his members all the faithfull have as his members fulfilled the Law and satisfied the justice of God for themselves The head and the body saith Thomas Aquinas are as it were one mysticall person and therefore the satisfaction of Christ belongeth to all the faithfull as to his members the Lord accepting in their behalfe the obedience and Merits of Christ as if they had performed the same in their owne persons not for others but for themselves And therefore by imputation of Christs righteousnesse they are not redeemers but redeemed For though Christ who is the Saviour of his body communicate to his members his obedience yet not his Headship nor his Mediatorship in respect whereof hee was and is both God and man Man to doe and suffer God to give infinite value and worth to that which his Person did or suffered for the justification and salvation of all those to whom his righteousnesse should bee communicated and imputed but not to make them redeemers and Saviours of others The righteousnesse of the head is of sufficient vertue to justifie and redeeme all the members to whom it is imputed but being imputed the merit thereof extendeth no further than to what end it is imputed that is to save the member not to make it a Saviour nor to confound the members with the head nor to take away the proportion that is and ought bee betweene the head and the members Fourthly to the Papists who confesse Christs satisfaction to be imputed unto us I returne the like argument If Christs satisfaction whereby he redeemed mankind bee imputed unto us then are we also redeemers of mankind But they will not not cannot inferre that therefore we are redeemers but that wee among others are redeemed § X. But that we are justified onely by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse I shall by the helpe of God fully prove hereafter in my whole fifth booke Here onely for a tast I will but point at two argumenss the former out of Rom. 4. 5. 6. 11. the basis or ground whereof is this that whom the Lord justifieth to them he imputeth righteousnesse Now this righteousnesse is either the parties owne or of another Not their owne for they are sinners and being sinners they cannot bee justified by righteousnesse inherent but righteousnesse is imputed to them without workes that is without respect of any obedience performed by themselves Therefore it is the righteousnesse of another That other is no other nor can be any other but Christ onely therefore by imputation of his righteousnesse we are justified The second shall bee out of 2 Cor. 5. 21. As Christ was made sinne for us so are wee made the righteousnesse of God in him By imputation of our sinne to him Christ who knew no sinne was made sinne and a sinner for us therefore by imputation of his righteousnesse which here is called the righteousnesse of God we who are sinners in our selves are made righteous not in our selves but in him CAP. IV. Whether wee are justified by the passive righteousnesse of Christ only § I. NOw I come to the private opinions of some of our Divines concerning the matter and some of our justification For some as touching the matter doe hold that we are justified by the passive righteousnesse of Christ onely Of these men some doe not hold the matter of justification to bee the passive righteousnesse of Christ it selfe but a righteousnesse morte Christi partuÌ„ purchased by the death of Christ as the meritorious cause thereof viz. remission of sinnes which they not without absurdity say is imputed to us For what is remission of sinne but the not imputing of it If therefore wee bee justified by imputation of the remission of sinne then are we justified by the imputation of the not imputing of sinne Againe the authors of this opinion confound justice with justification for they say that remission of sinne is our justice and that justification is nothing also but remission when indeed neither the one nor the other is justice but an action of God imputing righteousnesse and not imputing sinne unto us Others hold that by the passive righteousnesse of Christ it selfe meaning thereby his death and passion we are justified as by the onely matter of justification imputed to us But that wee are not justified by the passive righteousnesse of Christ alone it may appeare by these reasons § II. By what alone the Law is fully satisfied by that we are justified and by what alone the Law is not fully satisfied by that alone wee are not justified By the whole righteousnesse of Christ that is to say the righteousnesse of his person that is his holinesse or habituall righteousnesse the righteousnesse of his life which was his obedience or actuall righteousnesse the righteousnesse of his death and passion which is obedientia crucis or his passive righteousnesse the Law was fully satisfied or fulfilled but by the passive obedience alone of Christ the Law was not fulfilled therefore by the whole righteousnesse of Christ and not by the passive onely we are justified The proposition is thus proved there is no justification before God without perfect and compleat righteousnesse for without that no man can stand in judgement before God and to imagine that
necessarily required that he might be meet to become our righteousnesse in his sufferings But this is frivolous because as I noted before he being perfect God as well as perfect man had beene in his sufferings an All-sufficient satisfaction for our sinnes though hee had never submitted himselfe to the obedience of the Law But the divine Nature of the Sonne of God and the dignity of his person as it made his sufferings all-sufficiently satisfactory for our sinnes to redeeme us from hell because they were the sufferings of God the blood of God c. so it made his obedience all-sufficiently meritorious to constitute and make us righteous and to make us Heires of Eternall life because it was the obedience or righteousnesse of God For the Sonne of God was made under the Law that he might not onely redeeme us who were under the Law by his sufferings but also that by his meritorious obedience we might receive the Adoption of sonnes But he proveth Christ to bee our righteousnesse onely in his passive obedience because it onely was both prefigured in the types and figures of the Law and also represented in the sacraments As touching the types and figures of the Law which prefigured Christ they were either figures of his person and office or they represented his benefits as namely and especially justification or â—…anctification And those which figured his benefit of justification either represented the remission of sinne by his sufferings or acceptation with God by his obedience or both The ceremony of changing their clothes when they were to come before God did import that those who desired to please God must be clothed with Christs righteousnesse which is also signified by the wedding garment and the holy attire wherein the Priests were to appeare before God The high Priests wearing of the golden plate with this inscription Holinesse of the Lord who is Iehovah our righteousnesse was to this end that the iniquity of the holy things which the children of Israel should hallow in all their holy gifts being taken away they might bee accepted before the Lord. The high Priests offering of incense upon the golden Altar resembled the pleasing obedience of Christ in his life and death and his intercession for us The Arke of the Covenant was a Type of Christ the Mediator the cover upon it of his propitiation the tables of Covenant within it of his fulfilling the Law for us The sanctification of the first fruits which were a type of Christ who is the first fruits of all that shall bee saved 1 Cor. 15. 23. was imputed to the whole increase or store Rom. 11. 16. So â—…aith Athanasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That the fulfilling of the Law performed by the first fruits so he calleth the flesh of Christ is imputed to the whole lumpe c. § XXIII But come we to the Sacraments which hee truely saith are the soules of that righteousnesse which is by Faith And yet saith he Baptisme signifieth onely the washing of the soule by the bloud of Christ the Eucharist representeth onely his body broken and his blood shed for our sinnes Answ. Though some parts onely of the benefits of Christ are represented in the severall Sacraments yet the substance of each Sacrament is the participation of Christ wholly with all his merits and benefits Thus in Baptisme we are incorporated into Christ and in it we put on Christ who is our righteousnesse And it is the Sacrament not only of remission of sinne and of justification but also of regeneration and sanctification we being therein conformed to his death and resurrection Rom. 6. 3 4 5. In the Lords Supper we have communion with Christ being not only united to him as bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh but also have communion with him both in his merits by imputation and in his graces by influence from him as our head Other arguments are used by the same authour but because in them he taketh two things for granted which hee cannot prove the one that justification consisteth onely in remission of sin the other that wee ascribe remission of sinne to Christs active obedience I will not trouble the Reader with them Onely let him call to minde the errours which the Authors of this opinion doe runne into for the defence thereof First that remission of sinnes is the matter of justification which is imputed to us Secondly that the Law is fully satisfied by bearing the penalty alone Thirdly that by one act of obedience we are made just as wee were by one act of disobedience made sinners Fourthly that neither by his disobedience Adâ—…m did transgresse the Law nor Christ by his obedience unto death obey it Fifthly that Christ obeyed the law not for us but for himselfe Sixthly that justification consisteth wholly and onely in remission of sinnes Which being for the most part consequents of this opinion doe prove the antecedent to be false CAP. V. That the formall cause of Iustification is the imputation of Christs Righteousnesse § I. YOu have heard the private opinions of some of our Divines concerning the matter of justification now let us examine the unsound opinions of some others concerning the forme For as the former made remission of sins the matter which is imputed to justification so these make it the forme And as the former teach that justification consisteth wholly in remission of sinne so doe these And yet the former hold it to bee but the matter and these but the forme Indeed if it were both the matter and the forme they might well say that justification doth wholly consist therein But being according to their owne conceipt but the one or the other and according to the truth neither of both but an effect of the true forme for by imputation of righteousnesse we have remission of sinne their opinion must needs be unsound But the thing wherein chiefely they erre is that with Socinuâ—… the heretike they deny the imputation of Christs Righteousnesse and consequently do hold that neither the active nor passive obedience of Christ is that which is imputed to us for righteousnesse What then forsooth the act of faith Of these mens errour I shall not need to say much in this place because besides that which hath already beene delivered in the third Chapter I have plentifully and fully proved in my whole fourth booke that the righteousnesse of Christ is the matter which is imputed to justification and in my whole fifth booke that the imputation of Christs righteousnesse is the forme of justification Only I will note their depravation of our Doctrine and point at their errours § II. As touching the former when we say that the imputation of Christs righteousnesse is the formall cause of justification because by imputation of Christs righteousnesse God doth justifie us they will needs with the Papists make us hold that we are formally righteous by
justifications of the Saints then they justifie the Saints So may I say if the precepts of the Law be the justifications of the Lord then belike they justifie him but neither are fitly called justifications though the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may not unfitly be given both to the Law of God as the rule of justice and to the judgements of God as the acts of justice and to the good deeds of the Saints as workes of justice and also to the merits of Christ which notwithstanding doe not justifie him but us unlesse they meane that as by good workes the faithfull so by righteous commandements and just judgements God is declared and manifested to bee just And farther the law of Nature knowne to the Gentiles is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which notwithstanding doth not justifie either him or them and is by the Latine interpreter unfitly translated the justice of God And moreover Bellarmine himselfe as we have heard noteth that the Law is called justification because it teacheth righteousnesse and yet not that righteousnesse by which we are justified for that without the Law is manifested in the Gospell being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets even the righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Iesus Christ unto all and upon all that beleeve But to conclude Bellarmine had no reason to make this the first signification of the word in the Scriptures for the Hebrew word which the vulgar Latine translateth sometimes iustificationes and sometimes ceremonias in the same sense doth signifie no such matter and the Greeke which twice at the most in the Scriptures signifieth justification doth usually signifie the Law of God and his statutes and ordinances but more especially those of the ceremoniall Law which if they be any where called justifications it is to bee imputed to the corrupt translation and not to the originall truth § III. So much of the first signification The two next whereof there is no example in the Scriptures hee hath coined to fit their new-found distinction of justification it selfe which they distinguish into the first and the second The first when a man of a sinner is made just by infusion of habituall righteousnesse The second when a just man is made more just by practise of good workes Accordingly justification saith Bellarmine in the second place signifieth acquisition of righteousnesse viz. inherent which is their first justification and in the third place incrementum justitiae the encrease of justice which is their second justification which distinction if it were applied to sanctification were not to be rejected For that which they call their first justification is the first act of our sanctification which the Scriptures call â—…eration in which the holy Ghost doth ingenerate in the soule of the Elect the grace of faith and with it and by it other sanctifying graces wherein their justification which is habituall consisteth And that which they call their second justification being actuall is our new obedience by which our sanctification is continued and encreased But to justification it cannot truly be applyed for first justification is an action of God for it is God that doth justifie Their second justification is their owne act whereby they being just already make themselves more just Secondly justification as hath been said is an action of God without us not implying a reall mutation in us but relative such as is wrought by the sentence of a Iudge and is opposed to condemnation Thirdly because it is the righteousnesse of Christ by which wee are justified which is a perfect righteousnesse whereunto nothing can bee added Therefore of justification it selfe there are no degrees though of the assurance thereof there are degrees according to the measure of our faith § IV. But let us see how Bellarmine proveth his second signification To that purpose he alledgeth three testimonies of Scripture which prove nothing else but that the Papists have no sound proofe for their erronious conceit The first is taken out of 1 Cor. 6. 11. And such were you but ye are washed but ye are sanctified but ye are justified Where indeed the word is used but in a sense distinguished from sanctification The scope and intendment the Apostle is to exhort the Corinthians being now Christians to abstaine from those sinnes whereunto they were addicted whiles they lived in Gentilisme Such you were then saith the Apostle but now since you gave your names to Christ you were baptized into his Name and in your Baptisme were washed from those sinnes being sanctified from the corruption of them by the Spirit of God and iustified from the guilt of them in the Name of Iesus Christ that is by faith in his Name Thus therefore these three words are to bee distinguished The washing of the soule which is represented by the washing of the body is the generall word whereby the purging of the soule from sinne is generally signified Act. 22. 16. But as in sinne there are two things from which we had need to be purged that is the guilt of sinne and the corruption thereof so this ablution or washing of the soule hath two parts ablution from the guilt of sinne which is our justification ablution from the corruption of sinne which is our sanctification Both which are represented and sealed in the Sacrament of Baptisme wherein as the outward washing of the body doth represent the inward washing of the soule both from the guilt and corruption of sinne so the Element of water whereby the body is washed or sprinckled is a signe of the water and blood which issued out of Christs side whereby the soule is washed that is to say the blood of redemption and the water of sanctification for by the blood that is the merits of Christ wee are freed from the guilt of sinne and by the water that is the Spirit of sanctification wee are freed in some measure from the corruption And both these as I said are signified in Baptisme For wee are baptized into the remission of sinnes Act. 2. 38. Mar. 1. 4. Our soules being washed with the blood of Christ according to that in the Nicene Creed I beleeve one Baptisme for the remission of sinnes and wee are baptized unto the mortification of sinne and rising unto holinesse of life Rom. 6. 3 4. our soules being washed by the water of the holy Ghost For wee are baptized into the death of Christ and similitude of his resurrection that as Christ dyed and rose againe so wee that are baptized should dye unto sinne and rise to newnesse of life for which cause Baptisme also is called the Laver of regeneration Tit. 3. 5. This then is the summe and effect of the Apostles exhortation that seeing they having given their names unto Christ had been baptized into his Name and were therefore Sacramentally at the least washed and consequently both in their owne profession and opinion of others judging
flesh that is abased himselfe to become man which before hee was not but not ceasing to bee that which hee was before namely the true and the great God God above all blessed for evermore in our nature being perfect God and perfect man hee farther humbled himselfe and became obedient untill death even to the death of the crosâ—…e And therefore the righteousnesse of Christ both habituall inherent in his person and that which was performed by him both active and passive being the righteousnesse of God as it is often called Rom. cap. 1. 3. 10. the righteousnesse of God and our Saviour 2 Pet. 1. 1. who was given to us of God to be our righteousnesse 1 Cor. 1. 30. that wee beleeving in him might bee the righteousnesse of God in him 2 Cor. 5. 21 is therefore called Iehovah our righteousuesse Ier 23. 6. I say his passive righteousnesse being the righteousnesse of God the bloud of God it is a price of infinite valew and superabundantly sufficient to satisfie for the sinnes not onely of the faithfull but of all the world and not onely of this one world but of more if there were more And this habituall and actuall righteousnesse being the righteousnesse and obedience of God is of infinite and alâ—…-sufficient merit to entitle all those that beleeve in him were they never so many to the kingdome of heaven These things if the Papists should deny It would deny them to be Christians The former part therefore of the assumption is of undoubted truth § III. Come wee then to the other part Is there any righteousnesse inherent in us or performed by us that can fully satisfie the Law Nothing lesse For first in respect of the penalty which is due unto us for our sinnes wee cannot possibly fatisfie it but by enduring everlasting torment which though wee should endure for a million of millions of yeares yet wee could not bee said to have satisfied the Law which cannot be satisfied but by endlesse punishment or that which is equivalent but there is nothing equivalent but the precious death and sufferings of the eternall Son of God who gave himself to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a full price of ransome countervailing in respect of the dignity of his person the eternall pains of hel which all the elect should have suffered Therefore there is no possibility for us to escape hell the just guerdon of our sinnes unlesse the Lord impute our siâ—…s to our Saviour Christ and his sufferings to us accepting them in our behalfe as if we had sustained them in our owne persons For although wee should for the time to come performe a totall and perfect obedience to the Law yet that would not free us from the punishment already deserved by us But the Law must be satisfied both in respect of the penalty to be borne and in respect of perpetuall and perfect obedience to bee performed through out our whole life Neither may we thinke by the payment of one debt to satisfie another The obedience which wee hope to performe for the time to come though it were totall and perfect is a debt and duty which wee owe unto God Luk. 17. 10. and therefore cannot discharge us of the penalty which is another debt which wee owe for our sinnes past for wee were sinners from the wombe yea in the wombe and to the guilt of Adams transgression in whom wee sinned and to that originall corruption which we have received from him for which though wee had no other sinnes wee were worthily subject to eternall damnation wee have added in the former part of our life innumerable personall transgressions all deserving death and damnation which if wee be not delivered therefrom by the death and merits of Christ wee must make account to suffer in our owne persons neither can our future intended obedience satisfie for our sinnes as Bellarmine confesseth God is just in forgiving sinnes neither doth he forgive any sinne for which his justice is not fully satisfied § IV. Neither can our righteousnesâ—…e â—…atisfie the Law in respect of the precept by fulfilling it for whosoever hath not continued in all the things which are written in the booke of the Law to doe them but hath at any time transgressed the Law hee hath not fulfilled it Therefore it is most certaine that we cannot satisfie the Law in respect of the precept because wee have already broken it and by our breach of it have made our selves subject to the curse of the Law so farre are we from being justified by it Neither are wee able by our obedience to satisfie the Law for the time to come § V. Against this branch of our argument which by us is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as over measure Bellarmine taketh exception alleaging that the faithfull and regenerate are able to fulfill the Law and entreth into a large dispute to prove that the Law is possible which disputation I have fully examined in his due place and confuted Here let the Reader take notice that Bellarmine disputeth sophistically in diverse respects for first hee will needs be actor when indeed hee is reus and that hee might get the better end of the staffe pretendeth to confute our errours when indeed he laboureth to defend his owne Secondly hee answereth but a piece of our argument and such a piece as might be spared as being added mantisae loco by way of advantage for thus we reason no man can satisfie the Law because hee hath already broken it yea hee is so farre from satisfying the Law in respect of the time past that for the time to come hee is not able to fullfill it Thirdly where hee should prove that all those who are to bee justified doe fulfill the Law for else how should they by fulfilling of the Law be justified all that he endevoureth to prove is that it is possible for them that are already justified to fullfill it disputing as wee say a posse ad esse Fourthly where hee should prove that all who are justified doe fulfill the Law for else how should they be justified by fulfilling it hee endeavoureth to prove that some rare men have fulfilled it not caring what becomes of the rest Fifthly where hee argueth that if men shall fulfill the Law they shall be justified his consequence doth not hold in respect of them who at any time heretofore have broken it as all meere men without exception have done though they should perfectly fulfill the Law for the time to come Sixthly he would prove that some doe fulfill the Law and yet cannot deny but that even those some doe sinne many times yea seven times a day and that they have need daily to pray for the forgivenesse of their sinnes and therefore faileth in the proofe of that also as I have made manifest in answering his arguments § VI. Now to make good this part of our reason
Adams disobedience or transgâ—…ession Therefore wee are justified that is not onely absolved from the guilt of sinne but also accepted as righteous by imputation of Christs obedience As touching the proposition that the word sinners doth in this place signifie guilty of sinne and obnoxious to condemnation it is testified by Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what then is the word sinners in this place it seemeth to mee that it is to be subject or obnoxious to punishment and condemned to death by Oecumenius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by Theophylact likewise sinners that is obnoxious to punishments and guilty of death which exposition is plainely confirmed by the verses going before where the same opposition betweene the first and second Adam being made the â—…ormer part is expressed in these words that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or guilt of Adams transgression came upon his posterity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto condemnation especially vers 16. and 18. § II. The assumption though gaine-said by Bellarmine in this place yet is taught not only by other Papists who fully contradict Bellarmines Assumption but elsewhere also by Bellarmine himselfe For Durandus Pighius Catharinus doe hold originall sinne to be nothing else but the guilt of Adams fall or the disobedience of Adam imputed unto us which opinion also Occam professeth that he would hold if he were not hindered by the authority of the Fathers Yea saith Bellarmine it seemeth to have beene the opinion of some of the ancient as Peter Lombard reporteth Iâ—… refuting this opinion Bellarmine justly findeth fault with them that they held originall sinne to be nothing else but the guilt of Adams disobedience imputed it being also the depravation of our nature following thereupon But in that they say originall sinne is the disobedience of Adam imputed unto us that he doth approve For Adam alone did indâ—…ed commit that sinne by actuall will but to us it is communicated by generation eo modo quo communicari potest id quod transiit nimirum per imputationem after that manner whereby that may be communicated which is transcient and gone to wit by imputation Omnibus enim imputatur c. for it is imputed to all who are borne of Adam because wee all being then in the loynes of Adam when hee sinned in him and by him wee sinned Yea and farther hee rightly disputeth that if Adams sinne were not ours by imputation neither the guilt of it nor the corruption following upon it had belonged to us This assertion of Bellarmine confirmeth our assumption and contradicteth his own alleaging that wee are made sinners through the disobedience of Adam by injustice inherent and not imputed which also he contradicteth in other places For he granteth the sinne of Adam so to be imputed to all his posterity as if they all had committed that sinne and to the same purpose citeth Bernard Ours is Adams fault because though in another yet we sinned and to us it was imputed by the just though secret judgement of God And againe taking upon him to prove that the propagation of sinne may bee defended without maintaining the propagation or traduction of the soule he saith that nothing else is required to the traduction of sinne but that a man be descended from Adam by true and ordinary generation For generation not being of a part but of the person or whole man for homo generat hominem therefore the person descending from Adam though his soule be from God was in the loynes of Adam and being in him originally as in the roote in him and with him hee sinned the actuall sinne of Adam being communicated unto him by imputatioâ—… For as Augustine saith definita est seutentia c. it is a resolved case by the Apostle that in Adam we all sinned § III. But what shall wee say to the inherent corruption which Adam by his transgression contracted By this assertion it seemeth not to be traducted otherwise than as the fruit and consequent of the actuall disobedience which was the opinion of Pighius and Catharinus For as Adam by his first transgression which was the sinne of mankind contracted not onely the guilt of death but also the corruption of his nature being both a privation of originall righteousnesse and also an evill disposition and pronenesse to all manner of sinne which is that macula peccati remaining in the sinner after the act is gone so wee having sinned in Adam are not onely made guilty of death and void of originall righteousnesse but also are defiled with that habituall disposition and pronenesse to all manner of sinne So that according to this assertion it may be defended that nothing in our generation is communicated unto us with the humane nature but the disobedience of Adam which is communicated by imputation As for the guilt of death and the inherent coruption they are not derived from Adam but contracted by our sinning in him And hereunto we may apply Bellarmines distinction of sinne so properly called that it is either a voluntary transgression or that blemish which remaineth in the soule caused and contracted by the transgression being of the same nature with it diffeâ—…ing no otherwise from it than as heat from the act of heating For in the former sense originall sinne is the voluntary trangression of Adam imputed unto us and is one and the same in all men in Adam actuall and personall in us originall For onely he by actuall will committed it but to us it is communicated after that manner by which that which is past and gone may bee communicated to wit by imputation In the latter sense it is the corruption inherent contracted and caused as in Adam by his personall sinne so in us by our sinning originally in him which though it bee alike and equall in all yet it is every mans owne § IV. But supposing originall sinne according to the received opinion to be wholly communicated unto us from Adam in our generation yet we must distinguish betwixt Adams first transgression or actuall disobedience which we call his â—…all and the corruption or depravation of his nature which thereupon followed For though we be partakers of both yet not after the same manner Of the transgression we can be no otherwise partakers than by imputation For Adams transgression being an action and actions continuing or having a being no longer than they are in doing cannot bee traducted or transmitted from Adam to his posterity But the corruption being habituall is derivable by propagation Now the Apostle Rom. 5. speaketh of Adams actuall disobedience once committed by him by which he saith we are made sinners that sinne of his being communicated unto us by imputation and not of the corruption thereupon following So by the like reason we are made just by the obedience of Christ which hee performed for us in the daies of his flesh which can
no otherwise be communicated unto us than by imputation Object Yea but wee are truly made sinners by the disobedience of Adam and truly made righteous by the obedience of Christ. Answ. As we are truly made sinners by imputation of Adams disobedience so we are as truly made righteous by imputation of Christs obedience Iust. Yea but we are made sinners by injustice inherent through Adams disobedience and therefore wee are made just by inherent justice through â—…he obedience of Christ. Answ. We are not made sinners in respect of inherent justice by Adams disobedience formally as Bellarmine saith Inobedientia Adami nos consâ—…ituit peccatores non formaliter sed 〈◊〉 for that only is imputed but by the corruption which followeth and is caused by that transgression committed by Adam and imputed to us In like manner wee are not made just in respect of inherent justice by the obedience of Christ whether active or passive formally for that is onely imputed but by the graces of the Spirit merited by the obedience of Christ performed by him and imputed to us § V. Thus then standeth the comparison betwixt the first and the second Adam As by the actuall disobedience or transgression of the first Adam all his off spring were made guilty of sinne and subject to death his disobedience being not inherent in them but imputed to them as if it were their owne because they were in him originally so by the obedience of the second Adam all his off spring are or shall be justified from sinne and accepted to life his obedience not being inherent in them but imputed to them as if it were their owne because by faith they are in him And this is our justification by imputation of Christs righteousnesse And further as Adams fall deserved as a just punishment the defacing of Gods image by inherent corruption in all his posterity to whom the same corruption is by naturall generation transfused so the obedience of Christ merited as a just reward the restoring of Gods image in us by inherent righteousnesse in all the faithfull into whom the said righteousnesse is in their Spirituall regeneration infused And this is our Sanctification by the Spirit of Christ of which the Apostle speaketh not untill the next Chapter where he sheweth that our justification is alwayes accompanied with Sanctification In a word from either of the two Adams we receive two things which are contrary each to other From the first Adam his disobedience is communicated unto us by imputation whereby wee are made sinners that is guilty of sinne and damnation which guilt is opposite to justification and secondly the corruption which he contracted is transfused unto us by carnall generation which corruption is contrary to sanctification From the second Adam his obedience is communicated to us by imputation whereby wee are constituted just that is absolved from the guilt of sinne and damnation and accepted in Christ as righteous and as heires of eternall life which is the benefit of justification and secondly the graces of his holy Spirit which hee received without measure are in some measure as it were by influence infused into us by our spirituall regeneration § VI. Whereas therefore hee would prove out of this place that justification is the obtayning of righteousnesse inherent I answer first that to be constituted sinners by Adams disobedience is to be made guilty of sinne and subject to death and damnation and so contrariwise to be constituted just or justified by Christs obedience is to be acquitted from the guilt of sinne and damnation and to bee accepted unto life secondly that wee are constituted sinners by Adams personall sinne which is not inherent in us but once and that long since committed by him so we are justified by Christs personall obedience which is not inherent in us but long since performed by him thirdly that as wee are truely made sinners by imputation of Adams transgression which is not inherent in us so we are truly made just by imputation of Christs obedience which is not inherent in us fourthly that the disobedience of the first Adam is imputed to all his children because they were in him originally as the root so in him they sinned and therefore when he did fall they fell so the second Adams obedience is imputed to all the sonnes of God because by faith they are in him as his members the head and the members making but one body This place therefore alleaged by Bellarmine maketh wholly against him Neither doth that which he addeth concerning persect absolute and abundant righteousnesse communicated unto us by Christ agree to that righteousnesse which is in herent in us unperfect and but begunne as being the first fruits of the Spirit but to the absolute and most perfect righteousnesse of Christ communicated unto us by imputation On this place I have insisted the longer because though Bellarmine alleage it as a prime place to prove his purpose is notwithstanding a most pregnant testimony to prove justification by impuâ—…ation of Christs righteousnesse as hereafter shall further appeare § VII His second Testimony is Rom. 3. 24 which I have also heretofore fully proved to make wholly against him Lib. 3. Cap. 3. 4. His third allegation is out of â—… Cor. 6. 11. to which also have I answered before I where acknowledged the benefit of baptisme to be here described according to that which here he alleageth out of Chrysâ—…st Ambrose Theophylact and others which is noted first generally in the word washed and then particularly in the words Sanctified and Iustified the former signifying the cleansing of the Soule from the pollution of sinne the latter from the guilt of sinne the former wrought by the Spirit of our God the latter by faith in the name of the Lord Iesus And these two distinct benefits the Scriptures ascribe to Baptisme viz. remission of sinnes and regeneration as I shewed before And therefore these benefits which the Holy Ghost hath accurately distinguished ought not to be either ignorantly or Sophistically confounded And whereas he saith that these benefits as here it is noted are wrought by the invocation of the name of Christ and by the power of his Spirit neither of which is needfull to justification by declaration or imputation he saith he knoweth not what For to justification as we conceive of it to be granted and sealed in Baptisme both these are as needfull as to Sanctification For to the obtayning of the remission of sinnes to be sealed unto us in Baptisme invocation of the name of God is required Act. 22. 16. and it is the Spirit of Adoption which by Baptisme sealeth unto us the remission of our sinnes § VIII His fourth testimony is Tit. 3. 1. 6 7. whence hee argueth to this effect Regeâ—…ration â—…r renâ—…vation is formally wrought by some inherent gift Iustisication according to the Apostle in this place is regeneration â—…r renovation Thâ—…refore justification is formally wrought
flesh is communicated unto us by imputation and accepted of God in our behalfe as if we had performed the same in our own persons To conclude therefore it is not the image of Christs righteousnesse and obedience by which we are justified But we are justified by the righteousnesse and obedience of Christ it selfe § XVII His seventh Allegation of Rom. 6. 4. 6. is scarce worth the answering wherein hee proveth which no man denieth that the godly doe truly and not putativè dye unto sinne and rise unto righteousnesse even as Christ whose death and resurrection is represented in Baptisme did truly dye and rise againe For this dying unto sinne and rising unto righteousnesse are the two parts of our sanctification which never any denied to bee inherent But that justification and sanctification are not to bee confounded I have before proved at large If hee would have said any thing to the purpose he should have said any thing to the purpose hee should have proved that our justification consisteth in our mortification and vivification and then might he well have concluded that we are not justified by imputation but by inherent righteousnesse But I cannot sufficiently wonder at the blind malice of these men who either would perswade themselves or would goe about to perswade others that we hold the righteousnesse of sanctification and the parts thereof which we acknowledge to be wrought in us by the holy Spirit not to bee inherent but imputative As for these words vers 7. he that is dead is justified from sinne the meaning is as I have shewed before that he is freed from sinne as our translation readeth and as Chrysostome and Oecumenius expound it the speciall sense of freeing from guilt opposed to condemnation which is the proper sense of the word Act. 13. 38 39. extended to the generall signification of freedome he that is dead is freed from committing of sinne according to that place of Peter 1 Epist. 4. 1. which Bellarmine paralelleth with this he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sinne § XVIII In his eighth allegation hee patcheth divers places of Scripture together as it were invita Minerva out of which nothing can be concluded but that the Papists have not one found Argument to prove their justification by inherent righteousnesse The places which he patcheth together are these Rom. 8. 15. That wee now by Christ have received the Spirit of Adoption of the sonnes of God quoad animam saith he in respect of the Soule the which as it is there said viz. vers 10. liveth by reason of justification although the body be dead that is be mortall as yet by reason of sinne But saith he â—… little after viz. vers 23. he addeth that wee having the first fruits of the Spirit doe groane within our selves expecting the adoption of the sonnes of God even the redemption of our body For as the same Apostle saith Phil. 3. 20. 21. wee expect our Saviour who shall reforme the body of our humility configured to the body of his glory But the adoption of sonnes which wee expect in the redemption of the body shall be most true and inherent in the body it selfe that is to say immortality and impossibility not putative but true Therefore the adoption which now we have in the spirit by justification must also be true not putative otherwise as we expect the redemption of the body so also wee should expect the redemption of the soule Answ. See what poore shifts so learned a man is put unto according to the ancient profession of Sophistres noted by Plato 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to make good a bad cause This is Bellarmines whole dispute word for word where with much travell he hath brought forth this conclusion that our adoption which now we have by justification is true and not in conceit onely which we freely confesse For whoever denied that our adoption is as true as our justification But doth it from hence follow that wee are justified by inherent righteousnesse A good syllogisme concluding that assertion from those premisses had beene worth his labour The most that can bee said in this matter as I suppose is this That when our gracious God by his holy Spirit doth regenerate us he doth beget in us the grace of faith As soone as faith is wrought in us wee are engrafted into Christ to us being in Christ the Lord communicateth the merits of his Sonne by imputation of whose righteousnesse unto us hee remitting our sinnes doth not onely accept of us as righteous in Christ but also in him hee adopteth us to bee his Sons and heires of eternall life § XIX Let this proposition then tanquam commune principium bee agreed upon betweene us Such as is our adoption such is our justification and let us see what either of us can inferre thereupon Bellarmine assumeth thus but our adoption is not imputative for that I suppose is his meaning by that odious word putative as though if it were imputative it were but putative which is most false For he that either is a sinner by imputation of Adams transgression is as truely a sinner as by transfusion of the corruption yea if he had not beene truely a sinner by imputation of Adams guilt hee should never have beene punished either with the transfusion of the coâ—…ruption or with death unto which by the guilt he was bound over or hee that is righteous by imputation of Christs righteousnesse is as truely righteous before God yea more truely than by infusion of inherent righteousnesse For that is perfect this is stained with the flesh and therefore is but a sinnefull righteousnesse which cannot stand in judgement before God judging according to the sentence of his Law But Bellarmine assumption as I was saying is this Our adoption is not imputative but by grace inherent therefore our justification is not imputative but by righteousnesse inherent The assumption which is utterly false hee endevoreth to prove because the Apostle Rom. 8. 15. saith that now by Christ wee haâ—…e received the Adoption of the sonnes of God quoad animam saith Bellarmine that he might patch with it vers 10. in respect of the soule which as it is there said liveth prâ—…pter justificationem although the body bee dead that is to say mortall by reason of sinne These places Belâ—…mine alleaged before to prove that the grace by which wee are justified is inherent and namely charity because charity is that by which wee cry in our hearts Abba Father Secondly because it is said that the Spirit liveth by reason of justification though the body bee dead by reason of sinne to both which I have before answered § XX. But here Bellarmine maketh a twofold Adoption the one of the soule patched out of Rom. 8. 10. 15. the other of the body pieced out of Rom. 8. 23. and Phil. 3. 20 21. when as indeed Adoption is not of either part but of
of justice to God where by righteousnesse saith hee is understood something that is inherent c. and that hee goeth about to prove which no man doubteth of when indeed hee should prove not that there is a righteousnesse inherent in the faithfull for that wee freely confesse but that the righteousnesse which is inherent is that by which wee are justified But it is evident that the Apostle speaketh not heere of the righteousnesse of justification but of the righteousnesse of sanctification whereunto in this Chapter hee doth exhort as to a necessary and unseparable consequent of justification Neither doth the Apostle heere or elsewhere as before I observed in setting downe the differences betweene justification and sanctification exhort us to the righteousnesse of justification or the parts thereof which bee not our duties but Gods gracious favours for that were to exhort us to remission of sinne and acceptation to life But to the righteousnesse of sanctification and the parts mortification and renovation and to the particular duties thereof hee doth both here and in many other places exhort as namely in his sixth testimony cited oâ—…t of Eph. 4. 23 24. from which hee would prove which no man doth deny that our renovaâ—…ion according to the image of God standeth in righteousnesse and holinesse inherent § VII His fourth allegation had need to be a good one for this is the third time that hee hath cited and recited and as it were recocted it out of Rom. 8. 10. The Spirit liveth because of justification or as it is in the Greeke the Spirit is life because of justice For justification or justice which maketh us to live and thereby to worke cannot be onely remission of sin but something inward inherent Answ. In this place vers 10. 11. as I shewed before the Apostle setteth down a double priviledge of those in whom Christ dwelleth by his Spirit freeing them from the Law of death The one in respect of the soule vers 10. that howsoever the body bee dead that is as Bellarmine himselfe expoundeth mortall or appointed to death by reason of sin which the first Adam brought in and by it death his sinne being imputed to all yet the soule for so the word Spirit is taken when it is opposed to the body is life that is as the Antithesis requireth designed unto life by reason of that righteousnes of the second Adam by imputation whereof all the faithfull are entituled unto everlasting life For as in the former part of the Antithesis is not meant the spirituall death of men dead in sinne for that is the death of the soule and not of the body and the Apostle speaketh of those in whom Christ dwelleth but the corporall death unto which they also in whom Christ dwelleth are subject so in the latter is meant not the life of grace or of righteousnesse but the life of glory The other priviledge respecteth the body vers 11. that after it hath beene dead and turned into dust the Spirit of him that raised up Christ from death dwelling in us shall raise unto life eternall our mortall bodies § VIII His fifth testimony Gal. 3. 21. where when the Apostle saith If there had been a Law given which could give life or justifie as the Rhemists translate the word vivificare then in very deed justice should be of Law hee doth plainely saith he demonstrate that justice from whence justification is named is something which giveth life to the soule and hee doth place the same in motion and action Answ. If from this proposition propounded by the Apostle Bellarmine could have assumed the antecedent that so hee might conclude the consequent then might hee strongly have concluded against us that wee are justified by inherent righteousnesse But seeing the Apostle doth tollere antecedenâ—… that is intendeth to contradict that antecedent what reason hath Bellarmine to argue as hee doth It is very true that if the Law could have given us life that is as Chrysostome and Oâ—…umenius expound could have saved us according to that legall promise Hocfac vives doe this and thou shalt live or as the Rhemists translate could have justified us then undoubtedly wee might have beene justified by inherent righteousnesse But forasmuch as it was impossible for the Law to justifie and save us because it neither was noâ—… is possible for us by reason of the flesh to performe the condition and forasmuch as God therefore sent his Sonne to performe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that the Law requireth unto justification that wee who could not bee justified nor saved by any inherent righteousnesse of our owne prescribed in the Law and therefore not by a justice consisting in our actions or motions might bee justified and saved by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed unto us what can Bellarmine gather from hence with any shew or colour of reason to prove justification by such a righteousnesse as is inherent and consisteth in motion and action § IX The sixth I have already answered with the third As for his testimonies collected out of Augustine a briefe anâ—…were may serve that hee not considering the force of the Hebrew and Greeke words which never in all the Scriptures are used in the signification of making righteous by inherent or infused righteousnesse but resting as it seemeth upon the notation and composition of the Latine word justificare as not differing in respect thereof from the Verbe sanctificare doth sometimes more largely extend the signification of the word justification than the Scriptures use it as including the benefit of sanctification But it is a most certaine truth that the word justificare being used in the Scriptures translated into Latine as the translation of the Hebrew Hitsdiq and of the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be understood to signifie no other thing if it bee a true translation than what is meant by the Hebrew and the Greeke which as I have shewed before doe never in all the Scriptures signifie to make just by infusion of righteousnesse And therefore it cannot be denied but that it is and was an oversight in them who using the word as mentioned in the Scriptures and from thence borrowing it extend it to another signification than that of the originall wherof it is a translation I say againe as I have said before that the fotce of the Latine word in this controversie is no further to be respected than as it is a translation of the Hebrew and the Greek and as it is a true translation it must bee understood no otherwise than according to the meaning of the originall if it be understood otherwise then is it not a true translation neither is the sence of the word divine but humane Howbeit Augustine differeth from Bellarmine as touching the use of this word in two things first that hee doth not alwaies so use the word as for example when hee teacheth as hee and the rest of the Fathers often doe
righteousnesse of God in this place we understand the divine justice which is in Christ which wee willingly embrace as a confession of that truth which we professe For by these words he must understand either the essentiall and uncreated justice of the Deitie in Christ or the righteousnesse of our Mediator the man Christ which notwithstanding is called the righteousnesse of God because it is the righteousnesse of that person who is God which righteousnesse saith he we are said to be not in our selves but in him because he is our head or as Sedulius before expounded those words in him Quasi membra in capite as members in the head Not that either we are formally just saith Bellarmine by Christs righteousnesse or Christ formally a siâ—…ner by our iniquitie but because we are his members For there is such a communion betweene the head and the members that the righteousnesse of the head is imputed to the members and the sinne of the members to the heâ—…d as appeareth also by the places alleaged by Bellarmine Esay 53. 6. posuit in eâ—… iniquitatem omnium nostâ—…ûm he laid upon him that is hee imputed unto him the iniquity of us all and Psal. â—…1 Christ himselfe saith farre from my health are the words delictorum meorum of mine offences Here therfore the Reader is to observe a double confession which the evidence of truth hath wrung from Bellarmine For as in the next precedent section hee confessed the satisfaction of Christ to bee imputed to us so here hee acknowledgeth that wee are the righteousnesse of God which is in Christ as being the members of that body whereof hee is the head and consequently partakers of that righteousnesse which is in him which therefore hee calleth divine or Gods righteousnesse because the person whose righteousnesse it is is God § X. His second exposition is that by the righteousnesse of God is understood righteousnesse inherent in us which is called Gods because it is given us of God But this exposition cannot stand because the righteousnesse of Godof which the Apostle speaketh is neither ours but Gods nor in us in Christ as the Fathers have testified But inherent righteousnesse but though bestowed of God as all other good things which we have received from God is ours and not inherent in Christ but in ourselves for as the parts of inherent righteousnesse or sanctification though given of God are said to bee ours as our faith our hope our charity so the whole righteousnesse which is inherent in us or sanctification is called ours as I have shewed heretofore â—… Neither are wee in this place called righteousnesse in respect of righteonsnesse inherent no more then Christ is called sinne in respect of any inherent sinnefulnesse Neither are wee by Gods righteousnesse said to bee righteous in our selves but in Christ. Neither doth Saint Chrisostome whom hee citeth understand this place of righteousnesse inherent as though such a perfect righteousnesse inherent were given by Christ in this life as that in the justified no spot of sinne were left as Bellarmine dreameth for the contrary is rather to bee gathered from the words of Chrisostome For it is Gods righteousnesse saith hee when wee are justified not of workes that is not by righteousnesse inherent and why so because in that righteousnesse by which wee are justified there may no spot bee found noting as I understand him that in our workes and in our inherent righteousnesse spots are to bee fouud whereas that justice in respect whereof wee are said to bee the righteousnesse of God in Christ is without spot § XI His third exposition that by righteousnesse of God is meant inherent righteousnesse which is so called because it is the image of Gods righteousnesse For as Christ by a trope is called sinne because hee tooke the similitude of sinnefull flesh that hee might becometa sacrifice for sinne so wee by a trope are called Gods righteousnesse because our righteousnesse inherent is like the justice of God And hereupon he inferreth that as Christ truely and not imputatively tooke the likenesse of sinful flesh and truely and not imputatively was made a sacrifice for sinne so we not imputatively but truly are made righteous in our justification by righteousnesse inherent Answere In this discourse nothing is sound nothing almost worth the answering For first in the Scriptures there is an Antithesis betwixt our righteousnesse and Gods righteousnesse in the question of justification but our righteousnesse is that which is inherent Gods righteousnesse is that which is out of us in Christ. Secondly by inherent righteousnesse we are righteous in our selves but by the righteousnesse of God wee are righteous not in our selves but in Christ. Thirdly if by a trope wee are said to be righteousnesse as Christ by a trope was said to be sinne undoubtedly it is to bee understood of the same trope which is a metonymy the abstract being put for the concrete Neither is there the like trope of Christ being called sinne and of us being called the righteousnesse of God in him if by sinne in this place be meant a sacrifice for sinne Fourthly neither is it true either that Christ in this place is called sinne because he tooke upon him the similitude of sinfull flesh as though the Apostle compared our justification whereby we become righteous to Christs incarnation wherein he tooke upon him our nature and not to his condemnation wherein he tooke upon him our sinne or that wee are called the righteousnesse of God in Christ because we have some likenesse of his justice neither would it follow from hence that wee in our sâ—…lves are just unlesse it should follow also which were blasphemous to averre that Christ in himselfe was a sinner For so are we made righteous as hâ—…e was made sinne Fifthly neither is that true that Christ was not made a sacrifice by imputation For when he was made a sacrifice for us our sinne was laid upon him and imputed to him as hath beene said that his righteousnesse in like manner might be imputed to us CAP. II. Containing eight other proofes that wee are justified by impuâ—…ation of Christs righteousnesse § I. MY sixth proofe shall bee out of Rom. 5. 19. As by the first Adams disobedience which wee call his fall we were made sinners that is guilty of sinne and obnoxious to death and damnation so by the obedience of the second Adam we are made just or justified that is acquitted from our sinne and condemnation and accepted in Christ as righteous unto life But wee were made sinners by imputation of Adams disobedience Therefore by imputation of Christ obedience we are justified The proposition is the Apostles The assumption is in divers places confessed by Bellarmine as I have shewed heretofore though sometimes to serve his present turne he doe deny it But it is easily proved For if both the guilt of Adams sinne be communicated unto us and also
debt the sureties payment or satisfaction is imputed to the debtour and accepted in his behalfe as if himselfe had discharged the debt Even so wee being debtours to God both in respect of the penalty due for our sinnes past and also of obedience which we owe for the time to come and being altogether unable either to satisfie the one or performe the other Christ as our surety fatisfieth both these debts for us and his satisfaction is imputed unto us and accepted in our behalfe as if we in our owne persons had discharged our debt § II. Whereas in the second place they deride imputed justice calling it putatitiam as if it were an imaginary righteousnes only which also they say doth both derogate from the glory of God to whom it were more honourable to make a man truely righteous than to repute him righteous who in himselfe is wicked and also detract from the honour of Christs Spouse who is onely arraied with her Husbands righteousnesse as it were a Garment being in herselfe deformed I answere first whomâ—… the Lord doth justifie hee doth indeed and in truth constitute and make them righteous by imputing unto them the righteousnesse of Christ no lesse truely and really than either Adams sinne was imputed to us or our sinnes to Christ for which hee really suffered Secondly whom God justifieth or maketh righteous by imputation them also he sanctifieth or maketh righteous by infusion of a righteousnesse begun in this life and to bee perfected when this mortall life is ended And further that it is much more for the glory both of Gods justice and of his mercie when hee justifieth sinners both to make them peâ—…fectly righteous by imputation of Christs righteousnesse and also having freed them from hell by the perfect sâ—…tisfaction of his Sonne and entitled them to the Kingdome of Heaven by his perfect obedience to prepare and to fit them for his owne Kingdome by beginning a righteousnesse inherent in them which by degrees groweth towards perfection in this life and shall bee fully perfected so soone as this life is ended rather than to justifie or to speake more properly to sanctifie them onely by a righteousnesse which is unperfect and but begun which in justice can neither satisfie for their sinnes nor merit eternall life And as for the Spouse of Christ as it is most honourable for her to stand righteous before God not in her owne unperfect righteousnesse but in the most perfect and absolute righteousnesse of Christ the eternal Son of God which far surpasseth the righteousnes of al men and Angels so it is both profitable to her and honorable to God whiles shee is to continue heâ—… warfare and pilgrimage in this world to bee subject to insirmities and imperfections whereby shee being humbled in her selfe is taught to rely upon the power and goodnesse of God whose grace is sufficient for her and whose power is seene in her weakenesse especially considering that though her obedience bee unperfect yet it being upright it is not only accepted in Christ by whose perfect obedience imputed her wants are covered but also graciously rewarded and also considering that the remainders of sinne are left ad agonem that having maintained a spirituall warfare against them and the other enemies of her salvation and having overcome them she may receive the Crowne promised to them which overcome § III. As touching the third which is Bellarmines first objection in this place that it is no where read that Christs righteousnesse is imputed unto us or that wee are justified by Christs righteousnesse imputed I answer that as in many other controversies the assertion of neither part is in so many words and syllables expressed in the Scriptures so neither in this For where doe the Papists read either in Scriptures or Fathers that our righteousnesse inherent is the formall cause of our justification before God The contrary whereof in substance is so often read as it is said that wee are not justified by our workes or by our owne righteousnesse nor in our selves nor by a righteousnesse prescribed in the Law in which all inherent righteousnesse is fully and perfectly described But the substance of our assertion is often read as namely First that when God doth justifie a finner hee imputeth righteousnesse unto him without workes that is without respect of any righteousnesse inherent in or performed by himselfe Rom. 4. 4 5 6. Secondly that hee justifieth him not by the parties owne righteousnesse or by making him righteous in himselfe but by the righteoufnesse of another viz. Christ in whom hee is made righteous Thirdly that we are justified by the bloud and by the e obedience that is the personall righteousnesse of Christ which neither it selfe nor yet the merit thereof without communication wherof no man can be saved is or can be communicated unto us otherwise than by imputation From whence wee may argue thus The righteoufneffe whereby wee are justified is imputed for when God doth justifie a man hee imputeth righteousnesse unto him By the righteousnesse of Christ wee are justified Rom. 5. 9. 19. Therefore the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed unto us Fourthly that as by the disobedience of Adam wee were made â—…inners namely by the imputation thereof unto us for neither the guilt nor the corruption nor the punishment which is death had belonged to us if the sinne it selfe had not beene imputed unto us so by the obedience of Christ wee are justified which if it were not imputed to us we could by it neither be freed from hell nor entitled to heaven nor made inherently just by it Fifthly that wee are so made the righteousnesse of God in Christ as hee was made sinne for us that is by imputation Sixthly and lastly to omit other proofes when the Papists doe confesse that Christs satisfaction is imputed unto us they confesse as much as wee teach if it bee rightly understood For his satisfaction for us is either in respect of the penalty of the Law to free us from hell or in respect of the Commandement to entitle us to heaven The penalty hee hath satisfied by his sufferings which is obedientia crucis his obedience of the Crosse the Commandement by the perfect fulfilling therof which is obedientia Legis his obedience of the Law Now Bellarmine as I have heretofore shewed teacheth in his fifth chapter of his second booke that God accepteth in our behalfe the righteousnesse of Christ whereby he satisfied for us And in the tenth chapter that not ouâ—… righteousnesse doth satisfie for our sinnes but the righteousnesse of Christ which is imputed to us and to that purpose citeth Bernard For if one faith he dyed for all then all were dead that the satisfaction of that one might bee imputed to all as hee bare the sinnes of all § IV. Bellarmine his second and third argument both tend to prove that for the justification of a sinner there is no need
him our Saviour fitteth his answere and first to confute his errour and to let him understand that no man living who is but a meere man can be justified by inherent righteousnesse he telleth him that no man is good that is purely and perfectly just and therefore reproveth him for that hee thinking our Saviour to bee but a meere man as others were did call him good But in the second place to answere his question hee telleth him that if by his owne workes hee did hope to bee saved hee must doe those workes which God himselfe had commanded and so referreth him to the Coâ—…mandements of the Law of which God himselfe had said doe this and thou shall live which is the legall promise Levit. 18. 5. Rom. 10. 5. Gal. 3. 12. Thus our Saviour fiâ—…teth according to the Law his answere to the disposition of the party who was a justitiary But otâ—…erwise when our Saviour and his Apostles were a ked the like qâ—…estion they made answere according to he doctrine of the Goâ—…pell For our â—…aviour being asked Ioh. 6. 28. what shall wee doe that we may doe the workes of God answered vers 29. This is the worke of God that which he esteemeth in stead of all workes that ye beleeâ—…e in him whom hee hath sent for he that beleeveth hath fulfilled the Law Christ being the â—…nd of the Law to every one that beleeveth Rom. 10. 4. And the Apostle Paul being demanded of the Iaylour what must I doe to bee saved answereth beleeve on the Lord Iesus Christ and thou shalt bee saved Act. 16. 30 31. § XVI In the third place he alleageth testimonies out of the doctrine of the Apostles viz. Rom. 8. 13 17. 2 Tim. 2. 11 12. Iam. 2. 8. 2 Pet. 1. 11. 1 Ioh. 1. 9. Apoc. 3 21. Answ. The place cited out of S. Iames is no promise but a commendation if you fulfill the royall law ye doe well Of Rom. 8. 13 17 and 2 Tim. 2. 11 12. I spake before But concerning them and all others that are or may be alleaged there is a distinction of conditions to be held that either they import the cause of the thing promised which is salâ—…ation or happinesse or the proper markes and cognizances of such as shall be saved or are happy which doe not shew propter quid 〈◊〉 sunt vel servandi sed qualâ—…s beats sunt quales servandi Christ our alone Saviour is the onely cause of salvation and the onely foundation of our happinesse He is eternall life and whosoever hath him hath life eternall Faith is the only instrument whereby we receive Christ and therfore to it also is salvation ascribed in respect of the object which it doth receive As when it is said thy faith hath saved thee it is to be understood as if it were said Christ received by faith hath saved thee A condition therfore of receiving Christ by faith or of Christ received by faith betokeneth the cause but all other coâ—…ditions either of graces or of works doe not signifie the cause of salvation but the proper markes and cognizances of those which shall be saved And therfore prove that the markes aâ—…e or may be necessary by the necessity of presâ—…nce but not by necessity of efficiencie § XVII And this also may seâ—…ve to answere his fouâ—…th and fifth arguments His fourth is fetched from the Doctrine of the Prophets Ezek. â—…8 21 If the wicked shall turne from all his sins that he hath committed and shall keepe all my statutes and doe that which is lawfull and right he shall surely live That is if he shall turne from the wrong way into the right and goe on therein as sinne is an aberration and the errour of his way hee shall come to the end of his way which is salvation So that this condition is not the cause but the way Yea but saith Bellarmine in the same place to turne from righteousnesse and to breake the Commandements of God is a condition upon which dependeth the commination of death for if a righteous man turne from his righteousnesse and commit iniquity he shall surely die Therefore as the turning from righteousnesse unto sinne is the cause of death â—…o the turning from sinne to righteousnesse is the cause of life I answere that there is not par ratio there is no equality be tweene the sinne of the wicked and the righteousnesse of the godly Death is the due wages of sinne and sinne is the meritorious cause of death But eternall life is the free gift of God and not merited by our righteousnesse Sinne is of infinite demerit and so deserveth death eternall But not the obedience of any man but onely of Christ if it did merit at all â—…s or can be of infinite merit to deserve eternall life The sinnes of â—…he wicked are purely and perfectly evill but the righteousnesse of the reâ—…enerate is not purely and perfectly good The sinnes of the wicked are their owne workes wholly proceeding from themselves and to themselves the wages thereof is wholly and properly to be ascribed and imputed the good workes of the regenerate proceed from Gods free grace and therefore when they are rewarded God crowneth his owne graces in them and not their merits That which he babbleth concerning promises absolute and conditionall as if we held all the promises of the Gospell to bee absolute is a shamlesse and senselesse cavill Wee are so farre from saying that they be all aâ—…solute as if indifferently and without condition they promised salvation to all that we rather say they are all conditionall But we distinguish of conditions that some are from the cause as where the condition of faith is interposed and such conditions wee doe hold to bee necessary necessitate efficientiae some from other arguments and such are necessary onely necessitate presentiae § XVIII His fifth argument is taken from the condition of faith which we doe not deny to bee contained in the Evangelicall promise Now saith he by what words the Scripture requireth the condition of faith by the same or more cleare it teacheth the condition of fulfilling the Law to be required Answ. The condition of fulfilling the Law is required no where but in legall promises and is a condition by reason of the flesh impossible But in all these promises which hee citeth excepting that Matth. 19. 17. not the condition of fulfilling the whole Law is required but of some speciall duties betweene which and the condition of faith is great odds For faith relatively understood that is Christ received by faith saveth alone it alone entituleth us and giveth us right to salvation Aske of any particular duty to which salvation is promised will invocâ—…tion Rom. 10. 13 will suffering Rom. 8. 17 will any other duty or grace save a man or entitle him to salvation No one part of righteousnesse though it may be a proper marke of them that shall be saved can save a man
servant doing or rather but endeavouring to doe his duety is rewarded In these two the arguments are not the same A servant that doth not his duety deserveth punishment and his disobedience is the meritorious cause of his punishment But by doing his duety especially if it bee done unperfectly which is alwayes our case he doth not deserve reward and therefore if hee bee rewarded it is to be ascribed to his masters bounty and not to his desert Such an Antithesis the Apostle maketh betweene the reward of sinne and of godlinesse Rom. 6. 23. Death is the due wages of sinne but eternall life which is the reward of godlinesse is the free gift of God And further as I said before when I formerly answered this allegation In this and many other such conditionall speeches the antecedent is not the cause but a signe token or presage of the consequent If God have given you grace to mortifie the deeds of the flesh it is an evident token that you shall live If God hath adorned you with his grace it is to be presumed that he will crowne his owne grace with glory § IX And such is his seventh testimony p as before I have shewed Rom. 8. 17 18. The Spirit beareth witnesse with our spirits that we are the sonnes and heires of God and coheires with Christ if we suffer with him that wee may also bee glorified with him where is no relation at all of efficiency betwixt our sufferings and glory But Bellarmine will prove it first by the conditionall particle of which I spake in answere to the last argument which doth not as hee saith point out the cause but the evidence by which the holy Ghost doth assure us that wee are the sonnes and heires of God and coheires of Christ who shall bee glorified with him namely if we suffer with him Secondly from the reason which is added concerning the excesse of glory to our sufferings which to my understanding doth plainly confute it For if the sufferings of this life be not condigne as the Vulgar readeth it to the glory that is to come how should they merit it ex condigno as they arrogantly speake But the scope of the Apostle in this place is to encourage the faithfull to suffer for Christ which he doth by two arguments the one from the happy event which is assurance of glorification testified by the holy Spirit who testifieth unto us that if we have grace from God to suffer with Christ that we are the sonnes and heires of God and coheires of Christ who shall bee glorified with him Not that ouâ—… sufferings doe make us the sonnes and heires of God c. but that they are the signes and evidences by which the holy Ghost doth assure us that we are so The other from the disproportion betweene our sufferings from him and the glory which we shall have with him For the Aposâ—…le having weighed both resolveth for so hee saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that all the sufferings of this life are not comparable to that glory but of this place more hereafter § X. His eighth testimony Rom. 10. 10. with the heart wee beleeve unto righteousnesse and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation We see here saith he that faith sufficeth not to salvation because it is not true and entire in the heart unlesse thereto be added externall confession And it seemeth that the Apostle alludeth to that speech of our Saviour Matth. 12. 32 33. Him that confesseth me before men will I confesse before my Father and him that denyeth me before men will I deny before my Father that is in heaven Answ. All this we confesse that besides faith confession and many other graces and duties are necessary to salvation not as causes but as causae sine quibus non as I have often said which are no causes § XI His ninth testimony Matth. 25. 34 35. Come yee blessed of my Father possesse the kingdom prepared for you before the beginning of the world For I was hungry and you gave mee to eate c. Surely saith hee the reason which is rendred doth plainely shew that good workes are aliquo modo some way causes of salvation and that for them the kingdome of heaven is given Answ. Of this place I have spoken before when I shewed that the causes of salvation were noted vers 34. Come yee blessed of my Father inherit the Kingdome prepared for you from the foundation of the world And the reason which is rendred is taken from good workes not as the cause for which salvation is given but as the evidence according to which our Saviour judgeth § XII His tenth testimony is out of the Epistle of Saint Iames and it is twofold the former Iam. 1. 25. He that is not a forgetfull hearer but a doer of the worke this man shall bee blessed in his deed the latter Iam. 2. 14. what will it profit my brethren if a man say that he hath faith and have not workes will faith save him But how saith hee out of the former is a man blessed in his deed if his deeds have no relation to happinâ—…sse but affoâ—…diheir idle presence Answ. Wee confesse that good works have relation to happinesse as they are necessary unto it as the way as the causa sine qua non Neither doe I conceive how good works can be idle where they are present though they doe not merit that which infinitely exceedeth their worth And as touching the other place Iam. 2. We confesse also that that faith which is in profession onely and is void of good workes doth not save a man because it is an idle and dead faith This therefore proveth good workes to be necessary necessitate praesentiae but for necessity efficioncie there is no shew nor colour § XIII After those severall testimonies he appealeth to the whole Epistles of Peter Iohn Iames and Iude whose chiefe intention was to prove that to justified men good workes are necessary to salvation and that faith alone doth not suffice as some in these times out of the Epistles of Paul not well understood began to preach I answere that as the Apostles whom he nameth urge the necessity of good workes so doe all true preachers of the Gospell at this day yea Paul himselfe did urge it as much as any of them if not more But the necessity of efficiencie he may as soone prove out of our sermons as out of the writings of the Apostles § XIV To the Scriptures hee addeth the testimonies of the Fathers who as they censured for heretickes those which denyed workes to bee necessary unto salvation so themselves taught that they bee necessary To which both censure and doctrine of the Fathers wee doe most willingly subscribe And wee should greatly wonder how this great Master of Controversies could bee so idle so impertinent so frivolous a disputant but that as I said before these his discourses proving
resurrection apprehended by faith to them also he applieth the vertue and efficacie of Christs death and resurrection both to mortifie sinne in them and to raise them up to newnesse of life By this doctrine we may trie our selves whether we be reconciled redeemed adopted justified For hereby it shall appeare that God hath received us into his grace if he hath also endued us with his grace Chasidim as they are called in the Scriptures the favourites of God are usually translated his holy ones and all the faithfull even in this life are termed Saints Hereby it will appeare that we are redeemed from the guilt of sinne if we be also freed from the dominion of sinne Hereby it will appeare that we are adopted if 〈◊〉 be also regeneratech Hereby it will appeare that we are justified if we â—…e also in some measure sanctified But yet howsoever these graces â—…waies goe together and cannot be severed yet must we carefully distinguish betwixt the grace of God which is in himselfe and his graces which are in us betwixt the actions of Gods grace without us and the actions of his grace within us Wherefore though adoption and regeneration though receiving into grace and enduing with grace though redeeming from the guilt and purging in some measure from the corruption of sinne though justification and sanctification are alwaies unseparable companions yet we may not with the Papists confound them and so place the matter of justification and merit of salvation in our selves as they wickedly doe but we are religiously to distinguish them as they are in themselves truly and really distinguished to the praise of the glory that is the glorious praise of his grace not of that which is in us but of that which is in himselfe whereby he hath graciously accepted us in his beloved Ephes. 1. 6. § VI. Thirdly when we say it is an action of God imputing to a beleeving sinner c. We consider it not as a suddaine and momentany action which is of no continuance as if all our sinnes both past present and to come are remitted in an instant but as an act of God continued from our vocation wherein the grace of faith is begotten in us to our glorification which is the end of our faith For as this action of God is called the justification of a sinner so whiles we continue sinners we have still need to be justified And as we alwaies have sinne in this life so that it may not be imputed we have need that Christs righteousnesse should be imputed unto us and that as we sinne daily so Christ our advocate should continually make intercession for us that notwithstanding our manifold slippes whereinto through humane frailety we fall and notwithstanding those manifold infirmities and corruptions which remaine in us as the relikes of originall sinne we may be continued in the grace and favour of God by the continued imputation of Christs righteousnesse obtained by his continuall intercession for us For therefore doth he continue his intercession for us that our justification may bee continued to us and that as wee sinne daily so wee may daily seeke and obtaine pardon But if justification should so be wrought once and at once as that after that act wrought in an instance we should no more be justified nor no more neede remission of sinne then must we erroniously conceive that the sinnes which after the first moment of our justification we doe commit are actually remitted before they bee committed whereas God forgiveth onely sinnes past Rom. 3. 25. So shall we not onely set open a gap to all licentiousnesse for who will so feare to commit sinne as he ought or when he hath committed it so sue for the pardon thereof who is perswaded beforehand that it is already remitted but also shall open the mouthes of our adversaries who will be ready to say that we Protestants ought not to pray for remission of sinne because in our opinion as they say we need it not but to this calumniation of the Papist I have elsewhere answered § VII If it be said that it is a received opinion among many that justificatio simul semel fit that justification is wrought at once and but once I answere that that assertion is not to be admitted without distinction nor without good caution The distinction is this that there is a justification of a sinner before God in 〈◊〉 coelesti which properly is called justification and is that which here I have defined and there is a justification whereby a man already justified before God is justified in foro conscientiâ—… in the court of his owne conscience which is not properly justification it selfe but the assurance of it To this latter that assertion of but once and at once cannot in any good sense be applied For neither is the full assurance of our justification attained at once but by degrees wherein we are to labour and to give diligence to make as our election and calling so also our justification more and more sure unto us Neither is it given but once For by committing of any crime or any grievous sinne by spirituall desertions by the â—…orcible temptations of Satan this act of spirituall faith which we call assurance may be interrupted or lost for a time and yet by repentance by prayer and practise of pietie it may be recovered againe and therefore not given but once To the former indeed it may be applied in both parts but with a twofold caution first in respect of simul at once if it be understood as excluding degrees and not continuance Namely that we are not justified by degrees and as it were by little and little as though our justification were not perfect at the first For no sooner doth a man truly beleeve in Christ but the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to him and in and by that righteousnesse he standeth righteous before God as well at the first as at the last that righteousnesse of Christ by which he is justified whether first or last being most perfect Therefore the righteousnesse of justification cannot be increased neither doth our justification before God admit degrees either in one and the same person or yet in diverse men howsoever the assurance of justification and the worke of sanctification whereby we are to be renewed in the inner man day by day have degrees according to the degrees of our faith and according to the measure of grace received Secondly when it is said that we are justified before God semel but once that also may be admitted if by once be meant one continuall act For as we are regenerated but once because ut semel nascimur ita semel renascimur so faith which is wrought in our regeneration is given but once For that which Saint Iude saith verse 3. of faith once given is no lesse true of the habit than of the doctrine of faith which habit being once had is never utterly lost
a man is justified without justice is as absurd as to conceive that a man is cloathed without apparell For they that are justified are clothed with righteousnesse as having put on Christ whose righteousnesse is their wedding garment signified by that white and shining linnen which are the justifications of the Saints But there is no perfect righteousnesse but that which fulfilleth the Law and is fully conformable unto it it being the perfect perpetuall and immutable rule of righteousnesse Matth. 5. 18. therefore without the fulfilling of the Law either by our selves or by another for us there is no justification Now to the full satisfying and fulfilling of the Law since the fall of Adam two things are required not onely a perfect and perpetuall conformity to the Law to satisfie the commandement and to fulfill the condition of the legall promise Doe this and live but also a full satisfaction to the sentence of the Law by bearing the penalty therein denounced in regard of sinnes already committed Againe faith or the true doctrine of justification by faith doth not abrogate the Law but establish it But if it should teach justification without Christs fulfilling of the Law for us it should abrogate the Law and not establish it § III. Of the assumption there are two parts the former affirmative that by the whole righteousnesse of Christ the Law is fully satisfied and fulfilled for by his sufferings the penalty of the Law is fully satisfied for us to free us from hell and by his righteousnes both habâ—…tuall and actuall the commandements were fulfilled for us to entitle us unto heaven Neither of which we were able to performe for our selves for neither could wee satisfie the penalty but by everlasting punishment neither could wee fulfill the commandement but by a totall perfect and perpetuall obedience which to us by reason of the flesh is unpossible And this was the miserable estate wherein the Law did hold us both to bee accursed if but once and that in the least degree wee did breake it which the best of us often doe and sometimes in an high degree and to be excluded from justification and salvation if wee did not fully and perfectly fulfill it which since the fall hath beene impossible Wherefore as without imputation of Christs sufferings we could not bee freed from hell so without his obedience and perfect conformity to the Law imputed unto us wee cannot be justified or saved By the former our blessed Saviour hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law himselfe being made a curse for us by the latter hee maketh us partakers of the promised blessednesse by performing for us that righteousnesse which was the condition of the promise Doe this and live The negative part is that by the onely passive righteousnesse of Christ the Law is not fulfilled The Law indeed is thereby fully satisfied in our behalfe for the avoiding of the penalty therein threatned but not fulfilled in respect of the commandement for the obtaining of the blessednesse therein promised For the righteousnesse which is of the Law is thus described that the man which doth those things which are commanded shall live therein § IIII. Against this assumption divers exceptions are taken First that the Law is satisfied either by doing that which is commanded or by bearing the punishment which is threatned Answ. It is true in respect of the penall statutes of men but not in respect of Gods commandements in which there is not onely a penalty threatned but blessednesse also promised If man had continued in his integrity the Law might have beene satisfied by obedience onely but being fallen into a state of disobedience two things are necessarily required to the fulfilling of the Law the bearing of the penalty in respect of sinne already committed to escape hell and the perfect performing of the commandements which is the condition of the covenant Doe this and live to attaine to the life promised but neither alone will suffice to justification For neither will our obedience satisfie for the punishment as Bellarmine confesseth nor the bearing of the punishment performe the condition of the promise But both must concurre § V. Inst. I. But it will be said that whosoever are freed from hell are also admitted into heaven Answ. The reason thereof is because our Saviour who did beare the punishment to free them from hell did also fulfill the commandements to bring them to heaven But howsoever these two benefits of Christ doe alwayes concurre in the party justified as the causes thereof concurre in Christ who not onely did both obey and suffer but in obeying suffered and in suffering obeyed yet both the causes betweene themselves and the effects are to be distinguished For as it is one thing to obey the commandement another to suffer the punishment so it is one thing to be freed from hell by Christ his suffering the penalty another to be entituled to heaven by his fulfilling the commandements § VI. Inst. II. Yea but God is a most free Agent and therefore may if he will justifie men by the passive righteousnesse of Christ onely without fulfilling of the Law Answ. What God may doe if hee will I will not dispute but â—…ure I am that he justifieth men according to his will revealed in his word Wherein it is revealed first that God hath taken that course for the justifying and saving of sinners as serveth most for the illustration of the glory of his justice as well as of his mercy And therefore as in mercy he freeth none from hell for whom his justice is not satisfied so in mercy hee admitteth none to heaven for whom Christ hath not by his obedience merited the fame Secondly it is revealed that the judgement of God is according to the truth and therefore he justifieth none by his sentence but such as hee maketh just by imputation of Christs righteousnesse thereby not onely absolving them from their sinnes but also accepting yea constituting them righteous in CHRIST Thirdly that as wee are justified from our sinnes by the blood of Christ so we are made just by his obedience that as he was made finne for us so we were made the righteousnesse of God in him that as wee are reconciled unto God by the death of his Sonne so wee are justified and saved by his life by his life I say which he lived before his death in the dayes of his flesh and by the life which he lived and doth live after his death By the acts of his life before his death meritoriously by the acts of his life after his death as his resurrection his ascension his session at the right hand of his Father and intercession his comming againe to judgement hee saveth us effectually that Christ as hee was made unto us redemption so also righteousnesse that as hee came to deliver us from sinne so to bring
in everlasting righteousnesse Dan. 9. 24. § VII Inst. III. If we bee justified by Christ his fulfilling of the Law then wee are justified by a legall righteousnesse but wee are not justified by a legall justice but by such a righteousnesse as without the Law is revealed in the Gospell Answ. The same righteousnesse by which we are justified is both legall and Evangelicall in divers respects Legall in respect of Christ who being made under the Law that hee might redeeme us who were under the Law perfectly fulfilled the Law for us Evangelicall in respect of us unto whom his fulfilling of the Law is imputed And herein standeth the maine both agreement and difference betweene the Law and the Gospell The agreement that both unto justification require the perfect fulfilling of the Law the difference that the Law requireth to justification perfect obedience to be performed in our owne persons The Gospell propoundeth to justification the righteousnesse of God that is the perfect righteousnesse of Christ who is God performed for us and accepted in the behalfe of them that beleeve as if it had been performed in their own persons § VIII Our second reason As by the disobedience of the first Adam by which he transgressed the Law men were made sinners his disobedience being imputed to them so by the obedience of the second Adam whereby hee fulfilled the Law men are made righteous his obedience being imputed to them In answer to this argument two novelties are broached the former that as wee were made sinners by one act of disobedience committed by one man and that but once so we are justified by one act of obedience performed by one and that but once which was that oblation of Christ whereby hee but once offered himselfe Whereunto I reply first that betweene sinne whereby the Law is broken and obedience whereby the Law is fulfilled there is great ods The Law is broken by any one act of sinne for hee that offendeth in any one is guilty of all But the Law is not fulfilled by any one act of obedience but by a totall perfect and perpetuall observation of the Law for by the sentence of the Law hee is accursed whosoever doth not continue in all the things which are written in the booke of the Law to doe them But in no one act of obedience there neither is nor can bee a continuance in doing all the things that are commanded Secondly that although the obedience by which we are justified was but of one man yet it was not one act but as the Apostle calleth it in the verse going before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all that the Law requireth to justification The second Novelty is that neither Adam in sinning transgressed the Law nor our Saviour in his obedience to death obeyed the Law For neitheâ—… the commandement given to the first Adam concerning the forbidden fruit nor the commandement given to the second Adam concerning his suffering of death for us was any commandement of the Law no more than the commandement given to Abraham for the sacrificing of his sonne or to the Israelites for the spoiling of the Aegyptians but a speciall commandement Whereto I reply that although every thing which God commandeth in particular be not expressed in the Law yet wee have a generall commandement expressed in the Law that whatsoever God commandeth we must doe and if we doe it not we sinne and every sinne is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a transgression of the Law § IX Our third reason If Christ by his conformity to the Law fulfilled the Law for us then his obedience in fulfilling of the Law is accepted of God in our behalfe as if wee had fulfilled it in our owne persons but Christ by his conformity to the Law fulfilled the Law for us therefore his obedience in fulfilling of the Law is accepted of God in our behalfe as if wee had fulfilled it in our owne persons that is to say both his habituall and actuall righteousnesse is imputed to us The consequence of the proposition is necessary for if hee performed obedience for us and in our behalfe he performed it in vaine if it be not accepted for us and in our behalfe The assumption also is of necessary truth for first that Christ did fulfill the Law it is evident for himselfe professeth that he came to fulfill the Law Matth. 5. 17. that it became him to fulfill all righteousnesse Matth. 3. 15. that he did alwayes those things which please God Ioh. 8. 29. and the Scripture testifieth that not for himselfe but for us hee fulfilled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whatsoever the Law requireth to justification that his whole life was a perpetuall course of obedience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even untill his death which he performed not for himselfe for as hee was incarnate not for himselfe but for us men and for our salvation for it was the exinanition of himselfe so being incarnate he sanctificed himselfe for us and was made under the Law not for himselfe for that was a farther degree of humiliation that being man hee humbled himselfe to bee obedient even untill his death and therein also humbled himselfe to undergoe the death of the crosse The Apostle Rom. 10. 4. teacheth that Christ is thâ—… end that is the perfection 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Greeke Fathers speake that is complement of the Law to all that beleeve unto righteousnesse that is that hee hath fulfilled the Law for all beleevers in so much that all who truely beleeve have in Christ fulfilled the Law Upon which place Remigius writing saith Christus finâ—…â—…gis in completio legis Christ the end of the Law that is the fulfilling of the Law Theodoret. He that beleeveth in our Lord Christ hee hath fulfilled the scope of the Law and what that is Chrysostome sheweth For saith hee What did the Law intend To make a man just but it was not able for never any fulfilled it but this end our Saviour Christ hath more amply accomplished through faith if therefore thou beleevest in Christ thâ—… hast not onely fulfilled the Law but much more than it commanded for thou hast received a farre greater righteousnesse and what can that be but the righteousnesse of Christ And Photias whosoever therefore saith the Apostle beleeveth in Christ hee fulfilleth the Law Sedulius likewise hee hath the perfection of the Law who beleeveth in Christ. This therefore doth plainely prove that Christs obedience in fulfilling the Law is imputed to all that beleeve unto righteousnesse as if themselves had fulfilled it And this is the conceived doctrine of the Church of England that Christ satisfied the justice of God and redeemed us not onely by the oblation of his body and shedding of his blood but also by the full and perfect fulfilling of the
imputed as a full satisfaction for sinne the other by imputation of Christs perfect obedience as a sufficient merit of eternall life by the former we are freed from hell by the latter we are entituled to the kingdome of heaven Of them both the Apostle speaketh Rom. 5. that we are justified that is absolved from our sinne by the bloud of Christ. v. 9. and that wee are justified that is constituted just by his obedience vers 19. To this argument they answere by denying the antecedent saying that there are no parts of justification but that it wholly consisteth in remission of sinnes Indeed if it were the onely matter of justification as some of them teach and the entire formall cause of justification as others avouch of whom we shall speake in the next Chapter I say if both these opinions were true then I would confesse that the whole nature of justification doth consist in forgivenesse of sinne but whiles it is either but the matter as some say or but the forme as others or neither of both as I avouch it is a manifest errour to say that justification consisteth wholly in remission of sinnes Againe in every mutation though it be but relative we must of necessity acknowledge two termes tâ—…rminum à quo terminum ad quem the denomination being taken commonly from the terminus ad quem As in justification there is a motion or mutation from sinne to justice from which terme justification hath its name from a state of death and damnation to a state of life and Salvation But if justification be nothing else but bare remission of sinne then is there in it onely a not imputing of sinne but no acceptation as righteous a freedome from hell but no title to heaven To this they answere that to whom sinne is not imputed righteousnesse is imputed and they who are freed from hell are admitted to heaven I doe grant that these things doe alwayes concurre but yet they are not to bee confounded for they differ in themselves and in their causes and in their effects in themselves for it is one thing to bee acquitted from the guilt of sinne another thing to be made righteous as wee see daily in the pardons of malefactors in their causes for remission of sinne is to be attributed to Christs satisfactory sufferings the acceptation as righteous unto life to Christs meritorious obedience In their effects for by remission of sinne wee are freed from hell and by imputation of Christs obedience we have right unto heaven § XVII If unto justification there be required besides remission of sinne Imputation of righteousnesse then there are two formall causes of justification Answ. It followeth not for although there bee two tâ—…rmini in this mutation yet there is but one action and this one action is the onely forme of justification viz. imputation of Christs righteousnesse of which are two effects which also be the two parts of justification remission of sinne and acceptation as righteous as I said in the definition that justification is an action of God wherein hee imputing the righteousnesse of Christ to a beleeving sinner doth not onely absolve him from his sinnes but also accepteth of him as righteous and as an heire of eternall life § XVIII Notwithstanding this so evident truth some of the Divines of whom we spake when they would prove justification by the passive righteousnesse of Christ onely take this position for granted that justification is nothing but remission of sinne and hereupon inferre that seeing wee have remission of sinne onely by the bloud of Christ we are justified by his bloud onely And to this purpose they alleage many testimonies of Scriptures affirming that by the bloud of Christ and by his death and passion wee have remission of sinne to all which we readily subscribe But if there be any other places that seeme to ascribe unto the sufferings of Christ more than remission of sinnes as entrance into heaven and salvation c. such places are to be understood by a Synecdoche putting the chieâ—…e and most eminent part of his obedience for the whole Others labour to prove this assertion that justification is nothing but remission of sinne by testimonies and by reasons and to this purpose collect a multitude of testimonies of Protestant Divines who against the Papists have maintained that justification confisteth in remission of sinnes onely But this assertion as hereafter I shall shew is to be understood as spoken in opposition to the Papists who unto justification besides remission of sinnes require inward renovation or sanctification and therefore their meaning was to exclude from justification not imputation of righteousnesse which alwayes concurreth in the same act with remission of sinne and without which there can be no remission for by the same act of imputation of Christs whole and entire righteousnesse we have both remission of sinnes and acceptation unto life but to exclude renovation à ratione justificationis from the proper nature of justification as if they had said wee are not justified both by remission and renovation as the Papists teach but by remission without renovation that is in their meaning by remission onely and this is acknowledged by Bellarmine himselfe as hereafter shall bee shewed And forasmuch as by remission of sinne wee have an imputative righteousnesse for to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne to him he imputeth righteousnesse without workes as the Apostle proveth Rom. 4. 6 7. therefore when it is said that we are justified by remission onely and not by renovation it is all one as if wee said that wee are justified by imputation onely and not by infusion of righteousnesse § XIX Their chiefe argument to prove their assertion is this Remission is as well of the sinnes of omission as of commission As therefore he whose sinnes of commission are remitted is reputed as if hee had done nothing forbidden so whose sinnes of omission are remitted is reputed as if hee had left undone nothing that is commanded Now hee that is reputed as if hee had neither done any thing forbidden nor left undone any thing that is commanded hee is reputed as if hee had fulfilled the whole Law I answer by distinction if they consider remission of sinnes barely without imputation of righteousnesse as they must if they will make good their assertion then hee that hath onely remission of the sins both of commission and omission is freed from the guilt of both but not from the fault For notwithstanding such remission of his sinnes he is a sinner as having both committed what is forbidden and also omitted what is commanded Yet by remission or not imputation of sinne hee is freed from the punishment and a râ—…atu poenae from the guilt binding over to punishment as if hee had neither committed any thing forbidden nor omitted any thing commanded Hee therefore that hâ—…th remission is reputed as having neither committed any evill nor omitted any good not simply
that righteousnesse which is not in us but out of us in Christ which is absurd for as themselves expound the phrase Formall justice consisteth either in the qualities of the soule or in good actions that is it is either habituall or actuall so that it cannot stand in imputation by which wee can no more be just formally than wife rich alive by imputation of wisedome riches and life Wherefore I marvell how they could be so absurd as to conceive so absurdly of us But wee teach that Christs righteousnesse both habituall and actuall by which he was formally just is the matter and the imputation thereof is the forme of justification And so those very Authors upon whom they would father this assertion in expresse termes doe teach affirming that Christs obedience or fulfilling of the Law is the materiall cause of justification and the application or imputation thereof is the formall cause of justification We say then that the righteousnesse of Christ it selfe is not the formall cause of justification or that by which we are formally just but the imputation of it it selfe being the matter of justification that is to say that thing which unto justification is imputed Wherefore I shall not need to answere in defence of our assertion the arguments either of those Veteratores the Papists or these Novatores who both agree in this calumniation against us all tending to prove that wee are not formally juâ—… by that righteousnesse of Christ which is out of us in him which we doe not hold For the righteousnesse whereby a man is formaâ—…ly just is inherent in himselfe for what is more intrinsecall than the forme But Christs righteousnesse is not inherent in us no more than our sinne was inherent in him And yet as he was made sinne or a sinner by our sinnes not formally God forbid but by imputation so wee are made righteous by his righteousnesse not formally as we are justified or in our selves but in him viz. by imputation And againe as by Adams actuall transgrâ—…ssion which was transient and now hath no being we are made sinners that is guilty of sinne and damnation by imputation of his disobedience so likewise by Christs obedience which hee performed in the daies of his flesh and was proper to his owne person we are justified that is not onely freed from the guilt of sinne and damnation but also constituted just and entituled to the Kingdome of Heaven And yet we deny not but that as they to whom the guilt of Adams transgression is imputed are also by sinne inherent transfused from him by carnall generation formally made sinners so they to whom the obedience of Christ is imputed unto justification are also made formally just by an inchoated righteousnesse received by influence from Christ and infused by his spirit in their spirituall regeneration § III. In their opinion it selfe denying the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to justification they erre more dangerously than the Papists who are forced to confesse the imputation of Christs satisfaction for the maintenance of this maine errour they hold sixe others First that remission of sinne is the entire forme or formall cause of justification Secondly that justification is nothing else but remission of sinne Thirdly that no other righteousnesse concurreth to justification besides the remission of sinne no not the righteousnesse of Christ otherwise than it doth merit remission of sinne Fourthly that the righteousnesse by which we are justified is not the righteousnesse of Christ it selfe but a righteousnesse purchased by the death of Christ viz. remission of sinne Fifthly that not the obedience of Christ it selfe is imputed whether active or passive but the merit therof Sixthly that not the righteousnesse of Christ but the act of faith is imputed for righteousnesse All which before I saw the booke wherein these errours are broached I had plainely and fully confuted in this Treatise § IV. For as touching the two first and the maine errour it selfe I have proved both in the third Chapter of this booke briefly and in the whole fifth booke at large that the forme of justification is the imputation of Christs righteousnesse by which we are both absolved from our sinnes and also are in Christ accepted and made righteous and consequently that these two are the essentiall parts of justification viz. the not imputing or remission of sinne which God doth grant by imputation of Christs sufferings in respect whereof wee are said to be justified by his blood that is freed from the guilt of sinne and damnation and the imputation of Christs obedience by which wee are made or constituted righteous and are entituled to the kingdome of Heaven So that remission of sinne is not the forme and much lesse the entire forme of justification considered as an action of God but an effect of the forme because by imputation of Christs righteousnesse we have remission of sinne Neither is it the whole benefit of justification but a part thereof For although many of our Divines as hath beene said have taught that unto justification remission of sinnes is onely required yet their assertion as hath also beene shewed is to be understood as Bellarmine himselfe understandeth Calvin as spoken in opposition to the Papists who say that to justification concurre not onely remission of sinnes but also inward renovation or sanctification To contradict them our Divines have said that wee are justified by remission onely or not imputing of sinne wherewith alwayes concurreth imputation of righteousnesse and not by renovation or sanctification Their meaning therefore by the exclusive particle onely was to exclude not imputation of righteousnesse which unseparably accompanieth the not imputing of sinne as Saint Paul proveth Rom. 4. 6. 8. and Bellarmine himselfe confesseth but infusion of righteousnesse or renovation § V. The third is the same in effect with that which I fully confuted Cap. 4. and contradicteth their owne assertion who teach with us that we are justified by the whole course of Christs obedience for remission of sin is properly ascribed to Christs sufferings or his blood which cleanseth us from all our sinnes and not to his active obedience And justification is nothing as they say but remission of sinne whereupon it would follow that we are justified onely by Chriâ—…ts passive obedience which I have already disproved § VI. The fourth denying the righteousnesse of Christ it selfe to be our righteousnesse I have fully confuted in the fourth booke besides that which hath already beene alledged in the third chapter of this book that which is added concerning a righteousnesse purchased by the death of Christ is the same with that which I confuted Chap. 4. § 1. for our righteousnesse is not remission of sinne but that by which wee have remission not justification it selfe but that by which wee are justified For remission of sinne as well as justification it selfe is an action of God not imputing sinne and imputing righteousnesse
writing in Greeke but also the holy Apostles and Evangelists have received the same And therefore these words are no otherwise to be understood than as the translations of the said Hebrew words signifying no other thing than what the Hebrew words import which as I have shewed doe never signifie to make or to be made righteous by inherent righteousnesse § II. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used by the Apostle and by the Evangelist Luke sometimes as the translation of Tsiddiq in Piel as Luk. 7. 29. the people and Publicans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 justified God The Lawyer Luk. 10. 29. willing to justifie himselfe The Pharisies Luk. 16. 15. justified themselves before men And so is the word used sometimes by the sonne of Sirach as Ecclus. 10. 29. who will justifie him that sinneth against his owne soule Cap. 13. 26. alias 22. A rich man speaketh things not to be spoken and yet men justifie him Sometimes the Apostle useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the translation of Hitsdiq as alwaies he doth in the question of justification and alwayes as the action of God as Rom. 3. 26. who justifieth him that beleeveth in Iesus how vers 24. gratis without any cause or desert of justification in the party without workes that is without respect of any righteousnesse inherent in him or performed by him vers 28. who justifieth the Circumcision and uncircumcision that is both Iewes and Gentiles not of workes or by inherent justice but by and through faith vers 30. who justifieth the ungodly that is the beleeving sinner that worketh not Rom. 4. 5. and therefore not by inherent righteousnesse how then by imputing righteousnesse without workes vers 6. who Rom. 8. 30. whom he calleth he justifieth namely by faith and whom he justifieth hee also glorifieth using the word in the same sense vers 33. who can lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect it is God that justifieth who shall condemne where most manifestly the word is used as a judiciall word opposed to accusing and condemning Neither can any colour of reason be alleaged why the word in these places should signifie contrary to the perpetuall use both of it selfe and of the Hâ—…brew word whereof it is a translation to make righteous by righteousnesse inherent § III. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used sometimes as the translation not of the passive verbe but as of the Neuter in Cal as I have shewed before out of the Greeke translation of the 〈◊〉 So Ecclus. 7. 5. bee not just before God not wise before the king or as it is usually translated doe not justifie thy selfe before God So also in the new Testament Rom. 3. 4. cited out of Psalm 51. 6. where the Hebrew word is not a passive but a neuter And so Apoc. 22. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him that is just be just still As the translation of the passive it is often used But as it never signifieth to be made just by inherent justice as I will shew when I come to answere the objections of the Papists so it alwayes signifieth either to be declared or pronounced just or to bee absolved and made jusâ—… by imputation In the former sense wisedome is said to bee justified of her Children Luk. 7. 37. who vers 29. justified God Christ who is God was manifested in the flesh justified in the Spirit 1 Tim. 3. 16. Thus by our words we shall bee justiâ—…ed not made just formally or by inherent righteousnesse but in the sense opposed to condemnation For as by thy words thou shalt bee justified so by thy words thou shalt be condemned Matth. 12. 37. Thus not the hearers alone but the doers of the Law shall bee justified that is pronounced just Rom. 2. 13. and in this sense the faithfull are justified by workes that is declared approved and knowne to bee just Iames 2. 21 23. 24 25. cum Genes 22. 12. â—…n the latter sense Ecclesiast 1. 28. alias 22. the famous man Chap. 31. 5. The lover of Gold Chap. 23. 14. alias 11. The rash swearer shall not bee justified that is as it is in the Commination of the third Commandement shall not bee held guitlesse but most plainely Chap. 26. the last verse the huckster shall not bee justified from sinne that is not absolved from sinne nor accepted as righteous So Act. 13. 38 39. where most plainely to be â—…ustified from sinne doth signifie to be absolved or freed from the guilt of sinne and is used promiscuously with remission of sinne And this sense oâ—… freedome from the guilt is â—…ometimes extended to signifie a totall freedome as Rom. 6. 7. He that is dead is justified that iâ—… as Chrysostome and Oâ—…umenius expound it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is freed from sinne As these places are plainely repugnant to the Popish sense so none of the rest where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used doth favour it For either they import remission of sinnes and acceptation as righteoâ—…s as Luk. 18. 14. The Publican who had humbled himselfe and craved pardon went home justified that is obtained pardon and was accepted as righteous rather than the Pharisee who had justified himselfe or distinguish betweene justification and sanctification as 1 Cor. 6. 11. or exclude justification by inherent righteousnesse as Rom. 3. 20. Rom. 4. 2. 1 Cor. 4. 4. Gal. 5. 4. Or imply imputation as where we are said to be justified either by his blood as Rom. 5. 9. Or by faith as Rom. 5. 1. Gal. 3. 24. Or by grace as Tiâ—… 3. 7 Or both exclude the one and imply the other as Rom. 3. 24. 28. Gal. 2. 16 17. 3. 11. § IV. There remaine these two words which I mentioned before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used onely in two placâ—…s Rom. 4. 25. 5. 18. In the former it is said that Christ was delivered to death for our sinnes and was raised againe for our justificâ—…tion to whom as it is in the precedent verse righteousnesse shall bee imputed if wee beleeve on him that raised up Iesus our Lord from the dead for as our Saviour by his death and obedience untâ—…ll death merited for us remission of sinnes and the right to eternall life so by the acts of Christ restored to life as namely by his resurrection his merits are effectually applied and imputed to our justification For if Christ had not risen againe wee had beene still in our sinnes 1 Cor. 15. 17. In the latter place justification is in direct termes opposed to condemnation For as by the offence or transgression of one viz. the first Adam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the guilt which is to be supplied out of the sixteenth verse came upon all men the offspring of the first Adam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto condemnation so by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
justification by inherent righteousnesse he affirmeth that to be justified by Christ in that place doth signifie to bee made just by obtaining righteousnesse 〈◊〉 And this hee would prove by two reasons first out of those words jâ—…sti constistuentur multi many shall be constituted or made just From whence he argueth thus To bee constituted just is to bee made just by inherent righteousnesse To bee justified is to bee constituted just Rom. 5. 19. Therefore to bee constituted just is to bee made just by righteousnesse inherent Answ. Wee confesse that whosoever is justified is constituted yea is made just but the question is concerning the manner whether by infusion of righteousnesse or by imputation The assumption therefore is granted by us But the proposition is false and hath no ground in the Scriptures Yea the contrary may bee proved out of the place alleaged where justification or making righteous is opposed not to the corruption of sinne but to guilt and condemnation vers 16. and 18. And therefore he is said in this place to be justified or constituted righteous who being absolved and acquitted from the guilt of sinne and from condemnation is accepted as righteous unto life for as in the former part of the 19. verse many are said to be constituted sinners that is as the Greeke interpreters doe expound it and as appeareth by the former verses guilty of sin and obnoxious to condemnation by the disobedience of Adaâ—… meaning that one offence of his which we cal his fal which cannot be otherwise understood but by imputation so in the latter part many are said to be constituted just by the obedience of the second Adam that is absolved from the guilt of sinne and condemnation and accepted as righteous in Christ his obedience being communicated to them which cannot be by any other meanes but by imputation Neither can any reason be given why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bee constituted just should not be a judiciall word as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be justified In all other places this verbe whether it bee used in the good sense or in the bad signifieth no such thing as Bellarmine inferreth upon it For as in the bad it signifieth to convince or condemne as Gal. 2. 18. Iam. 4. 4. so in the good to approve or commend as Rom. 5. 8. 2 Cor. 4. 2. 6. 4. 7. 11. And accordingly the meaning of this place may be this as by the disobedience of the first Adam many were convicted and condemned as sinners that is guilty of sinne and damnation so by the obedience of the second Adam many shall bee approved and accepted as righteous His reason is from the antithesis of Adam to Christ which as I shall hereafter in his due place prove maketh wholly against him for if by the actuall disobedience of Adam imputed unto us wee were made sinners then by the obedience of Christ imputed unto us we are made righteous but the former is true therefore the latter Of this antithesis I am hereafter to speake more at large in the meane time this may suffice to maintaine and justifie our exposition of the word against Bellarmines cavils § II. But here Bellarmine frameth to himselfe a fourefold Objection of Calvin and Chemnitius proving that to justifie is a judiciall word signifying to absolve and to pronounce just Their first reason is because the Apostle opposeth justifying to condemning as Rom. 5. 16. 18. 8. 33. Therefore as God is said to condemne when he doth not acquit a man but pronouncing him guilty deputeth him unto punishment so on the contrary he is said to justifie when hee acquitteth and absolveth a man from guilt and pronouncing him just accepteth of him in Christ as righteous unto eternall life To this Bellarmine shapeth two answeres first That justification is rightly opposed to condemnation but is not therefore alwayes a judiciall word for even condemnation it selfe sometimes is the act of a Iudge appointing him to punishment who in judgement was found guilty and sometimes it is the effect of a fault which hath deserved punishment And so Adam hath condemned us and God condemneth but Adam hath not condemned us by judging us after a judiciall manner but by imprinting in us Originall sinne After the same manner saith hee justification sometimes is the act of a Iudge sometimes the effect of grace And both wayes doth Christ justifie us first as the second Adam by deletion of sinne and infusion of grace secondly in the day of judgment by declaring them just whom before he had made just Reply Iustification in this question and in the places alleaged is considered as an action of God and being referred to God it signifieth not to make just by infusion of righteousnesse but by sentence after the manner of a Iudge to absolve from sinne and to pronounce and accept as righteous as being opposed to condemning which being referred to God signifieth not to make sinfull but by sentence after the manner of a Iudge to pronounce the offendour guilty and to award him punishment But what either justifying or condemning may signifie being referred to other either persons or things it is not materiall so that it be confessed which cannot be denied that justifying being ascribed to God signifieth not to make righteous by infusion no more than condemning being attributed to God signifieth to make wicked by infusion but both are to bee understood as the actions of a judge who either pronouncing a man just absolveth him from guilt or pronouncing him guilty appointeth him to punishment This therefore was an impertinent shift of a subtle sophister having nothing to say to the purpose for whereas he applyeth his distinction of condemning and justifying to the first and second Adam as pertinent to the places alleaged I answer first that neither is considered as the act of the first or second Adam but as Bellarmine confesseth in his second answer as the actions of God the Iudge secondly that although in some sense the first Adam may bee said to have condemned us as the second Adam is truely said Esai 53. 11. to justifie us yet both is to bee understood of the guilt of sinne brought upon us by the one and taken away by the other For as the first Adam by his transgression may be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have condemned us because hee hath inwrapped us in the guilt of his sinne and so made us guilty of death and obnoxious to the â—…entence of condemnation that transgression of his being imputed us being in him as the root so the second Adam may truely be said to justifie us who are in him both as a surety in taking upon him our guilt and paying our debt for us Esai 53. 11. and also as our intercessour and advocate pleading for us that by imputation of his righteousnesse we may be absolved from our sinnes and accepted as righteous in him § III. His second answer is that although
a prayer for the justification or sanctification of the wicked that his sinne may bee no more as Bellarmine absurdly expoundeth it dicet peccatum fuisse non esse but is a propheticall imprecation against the wicked that God would break their arme that is their power and strength and that when he as a judge should inquire into their wickednesse they should not be found according to that Prov. 10. 25. he shall be no more that is as Augustine expoundeth it that the wicked when he is judged shall perish for his sinne And so Vatabius make inquiry into his sinne thou shalt not finde him neither doth the Psalmist say non invenietur ipsum scil peccatum sed non invenietur ipse scilicet peccator not it but he shall not be found § VI. For the perfection of righteousnesse hee alleageth three places two out of Ephes. 5. vers 8. Yee were sometimes darkenesse but now light in the Lord where the abstract Light is put for the concrete Lightsome as being inlightned as the Children of Light not that they are that light in which there is no darkenesse Neither is it said that we are in our selves Light but notwithstanding that darkenesse which remaineth in us wee are Light in the Lord. The second place is Ephes. 5. 26 27. where it is said that Christ did give himselfe for his Church that he might sanctifie and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word that hee might present it to himselfe a glorious Church not having spot or wrinckle or any such thing but that it should be Holy and without blemish In which words there is no mention of justification but of sanctification which in this life is begun and increased by the worke of the Spirit in the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments that at the Marriage of the Lambe it may bee presented unto him a glorious Church not having spot or wrinckle c. Wherefore Augustine That which I said saith he that God hath chosen unto himselfe a glorious Church I did not therefore speake it because now it is altogether such though no doubt she was chosen that she might be such when Christ who is her life shall appeare for â—…en she also with him shall appeare in glory for which glory she is called a glorious Church And againe wheresoever I mentioned the Church not having spot or wrinckle it is not so to bee taken as though now it were but because it is prepared to be such when she also shall appeare glorious And the same answer will serve for the third place cited out of the Canticles 4. 7. Tota pulchraes macula non est in te thou are all faire there is no spot in thee unlesse perhaps he speake of the beauty of the Spouse adorned in her justification with the perfect righteousnesse of Christ for of her Sanctification which is but begun in this life it is not true But the Papists are without shame who apply such texts of Scripture to the now Church of Rome § VII Besides these places of Scripture Bellarmine saith many other very weighty arguments might bee brought but hee hath already produced them in his first booke De Baptismo cap. 13. which when they shall call come to bee weighed will be found light enough For those places which speake of the efficacie of Baptisme in washing cleansing and taking away our sinnes prove not that in justification sinnes are utterly abolished For in Baptisme is sealed to them that are Baptized yea and conferred to the faithfull the benefits not onely of justification but also of sanctification And therefore as it is the Sacrament of remission of sinne and the seale of that righteousnesse which is by faith so it is called the Laver of regeneration wherein we are Baptized into the similitude of Christ his death and resurrection And therefore though in Baptisme sinne were wholly taken away as well in respect of the corruption as of the guilt yet it would not follow that in justification there is a Totall deletion of sinne But neither in Baptisme is there a totall abolition of sin seeing it is manifest that originall sinne which is called the flesh the old man and evill concupiscence remaineth in all the faithfull though in some measure mortified yet never fully and altogether extinguished in this life And although the Papists for maintenance of their severall errors viz. of justification by inherent righteousnesse of the perfect fulfilling of the Law of merit of works of supererogation doe maintaine that concupiscence remaining in the faithfull after Baptisme is not a sinne and the Councell of Trent hath denounced Anathemà against them that shall say it is a sinne yet it is manifest not onely by the testimony of antiquity and evident reasons which I could produce if I would runne into another controversie but also by the doctrine of the Apostle who doth not onely in many places expressely call it a sinne and describeth it as a sinne but also setteth it forth as the mother of sinne the sinning sinne which because it taketh occasion by the Commandement forbidding lust to worke in men all manner of evill concupiscence is not only convinced to be a sinne but also to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exceedingly sinnefull § VIII And not only habituall concupiscence in generall which is the body of sinne and the body of death in respect of which sinne the body of the faithfull is said to be dead Rom. 8. 10. is sinne but also the severall members and branches thereof which remaine even in the best are so many habituall sinnes as a spice at the least of pride selfe-love carnall security infidelity hypocrisie envy worldly and carnall love of pleasure profit preferment and glory in this world c. Which though they bee not imputed to the faithfull yet in themselves are sins as being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 swervings from the Law of God not onely as defects of righteousnesse which were enough to make them sinnes but as positive vices Neither is it to be doubted but that as the acts of pride and other habituall vices remaining even in the best are sinnes so much more the vices themselves from which they proceed are sinnes and are by the same Commandement of the Law forbidden Now whatsoever is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sinne For as every sinne is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so every 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a sin that being a perfect definition of sinne as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth Non potuit rectius brevius definiri peccatum quà m ut à S. Ioanne fuit definitum illis verbis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But all evill concupiscence both habituall and actuall both in generall the body of sinne and in particular the severall branches being so many habituall sinnes in whomsoever they are found even in the most regenerate are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aberrations from the
law of God Therefore all evill concupiscence whatsoever in whomsoever remaining is a sinne § IX Yea but concupiscence is no sinne unlesse the Will consent unto it Then say I not a sinne in infants not baptized But the Law doth not say non consenties concupiscentiis sed omninò non concupisces thou shalt not consent to concupiscences but thou shalt not have any evill concupiscence at all And it is most evident that the concupiscence forbidden in the tenth Commandement is such as goeth before the consent of will For it is such as Saint Paul himselfe had not knowne to be sinne if the Law had not said Non concupisces thou shalt not covet But such concupiscences as have the consent of the will the very Heathen knew to bee sinnes And the Papists themselves must acknowledge them to be forbidden in the former Commandements unlesse they will deny the Law of God to be spirituall and preferre the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 corrupt interpretations of the Elders of the Iewes before the exposition of the Lawgiver himselfe Matth. 5. True therefore is that which some Writers cite out of Augustine that Originall sinne is remitted in Baptisme not that it be not but that it be not imputed unto sin Here Bellarmine takes on and saith that Luther first falsified this testimony of Augustine and that all who have followed him have continued the same fault though they have beene told of it A great accusation if true Augustines words in answere to an objection which the Papists cannot answer how can originall sinne bee transmitted from regenerate parents if in Baptisme it be wholly taken from them are these I answer saith he dimitti concupiscentiam in baptismo non ut non sit sed ut in peccatum non imputetur Where Augustine speaking of the traduction of originall sinne calleth it as his manner is Concupiscence in stead whereof some of our Writers have said sinne both Augustine and they meaning nothing else but originall Now that Augustine by that which he calleth Concupiscence meant sinne hereby appeareth first he saith it is remitted in Baptisme and remission is of debts onely and of sinnes as debts secondly because he saith it is remitted not that it should not bee any longer but that though it be a sinne yet it should not be imputed unto sinne for nothing is wont to be imputed unto sin by God but that which is sinne Where by the way wee may observe that in Augustines judgement remission of sinne is not the utter deletion of it that it bee no more but the not imputing of it For whereas the Papists for a poore shift and evasion say that Concupiscence is called sinne not because it is a sinne sed quia expeccato est ad peccatum inclinat this hindereth not its being a sinne but rather setteth forth the greatnesse of this evill as having all the respects of evill in it being both a sinne and a punishment of sinne and the cause of all other sinnes aâ—… Augustine saith Concupiscentia carnis adversus quam bonus concupiscit Spiritus sc. in renatis peccatum est poena peccati causa peccaâ—…i § X. But howsoever Bellarmine letteth passe as well he might his other arguments alleaged in his Booke of Baptisme as impertinent to this present question yet one of them hee hath thought good not to omit as being in his conceit unanswerable which notwithstanding I have not onely answered elsewhere but also have used it as an invincible argument to prove justification by imputation of Christs righteousnesse viz. the argument taken from the antithesis of Adam to Christ Rom. 5. 19. which Bellarmine here straineth beyond the extent of the antithesis made by the Apostle In other places Bellarmine hath thus argued As through Adams disobedience we were made sinners so through Christs obedience wee are made righteous but through Adams disobedience we were made truely sinners namely by unrighteousnesse inherent and not onely by imputation Therefore through the obedience of Christ we are made truly righteous namely by righteousnesse inherent But here to serve his present turne he altereth both the assumption and the conclusion The assumption for where before he said not onely by imputation here he saith not by imputation The conclusion for first in stead of concluding that wee are by the obedience of Christ made inherently just which we confesse though not intended by the Apostle in that place he concludeth that the obedience of Christ hath truly taken away and wiped out or abolished all our sinnes And secondly that he hath taken away our sinnes non imputaâ—…ivè sed verè not by imputation but truly His former argument I retorted after this manner As through Adams disobedience wee were made sinners that is guilty of death and damnation so by Christs obedience wee are made just that is absolved from that guilt and accepted as righteous unto eternall life But by imputation of Adams disobedience we were made sinners Therefore by imputation of Christs obedience wee are made righteous The assumption that we were made sinners by imputation of Adams disobedience I proved as by other arguments so by Bellarmines owne confession in other places Secondly I have acknowledged it to bee true that as we are made truely sinners through Adams disobedience not onely by imputation of Adams sinne but also by transfusion of both that privative and positive corruption which by that disobedi ence he contracted so we are made truly just through the obedience of Christ not onely by imputation of his obedience but also by infusion of righteousnesse from him But though we be truly made just by righteousnesse inherent yet it followeth not that we are in this life made perfectly just Neither doth it follow that because Christ doth free us from the dominion of sin we are therfore freed wholly from the being of sinne in us neither that if we be freed from sinne by imputation we are not freed truly For the Apostle useth these termes promiscuously remitting of sinne and not imputing of sinne justifying and imputing righteousnesse And as Christ was truly and really made a sacrifice for sinne in our behalfe so wee are truly and indeed made the righteousnesse of God in him Thus have I proved that neither remission of sinne is the abolishing of sinne nor justification all one with sanctification and that the Papists by confounding justification and sanctification and of these two making but one have utterly taken away and abolished out of their Divinity that great benefit of our justification A TREATISE OF IVSTIFICATION THE THIRD BOOKE Concerning Justification or saving Grace CAP. I. What is meant by the word Grace in the Question of Iustification § I. THE second Capitall errour of the Papists in the Article of justification is concerning justifying and saving grace For when as the holy Ghost would note unto us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first moving cause or motive
the gifts of grace bestowed on them for the good of others Deâ—…t 33. 8. 2 Chron. 6. 41. Psal. 4 4. 132. 6. 16. To which purpose 〈◊〉 saith wel God loveth all things which he hath made and among them he loveth more the reasonable creatures and among them hee loveth more amply those who are the members of his onely begotten Sonne and much more his onely begotten himselfe the sonne of his love And generally by how much the better any man is than others it is an evidence that hee is so much graced and favoured of God the grace and favour of God being the cause of their goodnesse and consequently the greater favour of greater goodnesse § X. Fifthly it is saith he compared to essence which is given by creation hence it is that we are said to be created in Christ Eph. 2. 10. and to be a new creature Gal. 6. 15. But that by which we are called creatures is inward and inherent in us Answ. That whereby wee are created anew according to the image of God in true holinesse and righteousnesse is the grace not of justification for wee are created to good workes which in the same place are opposed to grace and are excluded from justification but of regeneration and sanctification which we acknowledge to be inwardly wrought by the holy Spirit in those that are justified by the gracious favour of God through faith But who would thinke that the Papists were so blinded with malice as either to perswade themselves or to goe about to perswade others that wee deny the graces of sanctification to bee inherent and affirme that wee are sanctified by such a righteousnesse or holinesse as is without us § XI Finally saith he it is compared to light 2 Cor. 6. 14. What followship hath light with darkenesse Eph. 5. 8. Ye were sometimes darkenesse but now you are light in the Lord. 1 Ioh. 2. 9. He that saith that hee is in the light and hateth his brother is in darkenesse But light doth not make a body lucidum unlesse it be inherent neither doth it suffer darkenesse with it How then 〈◊〉 a justified man bee said not onely to be â—…ucidus lightsome but also light in the Lord whereas before he was darke if still the darkenesse of sinne be inherent iâ—… him and the light of grace abide without Answ. Wee are called light in the abstract by a metonymie either because we are in the light which is not inherent in us being either God or the favor of God which is the state of grace or because of that light which is in us which is the grace not of justification but of regeneration and is compared to light both in respect of the inward illumination of the soule and also of the externall sanctification of the life shining forth to others of which our Saviour speaketh Mat. 5. 16. Let your light viz. of your godly conversation so shine before men that they seeing your good workes may glorifie your Father that is in heaven But where he saith there can be no darkenesse in him that is light it is as much as if hee should say that there can be no sinne in him that is sanctified But he should remember that God alone is light in whom there is no darkenesse 1 Ioh. 1. 5. and that in the best of us there is darkenesse that is the flesh even a body of sin and of death as well as light that is the Spirit Gal. 5. 17. Rom. 7. 14 17 20 23 24 25. and that hee who saith hee hath no sinne which is the case of all justified yea of all baptized and of all absolved and absolute Papists he is a Iyar and there is no truth in him 1 Ioh. 1. 8. And this was his fourth argument containing sixe petite proofes CHAP. V. His fifth argument from Rom. 5. 5. answered § I. FOr having no more places where grace is named to proove justifying grace to bee inherent hee flyeth to Rom. 5. 5. where not grace but the love of God is mentioned That grace saith he wherby the Apostle saith wee are justified is said also to be charity diffused in our hearts by the holy Ghost which is given unto us The words are because the love of God or Gods love is effused or powred forth c. But here now the question is first whether by the love of God in this place is meant the love whereby God loveth us or that love whereby wee love God And secondly if that love of God whereby wee love him should be meant how is it proved that that love of ours is Gods justifying grace For this latter though wee constantly deny it Bellarmine goeth not about to prove but taketh for granted it being the maine point in question which cannot be proved out of this or any other place As touching the former our Divines doe hold that by Gods love in this place is meant that love whereby God loveth us and not that whereby wee love God The Papists hold the contrary which Bellarmine endeavoreth to proove by the testimony of Augustine and two weake proofes out of Rom. 8. § II. The testimony of Augustine hee urgeth very sophistically as if wee had no better proofe to oppose to the testimony of Saint Augustine than the authority of our owne writers or as if we might not differ from Augustine in expounding some place of Scriptures unlesse we will preferre our selves before him when notwithstanding the Popish writers in expounding the Scriptures differ from Augustine as oft as wee But to the Testimony of Augustine who saith that the love which is said to bee shed in our hearts is not that love whereby God loveth us but that whereby we love God we oppose first the authority of those Writers who understand this place of the love of God both actively wherewith he loveth us which is the same with his saving grace and also passively whereby he is loved of us which is a notable fruit of his saving grace or of either of them both indifferently as Origâ—…n Sedulius Haymo Anselmus Remigius Bruno Thomas Aquinas Dominicus à Soto Pererius Disput. 2. in Rom. 5. Cornelius à Lapide Secondly the authority of those who understand this love to be that wherewith God loveth us As of Ambrose who saith wee have the pledge of Gods love in us by the holy Ghost given unto us for that the promise is faithfull the holy Ghost given to the Apostles and to us doth prove and doth confirme our hope and that he might commend the love of God in us that because it is impossible that those who are beloved should be deceived he might make us secure concerning the promise because both it is God who hath promised and they are deare to him to whom he hath promised Of Chrysostome who saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whom Theophylact followeth from that love which God sherved towards us Of Oecumenius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good works but that wherby he loveth us § V. Now let us come to the words which follow which as Cornelius à Lapide confesseth Valde favent doe very much favour our exposition wherein the Apostle sheweth how this love of God whereon our hope c. is grounded is both manifested and assured unto us It is manifested by this verse 6. that when wee were of no strength yea dead in our sinnes the Son of God dyed for us for so saith the Apostle Eph. 2. 4 5. God who is rich in mercie for his great love wherewith he loved us even when wee were dead in our sinnes hath quickened us together with Christ by whose grace wee are saved which wonderfully setteth forth the love of God towards us for scarcely as it is vers 7. for a righteous man will one dye And greater love no man hath than this that a man lay downe his life for his friend Ioh. 15. 13. But God saith the Apostle vers 8. commendeth his love towards us even that love mentioned verse 5. in that whiles wee were yet sinners and by our sinnes his enemies Christ dyed for us It is assured by an argument from the lesse to the greater For if when we were sinners we were redeemed and justified by the bloud of Christ much more being justified wee shall be saved from wrath through him For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne much more being reconciled wee shall bee saved by his life I conclude therefore that notwithstanding the testimony of Augustine which as himselfe confesseth deserveth no credit further than it is warranted by the authority of Gods word or sound reason by the love of God in this place is meant Gods love towards us I come to his two other arguments § VI. The former which is a very weake one is by paralleling that place with Rom. 8. 15. For saith hee the same Apostle speaking of the same spirit given unto us saith You have received the Spirit of adoption of sonnes by which we cry Abba Father Now saith hee wee cry Abba Father by that charity whereby we love God not by that whereby he loveth us Which reason if it bee reduced into a syllogisme will not conclude his assertion but the erroneous opinion of Lombard the master of sentences which Bellarmine himselfe elsewhere confuteth namely that the charity whereby wee love God is the holy Ghost That whereby wee cry in our hearts Abba Father is the holy Ghost By that charity wherewith wee love God we cry in our hearts Abba Father Therefore that Charity wherewith wee love God is the holy Ghost This conclusion Bellarmine knoweth to bee false Therefore either the proposition is false or the assumption for it is impossible that a false conclusion should bee inferred from true premisses in a formall syllogisme as this is But the proposition is the Apostles both Rom. 8. 15. and Gal. 4. 6. therefore the assumption is false Neither is charity that fruit of the holy Ghost whereby the Spirit of adoption causeth us to cry Abba Father but faith For although by charity wee may bee declared or knowne to bee the sonnes of God yet wee become the sonnes of God not by charity but by faith Ioh. 1. 12. Gal. 3. 26. And consequently not by charity but by faith wrought in us by the Spirit of adoption testifying with our Spirits that wee are the sonnes of God the said spirit maketh us to cry in our hearts Abba Father § VII His second proofe is out of Rom. 8. 10. where it is said that by justifying grace we doe live The body indeed is dead by reason of sinne Spiritus autem vivit propter justificationem as the vulgar Latine readeth but the Spirit liveth because of justification But wee cannot well be said to live by the externall favour of God seeing nothing is more inward than life Answ. In this argument nothing is sound for first it proveth not the point for which it is brought viz. that by the love of God Rom. 5. 5. is meant our love of God Neither is it said Rom. 8. 10. that wee live by justifying grace for neither is justifying grace mentioned but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 justice neither is it said that we live by it though it bee true that by justifying faith we live but that the Spirit is life propter justificationem for or by reason of righteousnesse And further it is well said that our Spirit liveth the spirituall and eternall life by the gracious favour of God which is out of us in him by which wee are saved as also for and by reason of the righteousnesse and merits of Christ which also are out of us in him Neither doth it follow that because life is inward that therefore it propter quod for which or by reason whereof wee doe live should also be inward § VIII But to let passe his impertinent allegation of this place and to explaine the true meaning thereof which is to set downe in this verse and that which followeth two priviledges of those in whom Christ dwelleth by his Spirit the one in respect of the soule vers 10. that howsoever by reason of sinne the body is dead that is mortall or subject to death yet the soule is life that is designed unto life by reason of righteousnesse The other in respect of the body vers 11. that if Christ dwell in us by his Spirit then hee which raised up Christ from the dead shall also by the same Spirit quicken that is raise up unto life eternall our mortall bodies Now as our bodie is dead that is subject to death by reason of Adams sinne in whom as the roote all sinned so our soule is life or intituled to life by reason of Christs righteousnesse in whom as our head wee satisfied the justice of God The sinne of the first Adam and the righteousnesse of the second being both communicated unto us by imputation And this is all that Bellarmine hath alleaged to prove that justifying grace is inherent all which is as good as nothing CAP. VI. The use of the word Grace in the writings of the Fathers § I. HAving shewed how the word grace is used in the Scriptures something is to be added concerning the use thereof in the writings of the Fathers whose authority the Papists are wont to object against us Howbeit as in the Scriptures so also in the Fathers there are two principall significations of the word Grace the one proper signifying the gracious favour of God in Christ by which they acknowledge us to be elected called justified and saved The other metonymicall signifying the gift of grace and namely the grace of regeneration or sanctification which in the Scriptures is called the Spirit opposed to the flesh and the new Man or new creature which is renewed and as it were recreated according to the Image of God
sanctus every godly man shall pray unto thee Our Saviour taught his owne Apostles and all other Christians to pray daily for remission of sinne Every one saith Cyprian is taught peccare se quotidie dum quotidie per peccatis jubetur orare that he sinneth daily seeing he is commanded to pray daily for his sinnes Therefore all even the best of us are sinners Fifthly whosoever doth that evill which he would not and doth not that good which hee would is a sinner both in respect of commission and omission but such is the condition of the best even of the Apostlâ—… himselfe Rom. 7. 15. 19. for so he saith vers 25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I my selfe Sixthly whosoever hath sinne is a sinner All men have sinne and that I prove thus Whosoever is a lyar himselfe and maketh God a lyar that saith he hath no sinne he undoubtedly is a sinner But every man though he were as holy as the beloved Apostle and Evangelist Saint Iohn is a lyar himselfe and maketh God a lyar that saith he hath no sinne for if wee saith he including himselfe say we have no sinne wee deceive our selves and the truth is not in us 1 Iohn 1. 8. if we say that we have not sinned we make him a lyar and his word is not in us vers 10. Therefore every man though hee be as holy as Saint Iohn himselfe is a sinner Seventhly whosoever is free from sinne is also free from death No mortall man is free from death Therefore no mortall man is free from sinne CHAP. III. The question concerning the imperfection of inherent righteousnesse further discussed § I. TO contradict this argument that we are not justified by righteousnesse inherent because it is unperfect Bellarmine indeavoureth to prove that it is perfect both in respect of habituall and actuall righteousnesse But in both hee useth to dispute Sophistically in the first because some men have beene indued with perfect righteousnesse in the second because some good works of the just are purely and perfectly good For though both these assertions were true as they are not yet would they not conclude justification by inherent righteousnesse For first as touching the persons the question is not whether some choice men in some part of their life after they have beene good and long proficients doe attaine to some perfection but whether they and all others when they are first justified are endued with perfect justice for if they be not then endued with perfect inherent righteousnesse they are not justified by it Now justification by habituall righteousnesse which they call their first justification is incipientium of incipients and themselves distinguish Christians into three rankes that some are incipients some proficients some perfect But incipients are such as be infants and babes either in respect of age when being baptized in their infancie are as they teach justified or in respect of religion being new converts But to imagine that either infants which have not so much as the use of reason nor are as yet capable of the habits of Faith Hope and Charity and much lesse are able to produce the Acts to Beleeve to Hope to Love or new converts who are like Babes to bee fed with Milke are indued with perfect righteousnesse is a great absurdity § II. Yea but saith Bellarmine the workes of God are perfect Deut. 32. 4. habituall righteousnesse is the worke of God therefore it is perfect Answ. The workes of God are either immediate and such as hee worketh at once or else mediate which hee worketh by degrees The former are perfect at the first according to their kinde as were the workes of creation The latter are not perfect at the first but by degrees are brought to perfection as the worke of procreation or carnall generation and of Spirituall Re-creation or Regeneration Adam was the immediate Worke of GOD created at once and therefore perfect in his kinde at the first Seth also was the Worke of GOD not immediate by creation but mediate by Procreation being first begotten by his parents and conceived then formed in the wombe then borne then growing from age to age untill hee came to bee a perfect man So it is in the Spirituall Re-creation For wee are the workemanship of God created unto good workes but we are not perfect Christians at the first For we are first begotten by the incorruptible seed of Gods Word receiving as it were the seeds of Gods graces at the first being but as Embryons in the wombe untill Christ bee formed in us And when wee are borne a new wee are at the first but as new borne Babes who are to desire the sincere milke of the worke that we may grow thereby and afterwards stronger meats that wee may grow more and more and then not contenting our selves with that measure of growth which wee have attained unto must still strive towards perfection being from day to day renewed in the inner man untill we come to be adult growne men or as the Apostle speaketh perfecti and when we are such because alwayes in this life we are in our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or growing age receiving onely the first fruits of the Spirit wee must imitate the Apostle Paul who though he farre excelled the most perfect among us acknowledged that he had not attained to perfection but did strive towards it exhorting all others who are perfect that is adulti or growne men to be of his minde that is that they should acknowledging their imperfection still more and more strive towards perfection § III. As touching actuall righteousnesse hee dealeth also Sophistically for first where hee should prove that the works of the faithfull are perfect or purely and absolutely good he proveth that they are truely good and not sinnes but especially when he should prove that all the workes of the faithfull or righteous are purely and perfectly good he proveth that some are As though a man who is not onely guilty of many sinnes and infected with manifold corruptions and infirmities but also in respect of his former sinnes obnoxious to damnation could bee justified by some good workes among many not good But this is a most erroneous conceit of the Papists who hold that every good worke proceeding from charity doth absolutely deserve heaven even as well as any evill worke committed against charity deserveth hell As though by one act of charity the whole Law were fulfilled as well as by one act committed against charity the whole Law is broken Hee that transgresseth one Commandement though it bee but once is guilty of all But hee doth not fulfill the Law and much lesse can bee justified by his obedience whose obedience is not totall perfect and perpetuall It is true that a faithfull man may bee justified that is declared and approved to be just by some one or more good workes as Abraham
the other part of justification Reply we doubt not but the Scriptures make mention of both these benefits sometimes severally and sometimes joyntly which though in use and practice they alwayes goe together yet they must bee carefully distinguished And howsoever the Scriptures often make mention of Sanctification as well as of justification yet no where doe they make Sanctification a part of justification This Bellarmine should have proved and not have craved Neither is it to bee doubted but that if forgivenesse of the guilt and punishment concurre unto justification as a part thereof renovation or infusion of righteousnesse being the other part as Bellarmine here affirmeth theâ—…e are two actions and two formall causes of justification which themselves utterly deny And therefore they must bee forced to acknowledge these two actions having distinct formes to bee justification whose forme is imputation and sanctification whose forme is infusion of righteousnesse § VIII Finally saith he from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses signifieth that the observation of the Law neither by the strength of nature nor by helpe of the Law alone presumed doth justifie not because the true observation of the Law is not righteousnesse but because before remission of sinne the Law cannot be kept Reply By the observation of Law is meant all obedience and righteousnesse inherent whatsoever prescribed in the Law whether it goe before faith and justification or follow after For before as Bellarmine truly saith the Law cannot be fulfilled neither can there be any true righteousnesse And that obedience which is performed after though it be a righteousnesse begun in us and be not onely accepted in Christ but also graciously rewarded yet it cannot satisfie for our former sinnes nor justifie us from them That which Bellarmine addeth I admit with some small qualification as making for us For God saith he when by the merits of Christ he reconcileth any man hee doth withall forgive his sinnes so saith the Apostle 2 Cor. 5. 19. which is all one as if Bellarmine had said when God justifieth a man not imputing his sinne and accepting of him as righteous in Christ then hee infuseth charity by which he may keepe the Law which is all one as if he had said when God hath justified a man he doth also Sanctifie him This saith he is that which Saint Augustine so often repeateth and wholly maketh for us opera non prâ—…cedere justificandum that workes goe not before as causes of justification sed sequi justificatum but follow after as effects and fruits thereof And this Augustine speaketh not of such workes as perfectly fulfill the Commandements for such there are none whiles they are stained with the flesh but of all good works which notwithstanding their defectivenesse are accepted of God in Christ that which he addeth out of Rom. 8. 4. I have discussed elsewhere § IX But to returne to the proofe of my proposition to that place of the Acts I adde for the further proofe of the first branch Rom. 4. vers 5 6 7 8. where the Apostle useth these words promiscuously justification and blessednesse and proveth out of Psal. 32. 1. that this blessednesse consisteth in remission of sin or as he also speaketh in the not imputing of sinne and imputation of righteousnesse without works from whence this is proved by what righteousnesse we have remission of sinne by that we are justified and by what wee are justified we have remission of sinne The second branch by what righteousnesse we are redeemed by that we are justified and è converso by what we are justified by that we are redeemed The benefit of redemption is explained by the Apostle Ephes. 1. 7. Col. 1. 14. to bee remission of sinne and expressed by the phrase of redeeming from all iniquttie Tit. 2. 14. Psalm 133. 8. The third branch by what righteousnesse wee are reconciled to God by it we are justified and by what we are justified we are reconciled The Apostle Rom. 5. 9 10. useth these words promiscuously to bee justified by the bloud of Christ and to bee reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne and 2 Cor 5. 19. God is said to reconcile men unto him in Christ when hee doth not impute untio them their sinnes but imputeth unto them righteousnesse even the righteousnesse of God that is of Christ that they only may be made the righteousnesse of God in him vers 21. The fourth branch for what righteousnesse wee are saved by that wee are justified and è converso that which is the matter of justification is the merit of salvation for which cause justification and to be justified is many times expressed by salvation or to bee saved for they that are justified are saved in hope and by what they are justified by that they are intituled to salvation and by what we receive remission of sinnes by that also we receive our inheritance Iustification may bee compared to the institution of a Minister unto a benefice which giveth jus ad rem glorification to induction which giveth possession and jus in re § X. I come to the assumption the first branch whereof is that we are absolved from our sinnes by the righteousnesse of Christ and not by any righteousnesse inherent in usâ—… both wich are plainely averred Act. 3. 38 39. The former also is every where testified that the bloud of Christ was shed for the remission of sinnes and that it doth cleanse us from all our sinnes that he is the propitiation for our sinnes c. The latter is also evident that we cannot be absolved from our sinnes by righteousnesse inherent first because it cannot satisfie for our sinnes secondly because it cannot stand in judgement If wee should plead it before God we could not be justified thereby Psal. 143. 2. Neither are we able to answere him one of a thousand Ioâ—… 9. 3. Thirdly because our obedience though it were totall as it is never in this life yet it were a debt and we cannot be absolved from one debt by the payment of another when ye shall have done all things which are commanded you say we are unprofitable servants we have done that which was our duty to doe Luk. 17. 10. The second branch that we are redeemed by the merits of Christ and not by our owne righteousnesse needeth no proofe neither in respect of the affirmative that by his bloud we have redemption even the remission of our sinnes that he gave himselfe to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a full price of ransome to redeeme us from all iniquity Nor in respect of the Negative unlesse it may be thought that we who were held captives under sinne and Satan to doe his will could deliver our selves which God doth sweare to bee his gift Luk. 1. 73 74. Neither could we be delivered out of the hands of the strong man but by him that is stronger than he The third branch also
is manifest both in respect of the affirmative that we are reconciled unto God by the death of his Sonne Rom. 5. 10. Col. 1. 21 22 and also of the negative For we were enemies when we were reconciled and such enemies as whatsoever we minded was enmity against God Rom. 8. 7. Lastly the fourth branch needeth no proofe neither in respect of the affirmative unlesse it may bee thought needfull to prove that we are saved by the merits of Christ nor in respect of the negative the Scriptures so often testifying that we are saved by grace through faith not by workes no not by any workes of righteousnesse that we have done So much of this argument which if I should strive for number might stand for eight foure for the affirmative and foure against the negative CAP. VII Containing sixe other arguments proving joyntly that we are justified by Christs righteousnesse and not by ours § I. THe sixth argument The righteousnesse by which we are justified is the righteousnesse of faith and not of workes as Saint Paul constantly teacheth The righteousnesse which is out of us in Christ is the righteousnesse of faith or the righteousnesse which we receive and have by faith or the righteousnesse of God by faith The righteousnesse inherent is of workes By that justice therefore we are justified and not by this § 2. The seventh The righteousnesse of God by which wee are justified is not prescribed in the Law to justification but without the Law is revealed in the Gospell Rom. 3. 21. The righteousnesse which is out of us in Christ was not prescribed in the Law to justification but without the Law is revealed in the Gospell righteousnesse inherent is prescribed in the Law to justification which in the question of justification is renounced in the doctrine of the Gospell This being the maine difference betweene the Law and the Gospell that the Law to justification requireth perfect obedience to bee performed in our owne persons the Gospell propoundeth the obedience of Christ which hee performed for us to bee accepted in their behalf who beleeve in him Wherfore let him be held accursed though hee were an Apostle though an Angell from heaven who shall reach justification by the legall righteousnesse and not by the evangelicall Againe the Law was given as the Apostle saith foure hundred and thirty yeares after the covenant of Grace and promise of justification by faith in Christ was made to Abraham and therefore cannot disanull that covenant which was before confirmed in Christ that it should make the promise of none effect which it would if the promise of justification were made upon condition of fulfilling the Law § III. Eightly By what righteousnesse we are justified the justice of God is fully satisfied God being so mercifull in forgiving sinnes that he remaineth just Rom. 3. 25 26. For though he proclaime himselfe mercifull and gracious long-suffering and abundant in goodnesse and truth keeping mercie for thousands forgiving iniquity transgression and sinne yet he protesteth that absolving he will not absolve that is by no meanes will absolve such as ought not to be absolved that is such as for whom his justice is not satisfied Neither doth he indeed forgive any sinne for which his justice is not satisfied But as every sinne deserveth death so it is punished with death either with the death of the party for whom he hath no other satisfaction or with the death of Christ who hath satisfied the justice of God for the sinnes of all that truly beleeve in him By the righteousnesse of Christ which is out of us in him the justice of God is fully satisfied as Bellarmine himselfe proveth g and therefore professeth that in him he is well pleased Finally saith Bellarmine Nothing more frequently doth all the Scripture testifie than that the passion and death of Christ was a full and perfect satisfaction for sinnes He made the attonement betweene God and us giving himselfe an offering and sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour But by that righteousnesse which it inherent in us the justice of God is not satisfied as Bellarmine confesseth Therefore wee are justified by the righteousnesse of Christ which is out us in him and not by righteousnesse inherent in us And here I will make bold with Bellarmine to borow a speech from him which he borrowed as it seemes from our Writers to the confusion of himselfe and all other Popish Iustitiaries For where Osiander had argued that God accepteth for a satisfaction no justice but that which is infinite and consequently none but his owne uncreated and essentiall righteousnesse Bellarmine answereth God indeed doth not accept as a true satisfaction for sinne any justice but that which is infinite because sinne is an infinite offence But that some justice may be finite that is of infinite price and valour it is not necessary that it should be the essentiall justice of God but it is sufficient that it be the justice of an infinite person such as Christ is God and man Therefore the obedience the passion and death of the Sonne of God though in it selfe and essentially it was a created justice and finite notwithstanding in regard of the person who obeyed suffered and died it was infinite and in the true rigour of justice it was a propitiation for our sinnes and not for our sinnes alone but for the sins of the whole world From whence I argue thus that justice which is of infinite value the Lord accepteth as a true satisfaction for sinne and that which is not of infinite value he doth not accept for the offence of sinne is infinite But the righteousnesse of Christ onely is of infinite value ours is not therefore the Lord accepteth Christs righteousnesse and not ours as a true satisfaction for sinne § IV. Ninthly they that cannot be justified without remission of sin are justified neither by inherent righteousnesse because they are sinners nor without the righteousnesse of Christ imputed without which as there can be no satisfaction for sinne so no remission of sinne But no man can be justified without remission of sinne Therefore no man is justified by righteousnesse inherent but onely by the righteousnesse of Christ. § V. The tenth that is to be esteemed the true doctrine of justification which doth minister sound comfort to the distressed conscience of the faithfull and that falfe which is a racke to the conscience of Gods children when they are humbled under the hand of God The doctrine of justification by the merits and obedience of Christ imputed ministreth singular comfort to the distressed conscience of the faithfull even in the agony of death assuring the beleeving sinner that howsoever the devill accuseth the Law convicteth the conscience confesseth his demerits yet notwithstanding if hee truly beleeve in Christ he shall be accepted of God as righteous in Christ and as
an heire of eternall life Christs sufferings and obedience being imputed unto him and accepted of God in his behalfe as if he had suffered and performed the same in his owne person But the doctrine of justification by inherent righteousnesse is as it were a racke to mens consciences For when a man being summoned to appeare before the judgement seat of God shall seriously consider with himselfe what he shall oppose to the accusations of Satan to the conviction of the Law to the Testimony of his owne Conscience confessing himselfe to be a most wretched sinner to the judgment of God the most righteous judge If he looke backe to his owne conversation as having nothing to trust to but his owne righteousnesse he shall finde sufficient matter of despaire He may say with Anselme Terret me vita mea c. my life doth terrifie me for being diligently examined my whole life almost appeareth either to bee sinne or barrennesse and if there seeme to bee any fruit therein it is either so counterfeit or unperfect or some way or other corrupted as that it can doe no other but either not please or displease God And summoning himselfe before the judgement seat of God hee findeth himselfe to bee in great straits On this side saith he will be accusing sinnes on that side terrifying justice under will lye open the horrible gulfe of hell above an angry Iudge within a burning conscience without a flaming world where shall I be hid how shall I appeare to be hid is impossible to appeare is untolerable To avoide these straits there is no way but to renounce the doctrine of justification by works or inherent righteousnes and to fly to the doctrine of the Gospell teaching justification by the grace of God freely without respect of works through the merits of Christ received by faith and to appeale from the tribunall of Gods justice to the throne of his mercy For whiles a man retaineth this opinion that he can bee no otherwise justified than by his owne good workes or inherent righteousnesse he can never be soundly perswaded that his righteousnesse is sufficient for that purpose but ever hath just caufe not onely of doubting but also of despaire And this is the cause of that Popish opinion that no man without speciall revelation can be assured of the remission of his sinnes or of salvation § VI. The eleventh and last argument shall be taken from experience For when men seriously considering of their justification before God as a judiciall act of God as the word it selfe importeth shall sincerely and in the feare of God set themselves before his judgement seat where they must receive the sentence either of absolution or condemnation and shall bethinke themselves what they being accused of Satan and convicted by the testimony of their owne Conscience have to oppose to the just judgement of God why sentence of condemnation should not passe against them they would utterly disclaime their owne righteousnesse For as Augustine and other of the Fathers observe as before I have noted out of the eight and nine verses of Prov. 20. joyned together cum Rex justus sederit in solio quis potest dicere mundum est cor meum when the righteous King shall sit upon his throne who can say my heart is cleane yea the best of the Papists when By deadly sicknesâ—…e as Gods messenger they have beene summoned to come before Gods judgement they have beene forced to leave their schoole-trickes and sophisticall distinctions and plainely renouncing their owne righteousnesse to rest wholly upon the mercies of God and the merits of Christ. Insomuch that many who have lived Papists have in this most weighty point died reformed Catholicks And to this purpose there is extant among them in divers Bookes a forme of visiting the sicke wherein both the Pastor is directed what to say and the sicke person is instructed what to answere The Pastor therefore having demanded these questions Brother dost thou rejoyce that thou shalt dye in the faith doest thou confesse that thou hast not lived so well as thou ought Doth it repent thee hast thou a will to amend if thou hadd'st space of life Dost thou beleeve that our Lord Iesus Christ dyed for thee doest thou beleeve that thou canst not bee saved but by his death and having received affirmative answers to every question he inferreth this exhortation that whiles his soule remaineth in him he should place his whole affiance in the death of Christ and in no other thing and that if God will judge him if hee shall say unto him thou art a sinner that thou hast deserved damnation that hee is angry with thee he should say O Lord I interpose the death of thy Sonne betweene me and thy judgement betweene my sinnes and thee betweene mee and my bad deserts betweene me and thine anger In the edition printed at Venice there are these two questions dost thou beleeve that thou shalt come to glory not by thine owne merits but by the vertue and merit of Christs passion And a little after dost thou beleeve that our Lord Iesus Christ died for our Salvation and that no man can bee saved by his owne merits or by any other meanes but by the merit of his passion unto both which an affirmative answere was made but both blotted out in the Index expurgatorius set forth by Cardinall Quiroga CAP. VIII The disproofe of the Popish assertion affirming that we are not justified by righteousnesse inherent § I. NOw we are severally to disprove the Popish assertion and to prove ours As touching the former that wee are not justified by righteousnesse inherent Our first argument may bee this That righteousnesse of God by which we are justified is not prescribed in the Law as before hath beene proved Rom. 3. 21. nor is that righteousnesse which is of the Law Phil. 3. 9. All inherent righteousnesse is prescribed in the Law and is that which is of the Law Therefore inherent righteousnesse is not that righteousnesse of God by which we are justified That all inherent righteousnesse is prescribed in the Law it is manifest first because the Law is a perfect rule of all inherent righteousnesse whether habituall or actuall secondly because charity wherein they place their inherent righteousnesse even that charity whereby they are to love God withall their soules and their neighbour as themselves that charity which proceedeth from a pure heart from a good conscience and from faith unfained is prescribed in the Law as the summe and complement thereof Matth. 22. 37. 39 40. 1 Tim. 1. 5. § II. To avoid this most evident truth Bellarmine bringeth a frivolous distinction as he applieth it to wit that there is justitia legis and justitia in lege or exlege The justice of the Law the justice in the Law or of the Law The justice of the Law is that very justice which the Law prescribeth or that justice
inherent that he might be found in Christ indued with his righteousnesse And â—…o these we might adde Iob Esay and Daniel who as well as the former had that righteousnesse which is à Domino I meane righteousnesse inherent but were not justified thereby see Iob 9. 2 3. 15. 20. 10. 15. 42. 6. Esai 6. 1. 5. Dan. 6. 7. 18. § XVI Our foureteénth argument The righteousnesse by which we are justified is the righteousnesse and obedience of one and but of one Rom. 5. 18 19. Inherent righteousnesse is not of one but of so many as are indued therewith Therefore inherent righteousnesse is not that whereby we are justified CAP. IX The severall proofe of our assertion that wee are justified by that righteousnesse of Christ which is out of us in him § I. _â—…Ow I am to prove severally our assertion that we are justified by Christs righteousnesse And first I prove it by that argument which Bellarmines useth against Osiander what righteousnesse God accepteth in our behalfe by that we are justified The righteousnesse of Christ which he performed for us in the dayes of his flesh God accepteth in our behalfe otherwise saith hee why did the Sonne of God take our flesh upon him why did hee humble himselfe to become obedient untill death c. Therefore by the righteousnesse of Christ performed in his manhood wee are justified c. § II. Hereunto I adde a second out of the same place for Bellarmine though he holdeth against Osiander that wee are not justified by the essentiall righteousnesse of the Godhead yet he confesseth that the Lord accepteth of no righteousnesse as a satisfaction for sinne but that which is of infinite value such is the righteousnesse of Christ onely in regard of the dignity of his Person being the true God the great God God above all blessed for evâ—…rmore therefore by his righteousnesse only we are justified but of this see more in the seventh Chapter here I argue thus what righteousnesse the Lord accepteth as a full satisfaction for our sinnes by that we are justified The righteousnesse of Christ the Lord accepteth as a full satisfaction for our sinne Therefore by Christs righteousnesse we are justified By Christs righteousnesse I say imputed and accepted of God in our behalfe The assumtion is thus proved What righteousnesse is of iâ—…finite value that and that alone the Lord accepteth as a full satisfaction for our sinnes The righteousnesse of Christ is of infinite value as being the righteousnesse of God as it is often called It therefore and by it alone the Lord accepteth as a full satisfaction for our sinnes § III. My third argument shall be from those places wherein either it is said that our righteousnesse is in Christ Esai 45. 24 25. and that we are righteous in him 2 Cor. 5. 21. Phil. 3. 8 9. or our Saviour Christ himselfe is said to bee our righteousnesse Ieremy prophecying of the Messias the righteous Branch whom God would raise to David saith In his daies Iuda shall be saved and Israel shall dwell sasely and this is the name whereby he shall be called IEHOVAH our righteousnesse Ier. 23. 6. and the very same prophecy is repeated Iâ—…r 33. 16. that the Branch of righteousnesse should grow up to David in whose dayes Iuda should be saved and Ierusalem shall dwell safely and he who shall call her that is Ierusalem his Church for so it ought to be read is IEHOVAH our righteousnesse 1 Cor. 1. 30. But of him ye are in Christ Iesus who of God is made unto us wisedome and righteousnesse and sanctification and redemption where Christ is said to bee made our righteoâ—…snesse To this Bellarmine answereth that Christ is rightly called our righteousnesse for two causes first because he is the efficient cause of our justice For as God in the Psalmes is called our strength and our Salvation because it is God that strengthneth and saveth us and in this place as Christ is said to bee made our wisedome and redemption because he maketh us wise and redeemeth us So Christ is called our rightâ—…ousnesse because he maketh us just viz. by infusion of righteousnesse § IV. Reply It is true that Christ when hee doth sanctifie us by his Spirit is the Author of inherent righteousnesse in us but this is that which followeth in the text that he is our Sanctification These two benefits as they are here distinguished so they ought not to bee confounded Bernard in a Sermon of his doth oftentimes very eleganâ—…ly goe over these foure unctions as he calleth them distinguishing justification and sanctification as we doe Christ saith hee was made unto us wisedome in preaching justice in absolution of sinnes sanctification in his conversation redemption in his passion the shadow of thine ignorance hee hath driven away with the light of his wisedome and by that righteousnesse which is of faith hee hath loosed the cords of sinne freely justifying the sinner by his godly conversation he hath given a forme of life and by his death he hath given a price of satisfaction he freeth from errour by his wisedome he covereth faults by his righteousnesse he giveth merits that is ability of working well by his life and rewards by his death enlighten mine eyes O Lord that I may bee wise remember not the sinnes of my youth and mine ignorances and I am just lead me O Lord in the way and I am holy but unlesse thy bloud mediate for mee I am not safe hee was made unto us of God wisedome teaching prudence justice forgiving sinnes c. They onely are wise who are instructed by his doctrine they onely just who of his mercie have obtained pardon of sinne those onely temperate or holy who study to imitate his life they onely valiant who imitate his patience § V. And that they are here to bee distinguished appeareth by this consideration that in this text all the benefits which we have by Christ besides our election which is also noted in the first words of him yee are in Christ are reduced unto foure heads For of God wee were elected in Christ who of God is made unto us wisedome in our vocation righteousnesse in our justification holinesse in our Sanctification full redemption in our glorification that so we may learne not to boast in our selves but to ascribe the whole glory of our salvation and of all the degrees thereof to Iesus Christ our alone and perfect Saviour To the like purpose Theophylact observeth the order here used by the Apostle first he exempteth from errour and making men wise instructeth them to the knowledge of God then hee giveth the pardon of sinnes and by his holy Spirit indueth them with holinesse and then granteth perfect deliverance from all evils which hee calleth redemption as Chrysostome also and Oâ—…cumenius who observe the same order And likewise Theoderet he gave you true wisedome he gave unto you
the latter branch as wee have borne the image of the earthy so wee shall beare the image of the heavenly is necessarily to bee understood Or of holinesse as Oecumenius understandeth that place that as hee is holy so we should be holy also Neither is it to be doubted but that the image of God according to which we are renewed consisteth in true holines and righteousnes but that is the righteousnes of sanctification wherby we resemble the image of Christ in true righteousnes holines But the righteousnes of justification is Christs righteousnes it self not the image of it § XIII As touching the proposition it selfe wee must distinguish betwixt the thing and the manner In respect of the thing it is true that Christ is righteous and so are all his members But in respect of the manner it is not true neither generally nor adaequatè or reciprocally as Bellarmine understandeth it who from thence argueth negatively as well as affirmatively For things that be like are not like alâ—…ogether and in all respects as may appeare by other resemblances in respect whereof wee are said to beare the image of Christ. As first in respect of filiation Christ is the Sonne of God and so are wee True in respect of the thing but not true in respect of the manner For hee is the Sonne of God by nature and by eternall generation but wee are the Sonnes of God in him by grace of regeneration and adoption Secondly in regard of the Crosse. Christ did beare the Crosse and so do wee True in respect of the thing but not true in respect of the manner For Christs sufferings were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the price of ransome which hee as our Redeemer laid downe for us But wee doe not suffer as redeemers neither are our sufferings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a price of ransome but either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chastisements for sinne or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 trialls for our good or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our sufferings for Christ or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is such chastisements or corrections as the Lord laieth upon his children having scandalously offended to vindicate his owne honour Thirdly in respect of glory Christ is glorified and so shall we who beare his image true in respect of the thing but not in respect of the manner for he as the head we as the members according to our proportion Fourthly in respect of holinesse or sanctification Christ was holy and so are wee true in respect of the thing for whosoever is in Christ hee is a new creature renewed according to his image in true holinesse but not in respect of the manner Christ was holy from his conception and originally so are not wee Christ in himselfe was perfectly just and holy without blemish of sinne so are not wee § XIV But as touching the righteousnesse of justification we are not said to beare Christs image Neither can Christ bee said truely and properly to be justified as we are For justification properly is of a sinner and it consisteth partly in remission of sin But if in respect thereof wee did beare Christs image then in imitation of Bellarmine wee might conclude As Christ was not just nor made just so neither are wee But Christ was not just nor made just by the benefit of justification in like manner neithetare wee just or made just by the benefit of justification which is evidently false But in respect of our justification we may rather use that similitude of the Apostle 2 Cor. 5. 21. As Christ was made sinne or a sinner for us so wee are made righteous with the righteousnesse of God in him Christ was made a sinner for us not by inherencie God forbid but by imputation of our sinne Therefore we are made righteous in our justification not by inherencie but by imputation of his righteousnesse § XV. Secondly he reasoneth thus If wee bee not just by iuberent righteousnesse but by imputation onely or as hee speaketh like a cavilling Sophister putativè and not indeed being indeed unjust then doe we beare the image of the Devill rather than of Christ. For more rightly have wee our denomination from that which we are than from that which we are onely suppâ—…sed to bee I answer first that whosoever is just by imputation be is not putativè onely iust but truely and indeed For though he bee a sinner in himselfe as all but Papists are yet hee is righteous or as the Apostle speaketh the righteousnesse of God in him 2 Cor. 4. 21. Secondly that the faithfull are just not onely by righteousnesse imputed which is the righteousnesse of justification but also in respect of justice inherent which is the righteousnesse of sanctification in regard whereof all the faithfull are called Saints as Rom. 1. 7 c. Thirdly although the faithfull bee sinners in themselves yet being regenerate and sanctified in part they have their denomination from their better part and are called just though not purely and perfectly just as I have shewed before § XVI His third reason Of the earthy Adam who was a sinner wee have borne the true image because sinne was not in us putativè but truely and indeed so the true image of Christ wee shall beare if justice bee inherent in us not putativè but truely and indeed Answer As wee receive two things from the first Adam viz. the guilt of his sinne communicated as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth by imputation by which we were truely made sinners and truely obnoxious to death and damnation which is opposite to justification and by it is taken away and secondly the corruption of his nature which hee drew upon himselfe being propagated by carnall generation which is opposite to sanctification and by it in some measure and by degrees is taken away so from the second Adam we receive also two things the merits of Christs sufferings and obedience communicated by imputation by which we are truely made just and heires of eternall life and the vertue of his death and resurrection derived unto us by spirituall regeneration by which wee beare the image of the second Adam as truely though not so fully in this life as by carnall generation wee did beare the image of the first Adam But this withall is to bee observed that as we doe beare the image of the first Adam in respect of the corruption derived unto us by generation and not in respect of the participation of his transgression for in him we sinned and were guilty of the same transgression with him it being communicated unto us by imputation so we do beare the image of the second Adam in respect of holinesse and righteousnesse derived unto us from him in our regeneration by which we are renewed according to his image in true righteousnesse and holinesse and not in respect of our justification wherein the same righteousnesse and obedience which hee performed in the daies of his
punishment and the guilt of eternall death As for the temporall punishment which they say remaineth after absolution from the eternall they must satisfie otherwise And as for satisfaction to the commandements the performance whereof is the condition of the legall promise Doe this and live by which performance Christ merited for us eternall life they say that Christs satisfaction and merit is not imputed but wee our selves are to merit eternall life But by the same reason whereby they have beene forced to acknowledge the necessity of that part of Christs satisfaction made by his sufferings to be imputed to free us from hell they shall be compelled to confesse the necessity of the imputation of the other part of his satisfaction which is his obedience to be imputed to us to merit heaven for us The reason why of necessity Christs satisfaction by his death and sufferings must be imputed to us to free us from hell is this because nothing can satisfie for our sinnes which infinitely offend God and deserve an infinite punishment but that onely which is of infinite value By the same reason nothing can give us right and title to the kingdome of heaven which is no lesse an infinite reward being the eternall fruition of the infinite good for God as he gave his Sonne in pretium so he hath reserved himselfe in prâ—…mium but that onely which is of infinite worth and value and that is onely the merit of Christ who is Iehovah our righteousnesse § IIII. My fifth proofe shall be taken out of that most pregnant place and most worthy to be insisted upon 2 Cor. 5. 21. Him viz. Christ the just who knew no sinne God made sinne for us that wee who are sinners in our selves might be made the righteousnesse of God in him Where these two words sinne and righteousnesse need some explanation But the explication of the latter will cleare the former There being a fit analogy betweene Christs being made sinne and our being made righteousnesse But it is evident that wee are said to bee made righteousnesse in the abstract when wee are made righteous in the concrete And therefore by analogy when Christ is said to bee made sinne for us the meaning is that hee was made a sinner for us Some because it seemeth an harsh speech to call Christ a sinner though not so harsh when it is said withall that hee was without sinne doe rather by sinne understand a sacrifice for sinne as the word sinne sometimes is taken which I acknowledge to bee a godly sence but not so agreeable to the analogie which is betweene the parts of this text From this analogy I argue thus As Christ the righteous who was without sinne was made sinne that is to say a sinner for us or if you will a sacrifice for sinne in our behalfe so wee who are sinners in our selves are made the righteousnesse of God in him that is righteous in Christ by his righteousnesse But Christ who was and is most just was made a sinner or a sacrifice of sinne for us by imputation of our sinnes unto him Therefore wee who are sinners in our selves are made righteous before God by imputation of Christs righteousnesse unto us which is therefore called Gods righteousnesse because it is the righteousnesse of him who is God § V. Against both the premisses the Papists cavill diversely Doctor Bishop writing against Master Perkins shutteth his eyes against the truth saying that ther is not in this text any similitude implyed between Christs being made sin and our being made just so denyeth the proposition as containing this comparison that we are so made the righteousnesse of God in Christ as he was made sinne for us But this analogy is acknowledged by their Saint Anselme of Canterbury writing upon this text whom when Master Perkins alleaged as expounding these words and recited his exposition all Bishops answere is that Anselme shall bee answered when the place is quoted when as Master Perkins not only quoteth him as expounding the place but also citeth his words He is made sinne as we are made justice not ours but Gods not in us but in him as hee is made sinne not his owne but ours not in himselfâ—… but in us which words hee borrowed from Saint Augustine who saithâ—… ipse ergo peccatum ut nâ—…s justitia nec nostra sed Dei nec in nobis sed in ipso sicut ipse peccatum non suum sed nostrum nec in se sed in nobis c Both of them plainely expressing this analogy that Christ was sinne as wee are righteousnesse not ours but Gods noâ—… in our selves but in him even as hee was made sinne not his but ours nor in himselfe but in us which analogy being granted as it cannot bee denyed doth invincibly prove that as Christ was made sinne by imputation of our sinne so wee are justified not by any righteousnesse of ours but by imputation of Gods righteousnesse that is of Christ who is God and that not in us but in him And so Hierome also expoundeth this place Christ h being offered for our sinnes received the name of sinne that wee might bee made the justice of God in him not our owne nor in our selves And Sedulius that we might be made the righteousnesse of God not ours nor in our selves but in him that is in Christ as the members in the head And Augustine againe all that are justified by Christ are just not in themselves but in him § VI. Secondly they cavill at our exposition of those words both in the proposition and assumption him who knew no sinne hee made sinne that is a sinner for us for first Bellarmine though our sinnes saith hee were imputed unto Christ and his satisfaction to us yet neither would it follow that he was thereby made a sinner nor wee righteous For our sinnes are imputed to him not as though he had committed them or could be held unjust But they are onely imputed to him in respect of the due debt of satisfying which hee willingly undertooke for which hee deserveth not to bee called a sinner but righteous for hee that satisfieth for another is most just So therefore his righteousnesse is also imputed to us quoad satisfactionem so farre sorth as it is a satisfaction which hee performed for us But not therefore can wee bee held just that is cleane and without spot if the spots and defilements of sinne bee truly inherent in us Answ. How could our sinnes bee imputed unto Christ and hee not bee counted a sinner and how could his satisfaction whereby hee fully satisfied both the Commandement by obeying and the penalty by suffering bee imputed unto us and wee not reputed righteous For by imputation as our sinnes were made his so his righteousnesse was made ours And as for and by our sinnes hee was condemned as if hee had beene a debtour that is a sinner because as our surety
hee voluntarily undertooke our debt so by and for his satisfaction which hee performed for us and which the Lord accepteth in our behalfe as if we had performed the same in our owne persons wee are justified And yet though our sinnes being imputed to him he was reputed and as it were made a sinner and though his righteousnesse being imputed to us wee are made righteous in him yet this hindreth not but that hee in himselfe was just and wee in our selves sinners Yea this argueth that hee in himselfe was just and we in our selves sinners § VII Now that Christ was made a sinner for us that is was condemned and crucified as if hee had beene a sinner the Greeke expositours with one consent doe teach Chrysostome him that knew no sin saith the Apostle him who was righteousnesse it selfe he made sin that is he suffer'd him to be condemn'd as a sinner and to dye as one accursed and againe more plainely for him that was righteous saith the Apostle he made a sinner that those which bee sinners he might make righteous But saith he the Apostle saith more him he made sinne and us hee made righteous The like have Decumenius his Sonne being righteousnesse and holinesse he made sinne that is hee suffered him to bee crucified as a sinner and as a guilty person and againe he made sinne that is to bee condemned as a sinner and elsewhere very plainely for now the father sent him making him sinne for Christ was very much a sinner as having 〈◊〉 upon him the sinnes â—…f the whole world and â—…ade them his owne for that Christ was a sinner here saith he him that knew no sinne â—…e made sinne for us that were in very deed sinne And also Theophylact his Sonne who knew not sinne that is who himselfe was righteousnesse he made to dye for us as if he had beene a sinner and malefactor For cursed saith he is he who hangeth on a tree and hee was numbred among the transgressours Theodoret likewise being free from sinne he did undergoe the death of sinners that hee might take away the sinne of men and being called that which we are that is a sinner he made us that which he was that is righteous To the like purpose Augustine interpreting those words of Psalme 22. vers 1. according to the translation of the Septuagints and the vulgar Latine verba delictorum meorum the words of my sinnes of what sinnes saith he of whom it is said that he did no sinne neither was any guile found in his mouth how then doth he say of my sinnes but that hee prayeth for our sinnes and our sinnes he hath made his owne sinnes that his righteousnesse he might make our righteousnesse Hierome upon the same words Verbâ—… delictorum meorâ—… quia nostra peccâ—…ta sua reputat he saith the words of my sinne because our sinnes hee reputeth to bee his owne and againe on those words Psalm 38. 7. because mine iniquity for â—…s he was made subject to the curse that he might deliver us from the curse of the Law so he professeth himselfe a sinner who bare our sinnes and on these words Cogitabâ—… pro peccaâ—… meo Christs sinnes are the sinnes of mankinde Peccata Christi humani delicta sunt generis VIII Thirdly Bishop and other Papists commonly by sinne in this place understand a sacrifice for sinne according to the interpretation of some of the ancient acknowledged by Oecumeniâ—…s in which sense not onely the word Ascham is often used as Leviâ—… 5. 6. 16. 18 19. 7. 1 2. Numb 5. 7. but also Chattath Exod. 30. 10. Levit. 7. 7. 37. Levit. 4. 3. 8. 14. 20. 24. 9. 7. Ezek. 44. 27. 45. 19. 23. Hos. 4. 8. they eate the sinne of my people Answere This exposition maketh wholly for us For if God did make Christ a sacrifice for sinne he imputed our sinnes unto him or as the Prophet Esay speaketh he laid on him the iniquity of us all Esai 53. 6. Neither can it bee conceived how he should be made a sacrifice for our sinne unlesse our sinne were imputed unto him In sacrifices for sinne all which were types of Christ his sacrifice the manner was that the party who offered the sacrifice for sinne should lay his hand upon the head of the sacrifice the meaning of which ceremony is fully explained Lev. 16. 21 22. Where Aaron is required in the name of all the Congregation to lay his hands upon the head of the Scape-Goat which the Hebrews call Azazel the Greekes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Latines Emissarium and confesse over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel and all their transgressions in all their sins putting them upon the head of the Goate and the Goate shall beare upon him all their iniquities So it is said of our Saviour Christ that when his soule shall be made an offering for sinne the Lord would lay upon him the iniquities of us all and that he should beare our sinnes And as our sinnes are imputed to him so his sufferings are imputed to us and accepted for us and in our behalfe as a full satisfaction and propitiation for our sinnes Ephes. 5. 2. 1 Ioh. 2. 2. which is also said of those Sacrifices which were but types and figures of his sacrifice Levit. 1. 4. and whereas Bellarmine saith that we cannot by Christs satisfaction imputed to us bee accounted just that is saith he cleane and without spot if the spots and defilements of sinne be truely inherent in us I answere If none bee justified in whom remaine any spots of sinne then no mortall man is justified But as Christ was reputed a sinner and was punished as a sinner because our sinne that is our debt which hee as our surety undertooke was imputed to him though in him was no spot of sinne even so we are by Christs satisfaction imputed to us reputed and rewarded as just and that by such a justice in which as Chrysostome saith there is no spot or blemish and is therefore called Gods righteousnesse though in us doe remaine some spots and blemishes of sinne For here it is said not that wee are made righteous but righteousnesse yea Gods righteousnesse and that not in our selves but in him For that is Gods righteousnesse when we are not justified by workes that is by righteousnesse inherent seeing it is necessary that no spot bee found as Chrysostome saith The like have Oecumenius and Theophylact. Hee did not say that wee might be made righteous saith Oecumenius but righteousnesse it selfe which is more and the righteousnesse of God Now Gods righteousnesse is to bee justified not by workes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but by indulgence in him and by him § IX Bellarmine having rejected our exposition which is indeed the exposition of the Fathers as hath been shewed he saith it may be expounded three waies first that by the
the punishment thereof be inflicted upon us which is both our originall corruption and death it selfe besides many other calamityes then is it to be presupposed that the sin it selfe is imputed to us For if the sin it selfe had not been imputed then as Bellarmine himselfe somewhere argues neither the guilt nor the corruption had belong'd unto us Again things that are transient when they are once past and gone cannot bee communicated otherwise than by imputation That transgression of Adam as all other actions was transient and therefore if it be demanded how it being so long past and gone can bee communicated to us Bellarmine truly answeareth it is communicated unto us by generation eo modo quo communicari potest id quod transiit nimirâ—…m per imputationem in that manner according to which that may be communicated which is transient and gone to wit by imputation If it be objected which was Bellarmiâ—…es prime argument for inherent righteousnesse that through the disobedience of the first Adam wee were made sinners by inherent unjustice and therefore by the like reason through the obedience of the second Adam wee are made just by righteousnesse inherent I answere that from Christ we have both justification and sanctification the former answering to the guilt of Adams transgression imputed the latter answerable to the originall corruption by generation derived but though wee have them both from Christ yet not after one manner the former wee have by imputation the latter by infusion But of this place I have spoken heretofore at large § II. Our seventh argument Whosoever is a sinner in himselfe and so continueth whiles he remaineth in this life cannot bee justified otherwise than by imputation This I take to bee a most certaine and undeniable truth But every many whatsoever Christ onely excepted is in himselfe a sinner and so continueth whiles hee remaineth in this life Therefore no man whatsoever can othervise bee justified but by imputation Or thus The justification of a sinner is imputative for to a sinner the Lord when hee justifieth him imputing not sinne imputeth righteousnesse without workes Rom. 4. 6. 8. The justification of every Christian is the justification of a sinner and so is called of all writers boâ—…h old and new both Protestants and Papists Therefore the justification of every Christian is imputative The assumption of the former syllogisme is denyed by the Papists but against the testimony of their owne Conscience and against the common experience of all men in all times and places But this I prove it briefly All that sometimes doe sinne or have sinne abiding in them are sinners all men sometimes do sinne and have sinne remaining in them therefore all men are sinners the assumption is proved by Iames the just and by the holy beloved Apostle including themselves in many things wee offend all of us and if wee say wee have no sinne wee deceive our selves and there is no truth in us But that all mortall men are sinners I have sufficiently proved before Vnlesse therefore the Papists will say they are no sinners and that in them there is no sinne which if they doe say wee may bee bold to tell them that there is no truth in them they must confesse justification by imputation of Christs righteousnesse § III. Our eigth argument To whom faith is imputed unto righteousnesse without workes hee is not justified by workes that is by righteousnesse inherent but by imputation of Christs righteousnesse To Abraham and all the faithfull faith is imputed unto righteousnesse without workes Therefore they are not justified by workes but by imputation of Christs righteousnesse The former part of the proposition is proved by opposition of faith to workes in the question of justificâ—…tion and by the testimony of the the Apostle Rom. 4. 3 4 5 6 7 8. The latter part is proved by the former for if not by inherent righteousnesse then by imputed and if by faith and yet not by inherent righteousnesse then not by faith in respect oâ—… it selfe as it is an habit inherent in us but in respect of the object which it apprehendeth Of which that is verified properly which by a trope viz. a Metonimy is ascribed to faith namely that it justifieth and saveth that by it wee have remission of sinne and the inheritance c. that is Christ received by faith doth justifie and save c. The assumption in expâ—…esse termes is delivered Rom. 4. 3. 5 6. 22 23 Here Bellarmine confesseth that faith indeed is imputed unto righteousnesse and that is our righteousnesse which confession doth not well agree with his assertions elsewhere that faith doth but dispose unto justification and that our formall righteousnesse is our charity that faith is an habit of the Vnderstanding but justice is an habit of the Will But our glosse hee doth not allow when wee say by faith that is by Christs righteousnesse apprehended by faith because it is repugnant to the Apostle for two causes For first hee doth not say Christs righteousnesse but faith is imputed Now faith is not Christs righteousnesse but ours by Gods gift Which notwithstanding is the maine doctrine of the Gospell revealing the righteousnesse of God that is of Christ who is God from faith to faith the righteousnesse of God by faith that is which is apprehended by faith For faith it selfe is not the righteousnesse of God which doth justifie or save us but the instrument to receive Gods righteousnesse and therefore doth not justifie or save properly but relatively in respect of the object which it doth receive that is to say the righteousnesse of Christ which doth justifie and save those which receive it by faith and therefore when it is said in the Gospell more than once thy faith hath saved thee the meaning is that Christ received by faith hath saved those which did beleeve in him Act. 3. 16 it is said that faith in Christ had cured the lame man but it is thus to be understood that the name of Christ by faith in his name did cure him For we are justified and saved by a perfect righteousnes which is of infinite value and merit which is not faith nor any other grace or graces inherent but onely the righteousnesse of Christ. And yet because by faith wee are united to Christ and by it are made partakers of his benefits therefore all the benefits which wee receive from Christ are attributed to faith as elsewhere I have shewed To faith metonimically but properly to Christ himself His second reason because the word imputare in this place doth not signifie a bare reputing but a reputing unto which the truth is answer able in the thing it selfe as is plaine by these words Ei qui operatur merces imputatur c. for it is certaine that to him that worketh not onely in opinion and conceipt but truely and indeed the reward is due Answ. This reason doth not
transient or the sinfull blemish remaining in the soule which is a vicious disposition and pronenesse to sinne left as the remainder of originall sinne and increased by our owne actuall transgressions as it is a fault and the offence of God bringging with it reatum culpae to a beleever and is not imputed to whom Christs obedience is imputed but covered with the robe of Chrisâ—…s righteousnesse by imputation wherof he is not only freed from the guilt both of the punishment and of the fault but also accepted as righteous in Christ but as the maculâ—… is an habituall sinne or sinfull disposition polluting the soule as a remainder of originall sinne increased by our actuall transgressions it is not wholly abolish'd in this life and much lesse at once but it is mortified by degrees in those that repent of their sinnes who day by day are renewed in the innerman As for those places which Bellarmine alleageth to prove remission of sinne to be the totall abolition of sinne I have fully answered heretofore in the second question of the first controversie shewing that divers of them are to be understood in respect of the guilt which in remission is totally abolished The other which are to bee expounded of the corruption are understood of the cleansing and purging of our soules from them either begunne in this life or finished at the end of this life For the death of the body bringeth with it in the children of God the death and utter extinction of sinne And therefore death which was brought in as a punishment of sinne becommeth a remedy to extinguish sinne For whiles we live in the mortall body sinne liveth in us but when the body dyeth sinne is extinguished CAP. III. Containing our two last Arguments § I. OVR foureteenth Argument If redemption reconciliation and adoption be imputative then justification also is by imputation For I have shewed heretofore that these three in substance differ not from justification for as all these three benefits are comprised under justification so in them the whole nature of justification doth consist For what is it to be redeemed and reconciled but to have our sins remitted or not imputed by the imputation of Christs sufferings which is the first part of justification and what is it to be adopted but to bee accepted in the beloved as righteous and as an heire of eternall life by imputation of Christs obedience which is the second part of justification But those three benefits are imputative all of them wrought by the not imputing of sinne which had made us the bond-slaves of sinne and Satan enemies to God and children of the devill and by the imputation of Christs merits whereby of the slaves of sinne and Satan wee are made Gods servants of enemies his favourites of the children of the devill the sonnes of God § II. Our fifteenth Argument out of Psalm 32. and Rom. 4. If the Holy Ghost describe justification to bee the forgiving of iniquities the covering of sinne the not imputing of sinne to the sinner the imputing of righteousnesse not to him that worketh but to him that beleeveth in Christ or imputing of righteousnesse without workes then justification standeth not in deletion of sinne by infusion of righteousnesse but in imputation of Christs righteousnesse by which the sinner is both freed from his sinne and also accepted as righteous But the Holy Ghost doth so describe justification Rom. 4. 6 7 8. â—…x Psalm 32. 1 2. To both parts Bellarmine doth answere The assumption hee first denieth and then cavills with it For first whereas Calvin as he saith demandeth whether this bee a full definition of justification or but halfe he likewise demandeth when either the 〈◊〉 saith Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord and Blessed are they who f are upright in the way or when our Saviour saith Blessed are the poore in Spirit blessed are the meeke c. whether each of these bee a perfect definition For if it be where is then remission of sinne Secondly he saith that Paul alleageth this testimâ—…ny out of the Psalme not that hee might thereby define fully justification but onely to prove that true justification is the gift of God and not gotten by our owne strength And that hee fitly proveth from thence that David calleth him blessed whose sinnes God remitteth that is whâ—… by the gift aâ—…d grace of God is justified § III. To the former I reply that there is not the like reason betweene these places cited by us and those alleaged by him For those containe but certaine notes and markes of Blessednesse though the Papists absurdly make eight beatitudes of the eight notes of one and the same blessednesse Matth. 5. But here the Apostle out of Psalm 32. sheweth that blessednesse it selfe whereby as appeareth by the former verse he meaneth justification which is the onely 〈◊〉 viae because by it we are intitled to the eternall happinesse which is beatitudo patriae all other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being but notes and signes of this is so defined or described For somuch those words import David doth describe the blessednesse as our translation fitly rendreth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place The second is a meere depravation of the Apostles meaning and intenâ—…ion which was not to prove that justification is the gift of God which he had already taught to be a gracious action of God freely justifying by his grace those that beleeve in Christ but by a new supply of Arguments to prove the same question which in the former Chapters hee had disputed concluding that a man is justified by faith and not by workes which question here hee proveth by the example of Abraham and by the testimony of David The Argument drawne from Abrahâ—…ms example is an excellent proofe which Chrysostome well observed as Cardinall Tâ—…let doth acknowledge For Abraham had both faith and workes and yet he was justified not by his workes but by his faith If Abraham had had no workes or not such notable workes it might have beene said that he was justified by faith without workes because he wanted workes But seeing he abounded with store of excellent works and yet was not justified by them but onely by faith this is an invincible argument to prove that a man is justified by faith and not by workes For Abraham though hee had works yet was justified by faith without workes Likewise David describeth or if you will declareth the blessednesse of the man that is that a man is blessed that is to say justified to whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without workes § IV. This was his denyall of the assumption But now he cavilleth that it may bee that in these words is contained the full definition of justification implicitè For there cannot be remission of sinne in Bellarmines sense that is deletion of sinne unlesse righteousnesse be infâ—…sed as darkenesse is not driven
justificati jâ—…sti non in se sed in illo All that are justified by Christ are just not in themselves but in him And thereunto adde the testimonies before cited out of Hierome Augustine Sâ—…dulius and Anselmus who all have taught that wee when wee are justified are made righteous not in our selves but in Christ. Againe Augustine teacheth that our justice in this life doth stand rather in the remission of sinnes than in perfection of vertues That is as I understand him that our chiefe righteousnesse in this life is that of justification and not of sanctification for that is perfect and so is not this by that we are justified before God and intitled unto heaven so are we not by this Here Bellarmine would seeme to acknowledge that remission of sinne concurreth to justification but his constant and perpetuall doctrine is that justification consisteth wholly in the infusion of righteousnesse expelling sinne in so much that remission of sinne and infusion of righteousnesse are not two actions but one c. which assertion supposed how could Augustine say that our righteoufnesse is such in this life that it consisteth rather in the forgivenesse of sinne than in the perfection of vertues seeing vertue infused is the force of justification and expelleth sinne and is all in all and if that assertion of the utter deletion of sin when it is remitted were true most vaine were that boasting of Ambrose who saith gloriabor non quia vacuus peccati sum sed quia mihi remissa sunt peccata Maximus Taurinensis when God doth remit sinne indulgentia facit innocentem by his indulgence he maketh the party innocent 8. Among the latter Writers I will give the first place to Bernard who saith death by the death of Christ is put to flight Christi nobis justitia imputatur and the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed to us 2. What could man doe of himselfe to recover his righteousnâ—…sse once lost being the servant of sinne and the bondman of the devill Assignata est ei proinde aliena justitia qui caruit suâ therefore â—…nother mans righteousnesse was assigned unto him who wanted his owne 3. One dyed sor all ut viz. satisfactiounius omnibus imputetur that the satisfaction of one might be imputed to all 3. If he shall say thy father Adam made thee guilty I will answere that my brother hath redeemed meâ—… Why not righteousnesse from another seeing guilt is from another 5. Hee will not condemne the just who had mercy on a sinner I may call my selfe just sed illius justitiâ but by his righteousnesse and what is that Christ the end of the Law unto righteousnesse to every one that beleeveth Finally who of God the Father was made righteousnesse unto us Is not that therefore my righteousnesse which was made righteousnesse unto me 6. Lord I will mention thy righteousnesse onely for that is mine also for thou of God was made righteousnesse to mee should I feare that it being but one should not suffice us both It is not a short cloake which is not able according to the Prophet to cover two Thy righteousnesse is an everlasting righteousnesse What is longer than Eternity Thy eternall and large righteousnesse it will cover largely both thee and me And in me truely it covereth a mulâ—…itude of sinnes but in thee Lord what doth it cover but the treasures of piety and riches of bounty which testimony doth plainely prove against Bellarmine that Bernard by Christs righteousnesse which he saith is made ours doth not meane that righteousnâ—…sse which is inheâ—…ent in us but that which is out of us in Christ And the same is evidently proved by those testimonies before alleaged that we are made the righteousnesse of God in Christ not ours but his not in our selves but in him even as Christ was made sinne not his but ours not in himselfe but in us 9. Cardinall Contarenus in a treatise of justification which he wrote Anno. 1541. testifieth that God with his Spirit giveth Christ unto us and doth freely of his mercie make all Christs righteousnesse to bee ours and imputeth it to us who put on Christ. That by faith wee doe attaine to a double righteousnesse the one inherent in us by which we begin to bee just and are made partakers of the divine nature and have charity diffused in our hearts the other not inherent but given unto us with Christ. I meane saith hee the righteousnesse of Christ and all his merits both which are in time given together Now saith he forasmuch as I have said that by faith we attaine to a twofold righteousnesse the one inherent in us viz. charity or that grace by which we are made partakers of the divine nature the other being the righteousnesse of Christ given and imputed to us because wee are ingrafted into Christ and have put on Christ It remaineth we should inquire on whether of them we ought to rely and to thinke our selves justified before God that is to beheld or esteemed holy and just I meane by such a righteousnesse which may beseeme Gods children and satisfie the eyes of God Ego prorsus existimo I doe utterly thinke that it may be godlily and Christianly said that we ought to rely I say to rely as upon a sure thing which doth assuredly sustaine us on the righteousnesse of Christ given unto us and not on that holinesse and grace which is inherent in us For this our righteousnesse is but begun and unperfect which cannot safegard us but that in many things we offend and daily doe offend and have need to pray daily that our debts may be forgiven us wherefore in the sight of God wee cannot for this justice be accounted just and good as it would become the sonnes of God to be good and holy But the righteousnesse of Christ which is given unto us is truâ—… and perfect justice which is altogether pleasing in the eyes of God in which there is nothing which may offend God or which doth not highly please him upon this therefore being certaine and sure we are to rely and for it alone to beleeve that we are justified that is to bee held and pronounced just This is that pretious treasure of Christians who so findeth selleth all he hath that he may buy it This is that precious pearle which who findeth leaveth all that he may have it The Apostle Paul saith I esteemed all other things losse that I might gaine Christ not having mine owne righteousnesse but that which is by the faith of Christ And a little after he saith that the more holy any men are so much the more they understand themselves to stand in need of Christ and his righteousnesse vouchsafed to them and therefore forsaking themselves rest upon Christ alone c. Albertus Pighius having shewed that all men are sinners and subject to the Curse from thence inferreth
of imputation of Christs righteousnesse where in mine opinion hee might as well have alleaged that there is no need of a Saviour For if there bee need of a Saviour it is to free us from the danger of damna ion and to entitle us to the Kingdome of heaven both which benefits are implyed in justification But how should we who are sinners and consequently by sinne obnoxious to damnation and excluded from heaven bee either acquitted from hell or made heires of heaven For neither by our selves nor by any other meanes in the world can we bee freed from hell or have right to heaven but onely by the death and merits of Christ our onely Saviour which is so cleare a truth that the Papists themselves cannot deny it But how can wee bee freed from hell by Christs sufferings or entitled to heaven by his obedience if the Lord doe not accept of his sufferings and obedience in our â—…ehalfe as if we had suffered and done the same in our owne persons If God doe not accept them in the behalfe of the faithfull for whose sake hee did obey and suffâ—…r then all that Christ did and suffered for us was in vaine and in vaine did he take our nature and our sinnes upon him If the Lord doe accept in our behalfe the fufferings and merits of Christ then doth he impute them unto us For by imputation as I haue said wee meane nothing else Neither can the sufferings and obedience of Christ being transient as I have also shewed before bee otherwise communicated unto us but by imputation § V. But come we to his second argument for if saith he imputation bee necessary it is chiefly for this cause because a man after remission of sinne remaineth still a sinner his sinne being covered and not abolished But when sinnes are remitted they are not onely covered but utterly abolished But here Bellarmine grossely mistaketh our assertion as if we held that sins are first forgiven and then after the forgivenesse of sinnes righteousnesse is imputed But wee hold that by imputation of Christs righteousnesse or satisfaction we have remission of sinne and not otherwise and therefore that to remission it â—…selfe imputation is absolutely necessary For God forgiveth no sinne nor remitteth the guilt of punishment for which his justice is not fully satisfied But wee are not able our selves to satisfie for our sinnes but by eternall punishment Therefore it is impossible salva Dei justitia that our sinnes should bee forgiven unlesse Christs satisfaction be imputed unto us § VI. And whereas still he harpeth on that string that remission of sinne is the utter deletion or abolition of it to wit by infusion of righteousnesse and that therefore imputation of Christs righteousnesse is needlesse I answere first that in sinne two things are considered the guilt and the corruption That in remission of sinne the guilt is fully taken away by imputation of Christs perfect righteousnesse but the corruption or pollution is not taken away by remission but by mortification and that not fully and at once but by degrees And howsoever these two benefits doe alwayes concurre remission of sinne and mortification of sinne for whosoever are freed from the guilt of sinne are also freed from the dominion of sinne and to whom the Lord granteth remission to them hee granteth repentance Gods forgiving and mans forgoing or forsaking of sinne going alwayes together notwithstanding they are by no meanes to be confounded I confesse that both of them are wrought by the bloud of Christ and by his death but in a divers respect For by the bloud of Christ is meant all that which issued out of his blessed side which was both bloud and water Ioh. 19. 34. which Saint Iohâ—… vers 35. noteth as a thing most remarkable and accordingly in his first Epistle Chapter 5. vers 6. urgeth it This is he that came by water and bloud even Christ Iesus not by water onely but by water and bloud The bloud of redemption to redeeme us from the guilt of sinne and the water of ablution to purge us from the pollution of sinne The death also of Christ may be considered either in respect of the merit thereof as it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a price or ransome apprehended by faith to redeeme us from the guilt of sinne or in respect of the vertue and efficacy as it is a medicine or plaister applyed by the Holy Ghost to cure us of the malady of sinne Both Christ worketh by his bloud and by his death but the former is done without us and in respect of sinnes past at once as when a debt is fully satisfied the later is wrought in us as when a disease is cured by degrees § VII Secondly if remission of sinne bee an utter deletion or a totall abolition of sinne then no mans sinne is forgiven in whom any sinne remaineth which is a most desperate doctrine as heretofore I have shewed for where is that mortall man in whom no sinne remaineth If the Papists say they have no sinne Saint Iohn will tell them that there is no truth in them Thirdly in the Scriptures to remit sinne is not to abolish it but to pardon and to forgive it or not to impute it And further God is said so to forgive our sinnes as wee forgive the offences of others which wee doe when by charity we cover them when we do not remember them with any desire or purpose to revenge them when we are reconciled to them that offended us The difference is that God forgiveth not onely in mercy but in justice also forgiving no sinnes but those for which his justice is fully satisfied He forgiveth therefore those sinnes for which Christ hath satisfied he remitteth the punishment to us which Christ hath borne for us he covereth them but with the robe of Christs righteousnesse hee is reconciled unto us but it is Christ for whose sake he doth forgive our sinnes Thus therefore I argue If remission of sinne bee not the deletion of the sinne it selfe by infusion of righteousnesse but the not imputing or covering of it the taking away of the guilt by imputation of Christs satisfaction then we are justified not by infusion but by imputation but the former is true therefore the later Yea but â—…aith Bellarmine the Scripture by remission of sinne understandeth the utter abolishing of sinne and to that purpose useth all manner of words which could be devised to expresse the utter deletion of sinne to which purpose he alleageth many testimonies all which I have answered heretofore § VIII Fourthly if there be a totall deletion of sin in our justification by the infusion of righteousnesse then that righteousnesse which in our justification is infused is perfect for the infusion of righteousnesse which is unperfect cannot cause a totall abolition of sinne Nay the imperfection it selfe is a sinne But it is absurd to imagine that the righteousnesse which is infused
according to the perfection of it and as it is in it selfe considered in the abstract Otherwise we acknowledge degrees of assurance And if any of our Divines have held the speciall faith to be the onely justifying faith they are to be understood as speaking of justification in the court of conscience and as judging them onely to be justified and to have remission of sinnes who are in their owne consciences perswaded and in some measure assured thereof But besides and before the speciall faith whereby wee are justified in our owne conscience applying the promise of the Gospell to our selves a formall degree of faith is to bee acknowledged being the condition of the Evangelicall promises by which we aprehend receive and embrace Christ as hath been shewed and by which we are justified before God This degree of faith in order of nature goeth before repentance though in time repentance seemeth to goe before faith as being sooner discerned But in order of nature as well as of time repentance goeth before speciall faith Because no man can be assured of Gods favour in remitting his sinnes who hath not repented thereof CAP. XII Of foure other dispositions viz. love penitencie a purpose and desire to receive the Sacrament the purpose of a new life § I. HIs fourth disposition is Love for so soone as a man doth hope for a benefit from another as namely justificacation from God hee beginneth to love him from whom hee doth expect it In which words there is some shew that hope disposeth to love but that love doth dispose to justification not so much as a shew But that some love goeth before justification and disposeth thereto he endeavoureth to prove which if he could performe were to little purpose â—…or so long as this love doth not justifie his assertion doth not disprove justification by faith alone but indeed he proveth it not though to that purpose hee produceth besides foure testimonies of Scripture the authority of the Councell of Aurenge His first testimony is a supposititious senrence of an Apocryphall Booke For neither is the sentence in the originall Greeke nor the Booke canonicall neither is the sentence it selfe to the purpose Yee that feare the Lord love him and your hearts shall be he doth not say justified but enlightened that is as Iansenius expoundeth comforted For they that feare God and love him are already justified by faith from which both feare and love doe spring § II. His second testimony Luk. 7. 47. Many sinnes are forgiven her because she loved much therefore love is the cause of forgivenesse I answer by denying the consequence For here in the Papists are many times grossely mistaken who thinke that in every aetiologie the reason which is rendred is a cause so properly called when as indeed it may be any other argument or reason as well as the cause For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the cause in a large sense doth not onely fignifie that which causeth the effect which properly is called the cause of a thing or action but also any reason which proveth the thing propounded which is a cause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not of the action or thing it selfe but of the reasoning or conclusion or as wee use to say consâ—…quentiae non consequentis of the consequence not of the consequent Thus it is called the fallacie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non causa pro causa when that is brought for any argument which it is not So the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is traÌ„slated redditio causae is the rendring of any reason from any argument whatsoever For in any syllogism that which is the medium though it bee the effect of the thing is the cause of the conclusion because it is the reason which proveth it and in this sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for which cause and wherefore is all one Thus the Papists prove Christs humiliation to have beene the cause of his exaltation as wee heard before because â—…he Apostle saith therefore God exalted him c thus they prove the workes of mercie to bee the cause of salvation because our Saiour saith for I was hungry c so here that love is the cause of forgivenesse because it is said for she loved much when indeed our Saviour argueth not from the cause to the effect but from the effect to the cause as is most evident First by the parable of a creditour who having two debtors whereof the one owed him five hundred pence the other fiftie and neither of them having any thing to pay he freely forgave them both their debt Our Saviour therâ—…fore demanding of the Pharisee who had invited him which of these debtours would love the creditour most the Pharisee truely answered I suppose he to whom he forgave most which answer approved by our Saviour plainely proveth that love was not the cause of forgivenesse but forgivenesse of love and the forgiveing of more the cause of greater love and the forgivenesse of lesse the cause of lesse love and consequently that the greater love was not the cause of greater forgivenesse but the effect of it This parable our Saviour applying to the Pharisee that invited him as the lesse debtour and to the woman which had been a notorious sinner as the greater debtor to both which he had forgiven their debts they having nothing to pay sheweth that her greaâ—…er love was an evidence of her greater debt forgiven Secondly by the antithesis in the same verse but to whom little is forgiven hee loveth but a little It is therefore plaine that the forgivenesse is the cause of love and the forgiving of more of more love and the forgiving of lesse of lesse love And as lesse love is a token of the lesse debt forgiven so greater love of more forgiven hee speaketh therefore of her love not as the cause going before but as the effect following after justification § III. And such is Bellarmines argument out of 1 Ioh. 3. 14. we are translated from death to life that is we are justified because we love the brethren therefore the love of the brethren is the cause of justification I deny the consequence the love of the brethren is not the cause but the fruit of our justification whereby it may be knowne And this appeareth manifestly out of these words which Bellarmine hath fraudulently omitted Nos scimus quia translati sumus c. wee know that wee are translated from death to life because wee love the brethren Our loue then is not the cause of justification but a manifest signe and evidence whereby it is knowne that we are already justified for so he saith speaking in the time past 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we are already passed or translated from death to life And to the like effect our Saviour speaketh Luk. 7. 47. as if hee had said hereby it appeareth that many sinnes are forgiven her because shee loved much But that it was not her love
no man lay besides that which is laid which is Christ Iesus By foundation saith hee Augustine and other interpreters understand faith in CHRIST But Paul himselfe say I in expresse termes saith that this foundation is Christ himselfe who most properly is called the foundation of his Church If therefore saith bee but the beginning and a part of justification because in Bellarmines conceit it is called the foundation then Christ himselfe the author and finisher of our faith and our perfect Saviour who most properly is the foundation shall afford us but a beginning and a part of our justification But be it that faith is called the foundation yet I would rather thinke that it is called the foundation relatively because Christ whom it apprehendeth is the foundation than that Christ should bee called the foundation because faith is Sometimes faith is put for the object of it and so is hope and thus some understand Gal. 3. 23 25. But that Christ should bee put for faith I suppose is not usuall But whereof is it the foundation it is the foundation the beginning the root the fountaine of Sanctification and of all inherent righteousnesse yet of justification it is not but Christ onely who alone is the foundation of all our happinesse Augustine indeed by foundation understandeth not onely Christ himselfe but faith also working by love which as Bellarmine said in the last argument is not as here he speaketh the beginning but the perfection of justice Chrysostome and Theophylact whom hee quoteth speake not of faith but of Christ onely Howbeit if faith must be held to be this foundation I doubt not but that according to the Scriptures we are to understand the doctrine of faith concerning Christ which often times is called faith which foundation the Apostle laid when hee preached the Gospell and whereupon other preachers are to build This argument therefore was farre fetched and cannot be brought to conclude the point The foundation is Christ and not faith Or if faith then either the habit of faith working by love which is not the beginning or foundation of justification but of sanctification or the doctrine of faith of which the question is not understood § IX His third testimony is Act. 15. 9. purifying their hearts by faith which plainely speaketh not of justification but of sanctification For we having received Christ by faith hee dwelleth in our hearts by faith and by his Spirit applying unto us not onely the merit of Christ his death and resurrection to our justification but also the virtue and efficacie of his death to mortifie sinne in us and of his resurrection to raise us to newnesse of life The testimonies of the Fathers serve all to prove that saith is the foundation and beginning of a godly life which because we doe freely confesse he might have forborne to prove § X. The third part of his assumption was that faith doth obtaine remission of sinnes and after a sort merit justification and therefore justifieth not by receiving and apprehending the promise Answ. In the antecedent of this reason Bellarmine contradicteth the Councill of Trent which hath decreed nihil eorum quae justificationem precedunt sive fides sive opera ipsam justificationis gratiam promeretur None of those things which goe before justification whether faith or workes doe merit the grace of justification But here Bellarmine ought to have proved three things which because he could not prove he taketh for granted The first is that by other things besides faith we doe merit justification which notwithstanding God doth grant us gratis that is freely and without merit For if faith did merit it which nothing else in us can doe it would follow that faith doth justifie alonâ—… The second that faith doth not obtaine remission of sinnes by receiving and apprehending the object which is Christ. But the Scriptures say plainely that by beleeving in Christ that is by receiving of him we receive remission of sinne The third that impetrare est quodammodò mereri to impetrate is after a sort to merit for then what by faithfull prayer we begge of God we should be said to merit and in like manner the beggar should by begging merit his almes But what saith Bellarmine elsewhere Multum inteâ—…esse inter meritum impetrationem that there is great difference betweene merit and impetration and Thomas Impetramus ea quâ—… non meremur Meritum nititur justitia Dei impetratio benignitate wee impetrate those things which we doe not merit Merit relieth upon Gods justice Impetration on his bounty But let us examine his proofes § XI The first out of Luk. 7. 50. where our Saviour telleth the Woman to whom he had said thy sinnes are forgiven thee that her faith had saved her for saith he it could not wel be said that her faith had saved her from her sinnes that is justified her if it conduced no more to justification than onely to receive the pardon For who would say to a poore man who onely put forth his hand to receive the almes thine hand hath releeved thee or to a sicke man who received a medicine with his hand thy hand hath cured thee Answ. Bellarmine before Chap. 13. alleaged this place to prove that the great love of this Woman towards Christ had procured the remission of sinnes which if it had beene true would have proved that not her faith but her love had saved her Secondly when our Saviour saith thy faith namely in me hath saved thee his meaning is that himselfe being received by faith had saved her As for the similitude of the hand I say thus that if releefe by almes or cure by Phyâ—…cke were promised upon this condition onely that whosoever would but put forth his hand to receive the almes or the Physicke should be releeved or cured it might truely be said that by the hand as the instrument â—…elatively the party is releeved or cured For such gracious promises hath God made to us that if we shall but put foorth the hand of faith to receive Christ wee shall bee justified and saved from our sinnes And such is the accompt that he maketh of this instrument by which onely we receive Christ that for our comfort he may say unto any true beleever as hee did to the woman thy faith hath saved thee For as when the people of Israell were bitten by the fiery Serpents the Lord having promised safely to all that should but liâ—…t up their eyes to behold the brasen Serpent which Moses had set on high to that purpose it might then have beene said of those that were saved that their eye had cured them So our Saviour was lift up upon the crosse that whosoever doth but looke upon him with the eye of faith shall be saved Not that the hand absolutely doth releeve or cure but relatively in respect of the almes or of the medicine which it doth receive Nor
whereby we are entitled or have right to his kingdome being saved in hope the other as the consequent and fruit of the former whereby we being entitled to Gods kingdome are prepared and fitted for it without which though none who are adulti are saved Heb. 12. 14. yet none are saved by it or for it it being the way to the kingdome but not the cause of it nor the title that we have unto it and therefore necessary as I have said necessitate presentiae as causa sine qua non but not necessitate efficientiae as any true or proper cause thereof § V. These things thus premised it will be easy to answere Bellarmines arguments taken from the difference betweene the Law and the Gospell to prove the necessity of good workes And they are two the former disproving the supposed false difference the other proving the pretended true As touching the former having first propounded an idle distinction of the divers acceptions of the word Gospell that it signifieth either the doctrine which Christ and his Apostles taught or the grace of the new Testament which is the quickning Spirit or the efficacie of the holy Ghost working in the hearts of the elect or the Law written in the heart which I therefore call idle because as soone as he hath propounded it he confesseth that the word Gospell in the Scripture doth never signifie any other but the Doctrine hee proveth that in the Gospell is contained the Doctrine of good workes and divers Laweâ—… divers comminations and divers promises made upon condition of good workes All which we doe confesse to be true as the word Gospell is taken in the larger sense But as those promises and Doctrine of grace contained in the Bookes of the old Testament did not belong to the Law properly which is the covenant of works but to the Gospell which is the covenant of grace so in the books of the new Testament divers precepts comminations and promises are contained which belong not properly to the Gospell which is the covenant of grace and Law of Faith but to the Law of works For even as the Preachers of the Gospell at this day doe in their preaching intermingle many things appertaining to the Law either for the preparing of their auditours who are not yet justified by the terrour of the Law or for directing those that doe beleeve to lead their life according to the rule of the Law Even so our Saviour Christ and his Apostles in their doctrine intermixed legall precepts legall promises and threatnings as the necessity of their auditours required But upon all this being granted what will he inferre he saith in the title of this Chapter though in the Chapter it selfe he doth not expresse it that from hence is proved the necessity of good works which we deny not So pertinent a disputer is this great Master of controversies § VI. And forasmuch as the promise of eternall life as of a reward made to our obedience is the principall ground whereon the Papists build their Antichristian doctrine of the efficiencie and merit of good workes I will endeavour to cleare this point We are therefore to understand that eternall life is vouchsafed to the faithfull in three respects First as the free gift of God without respect of any worthinesse in us Secondly as our inheritance purchased by Christ. Thirdly as a free reward promised and given to our obedience In the first respect our salvation and all the degrees thereof is wholy to be ascribed to the gracious favor of God in Christ. In the second to the mercy of God and merit of Christ. In the third to the mercies of God redoubled and multiplied upon us and not to any desert of ours For as touching the first God before the foundation of the world was laid of his free grace Elected us in Christ graciously accepting of us in his beloved without respect of any goodnesse in us whom when he foresaw fallen into the state of perdition ex massa perdita humani generis did chuse us in Christ in him and by him to be justified and saved And as out of his undeserved love he did chuse us so by the same grace whom he hath elected he hath called whom hee hath called he hath justified whom hee hath justified hee hath sanctified and whom hee hath called justified and sanctified he hath glorified according to the purpose of his grace given unto us in Christ before the world began As therfore all the degrees of salvation are wholly to be ascribed to the grace that is the gracious favour of God in Christ for by his grace we were elected called justified regenerated and sanctified so also by his grace wee are saved and not of works For although eternall death be the wages deserved by sin yet eternall life is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the free gift of God through Iesus Christ our Lord no way deserved by us Rom. 6. 23. This his purpose of grace God revealed by his gracious promise to our first parents and aâ—…ter to Abraham and others viz. that in the promised seed all the Nations of the Earth should be blessed § VII Now that this his purpose of grace might be put in execution and this his gracious promise concerning â—…he promised â—…eed might be performed to the illustration of the glory both of his mercie and also of his justice God in the fulnesse of time out of his infinite goodnesse and love to mankind sent his owne and his only begotten Sonne into the world that hee taking our nature upon him might not onely in the state of humiliation by his sufferings redeeme us from hell and by his meritorious obedience purchase heaven for us but also that in the state of exaltation he having conquered all the enemies of our salvation in and before his resurrection might by his ascension take possession for us of that kingdome which he had by his merits procured for us and by his sitting at the right hand of his Father might make us to sit together with him in heavenly places and by his comming from thence againe might put us both in body and soule in possession oâ—… that heavenly inheritance which he had purchased for us And to the end that the benefit of our blessed redeemer and Saviour might be applyed and communicated unto us the â—…ord according to the purpose of his grace givâ—…n unto us in Christ before all secular times doth in his good time call those whom hee hath elected by miniâ—…tery of the Gospell maâ—…e effectuall by the gracious operation of his hâ—…ly Spirit working the grace of faith in us whereby wee receiving Christ with all his merits are actually made partakers of redemption and are actually reconciled unto God justified and adopted and by our justification entituled to the Kingdome of heaven and by our adoption made heires thereof and coheires with Christ insomuch that being justified by faith wee
conversion he was touching the righteousnes which is in the Law blamelesse Phil. 3. 6. They were blamelesse before men but not faultles before God For Zacharias did use to sacrifice for his owne sinnes as well as for others as Augustine saith in his answere to this argument alleaged by the Pelagians And who knoweth not that for the sinne of incredulity hee was both deafe and dumbe for a time As touching the Apostles before the resurrection of Christ though our Saviour call them his friends and giveth them this testimony that they had kept his word yet who can bee ignorant how farre they were at that time from perfection and with how great imperfections they kept his word But it is strange that he should alleage the example of S. Paul Rom. 7. as one that had kept the Commandement forbidding concupiscence when in that chapter hee doth not onely confesse that by that Commandement hee was convicted to bee a sinner in that hee had concupiscence but also that that habituall concupiscence might appeare exceedingly sinnefull it did take occasion by the Law to worke in him all manner of actuall concupiscence § XIV But Bellarmines conceit is that concupiscence in the Apostle was no sinne because he did not consent to it Whereto I answere first that as he was carnall he did consent unto it but not as he was spirituall for so hee saith I delight in the Law of God after the inward man but I see another Law in my members warring against the Law of my mind and bringing me into captivity to the Law of sin which is in my members Whereupon he cryeth out v. 24. O wretched man that I am who shall deliver me from the body of this death meaning therby the flesh or the body of sin Secondly though the Apostle had not consented to concupiscence yet both the habituall concupiscence it self remainning in him after his regeneration and the actual concupiscences going before coâ—…sent arising from thence were sins The habituall is often called by the Apostle a sin and is noted to be the sinning sin which taking occasion by the Law to send forth evill concupiscences namely which the Law forbiddeth was exceedingly sinfull As for those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or first motions of sinne in the thought or affections going before consent and arising from our owne concupiscence they are those very sinnes which are directly forbidden in the tenth Commandement for those which are joyned with consent are forbidden in the former Commandements Neither could Paul who had beene trayned up in the Law bee ignorant of that which the very heathen knew by the light of nature that evill concupiscence accompanyed with consent was a sinne But that which is forbidden in the tenth commandement the Apostle had not knowne to bee a sinne except the Law had said thou shalt not lust or thou shalt not have any evill concupiscence Hence Bellarmine concludeth that because the Law hath beene kept by many it is possible Neither doe we deny it to bee kept by the faithfull in respect of their upright walking in all the Commandements of God but wee deny it to be perfectly fulfilled by them Their new obedience which they performe with upright hearts and willing mindes hath the title of perfection given unto it and is a perfection begunne in respect of the parts for even an infant that is formed in the wombe is perfect in respect of his parts and is accepted of God in Christ the Lord not imputing to the faithfull their imperfections And it is a good saying of Augustine Oâ—…nia ergo mandata facta deputantur quando quicquid non fit ignoscitur All the Commandements are esteemed as done when that whâ—…ch is not done is pardoned § XV. But this answere concerning perfection of obedience begunne and the imperfections remitted will not serve the turne saith Yeaâ—…zechias â—…zechias professâ—…th that he had walked before the Lord in truth and with a perfect heart And if Ezechias walked before God with a perfâ—…ct heart who will deny it to Abraham to whom it was said walke before me and be perfect Answ. Wee doe read that the faithfull did keepe the Law but wee never read that they did abâ—…olutely fulfill it but that all of them had their imperfections and their sinnes And although many oâ—… them abounded with good workes yet their justification consisted in the remission of their sinnes and Gods acceptation of them in Christ imputing righteousnesse unto them without workes And where as it is said that they obeyed God with their whole heart and with a perfect heart this is to be understood of an entire or upright heart The hebrew words Tham Thom Tâ—…min and Shalem which signifâ—…e perfect or perfection are synonyma or words of the same sence with â—…ashar Iosher and Emeth that is upright uprightnesse and truth or sincerity and are signified by the phrase of walking with God or be fore God and aâ—…e the same with the Greek words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all of them opposed not to imperfection but to hypocrisie For Thom Tham and Thamin consider these places Psal. 35. 21. where Thom and Iosher are used as synonima the latter being the exposition of the former Let perfection and 〈◊〉 preserve mee Iosh. 24. 14. Where Thamin and Emâ—…th are used promiscuously serve the Lord in perfection and in truth Psal. 37. 37. where Tham and Iashar are put for the same observe the perfect man and behold the upright for the end of that man is peace So Iob is commended to have been Ish Thâ—… Vejashar a perfect and upright man The word Shalem which in the same speech of Ezechias 2 King 20. 3. is by the 72. translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfect is by them reâ—…dred Esay 38. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a true heart as an upright heart is called Heb. 10. 22. § XVI The phrase of performing dueties with the whole heart Deut. 26. 16 as to seeke God with all the heart Deut. 4. 29. Psal. 119. â—… 10. to keepe his Commandements with all the heart and with all â—…he soule 2 King 23. 3. Psal. 119. 34 69. to turne unto the Lord with all the heart Ioâ—…l 2. 12. importeth nothing else where it is not legally understood but an entyre or upright heart that is not an heart and an heart as hypocrites use to speake Psal. 12. 2. 1 Chron. 12. 33. the phrase not with an heart and an heart is expounded vers 38. to be a perfect or upright heart Thus to serve the Lord in truth is to serve him with the whole heart 1 Sam. 12. 24. and to praise God with the whole heart Psal. 9. 1. 111. 1. is to praiâ—…e him with uprightnesse of heart Psal. 119. 7. Thus to walke with God or before God is to bee perfect or upright Gen. 17. 1. and to bee perfect or upright is to walke with God or before him for to
for the absolute possibility of fulfilling the Law but rather against it For those who are not at all times so willing as they ought to be to fulfill the Law they cannot allwaies fulfill it But no man is at all times so willing as he ought to be to fullfill the Law Augustine averreth Nâ—…minem esse qui tantum velit 〈◊〉 res exigit therfore no man is able allwaies to fulfill it For although perhaps he could if hee would which as even now I said is not generally true of the regenerate themselves yet whiles hee will not hee cannot For the will of obeying is the chiefe part of obedience The meaning therfore of those Fathers is that the impossibility of the Law is not to be ascribed to the Law as if it were not possible but to the will of man who will not obey it § XXII Now that the Fathers who deny the Law to be impossible doe not meane that it is absolutely possible to be perfectly fulfilled appeareth by these reasons First because they yeelded so farre to the objection of the Pelagians as not to deny it to be possible to the unregenerate as I noted before Secondly because they held that all men are sinners and that no man in this mortall life can live without sinne and consequently without transgressing the Law Now it is manifest that hee who transgresseth thâ—… Law doth not fulfill it But when we thus argue Bellarmine saith we confound two questions which ought not to be confounded whether the Commandements may be kept and whether a man may live without sinne which questions are so different that to the former â—…gustine allwayes answered affirmatively to which purpose â—…ee citeth Dâ—… peccat merit remiss lib. 2. cap. 3. 6. De Nâ—…tur gratia c. 69. De gratia lib. arbitr c. 16. in Psal. 56. And to the latter negatively to which purpose hee quoteth Lib. de Natur. gratia cap. 34. De spiritu litera cap. ult contr 2. Epistolas Pelag. c. 14. Epist. 89. 95. and the whole booke de perfectione justitiâ—… Aâ—…sw This say I is a plaine evidence that Augustine when hee saith which wee also say that a man may keepe the Commandements meaneth not the perfect fulfilling of the Law For if the question be propounded concerning the perfect fulfilling of the Law it is the same in effect with the other For hee that perfectly fulfilleth the Law doth undoubtedly live without â—…nne and hee that doth not live without sinne doth not perfectly fulfill the Law Wherefore the affirmation of the one question understood of perfect fulfilling and the Negation of the other doth imply a contradiction Thirdly Because the fathers explane their meaning when they say that the Law is possible and that a man may keepe the commandements not in respect of the perfect fulfilling but partly in respect of the sinceâ—…e study and upright endevour to performe and partly in respect of Gods mercie in Christ pardoning what is wanting in their obedience So saith Augustine hîc studium pracepta servandi gratia Dei tribuit quâ—… si quid etiam in eis prâ—…ceptis minus servâ—…tur ignoscit Here the grace of God bestoweth the study of keeping the precepts which also if any thing in those precepts be not kept it pardoneth which I cited before all the commandements are reputed to be done when whatsoever is not done is pardoned And elsewhere hee saith that our righteousâ—…esse in this life doth consist rather in remission of sins than in perfection of virtues For as touching perfection he saith Vâ—…rtutem quae nuâ—… est in homine justo perfectam hactenus nominare ut ad ejus perfectionem pertineat etiam ipsius imperfectionis in veritate agnitio in humilitate confessio that the virtue which now is in a just man is â—…o farre forth called perfect that to the perfection thereof appertaineth both the acknowledgment of the imperfection there of in truth and the confâ—…ssion of it in humilily § XXIII But heâ—…e Bellarmine holdeth a strange paraâ—…oxe That although a man cannot live without sin yet he may perfectly fulfill the Law of God The absurdity whereof hee hopeth to salve with the distinction of sinnes into veniall and mortall because veniall sinnes without which none are in this life doe not hinder the fulfilling of the Law But this distinction will not serve his turne unlesse hee can prove that veniall sinnes are no sinnes For if they be sinnes they are transgressions of the Law And if they be transgâ—…essions of the Law as undoubtedly thâ—…y are or else they be no sinnes then hee that cannot live witâ—…out them cannot live without transgression of the Law and hee thâ—…t cannot live without transgression of the Law cannot perfectly fulfill it I will not enter into the full discussing of this question at this time because it is another controversy onely for the clearing of the point in hand I doe avouch according to the Sâ—…riptures that the wages of sinne or stipend Rom. 6. 23. the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the just recompence of reward Heb. 2. 2. is death and that the least sinne according to the sentence of the Law if it be a sinne maketh a man subjâ—…ct to the curse of God Gal. 3. 10. And that as every sinne deserveth death and therefore in it self is mortall so every sinne is punishâ—…d with death either with the death of the party who hath no part in Christ to whom all sinnes are mortall or with the death of Christ as the sinnes of those who are his members to whom their sinnes which in their owne nature are mortall become veniall as being allready punished in Christ and the justice of God satisfied for them by the satisfaction given by Christ whose bloud doth cleanse us from all our sinnes both great and small none being so small but that it is of sufficient weight to presse down the sinner to hell being of infinit guilt committed against infinite justice deserving infinite punishment for which the justice of God cannot be satisfyed but by a propitiation of infinite value Thus therefore I reason That sinnâ—… which is punished with the death of Christ is in it selfe mortall all and every even â—…he least sinne of the faithfull is punished with the death of Christ therfore all and every even the least sinne of the faithfull is in it selfe mortall But Bellarmine hath a conceipt that veniall sinnes are not simply siâ—…nes nor against the Law but besides it I answere First that which is besides the Law is an aberration from it and a declination from it â—…ither to the right hand or to the left and that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is absolutely forbidden Secondly to doe that which is besides the Law is not to doe that which is commanded but hee that doth not the thing commanded that doth not all that doth not continue in doing all is subject to the
flesh but after the Spirit § XI As if the Apostle had said Although the body of sinne and death remaine in us who are both justified which made mee cry out chap. 7. 24 yet forasmuch as wee are delivered therefrom by Iesus Christ our Lord to whom all thanks is therefore due vers 25. I doe therfore now assure all the faithfull and true members of Christ who may be knowne by this marke that they live not after the flesh but after the Spirit that they are delivered from damnation and their salvation is sure Now there are 2. things whereby Christ hath delivered us from the law of sin and death that is from the power or guilt of sin and of death the former is the power and merit of Christs perfect obedience and holynes which is called the law of the Spirit of life in Christ the other his sufferings wherein he yeelded an all-sufficient satisfaction by bearing the punishment whereby sinne was condemned in our nature which had sinned which nature though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 free from sinne as Chrysostâ—…me speaketh yet like to the sinfull flesh that is to say passible hee therefore tooke upon him that because by the observation of the law in our owne persons it was impossible by reason of our flesh to be justified all which the Law required to justification might â—…ee doth not say by us but in us that is in our nature be performed by Christ for it is Christ as Chrysostâ—…me saith that fulfilled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in us and for us who are his true members and are to be knowne as I said by this marke that live not after the flesh but after the Spirit And therefore this place proveth that because it is impossible by reason of the flesh to bee justified by that righteousnesse which is prescribed in the Law therefore God in his mercy sent his Sonne to take our nature upon Him that therein he might performe for us whatsoever the Law it selfe required to justification Thus this place is expounded by Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to be subject to the curse and that Christ fulfilled it for us Oecumenius in like maner If any man should say what is this to us He saith these things Christ did that the scope of the Law for that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be fulfilled in us And what is the scope of the Law That wee should not bee obnoxious to the curse Or as Chrysostome in another place the end of the Law is that a man might be justified For what did the Law intend To make a man just but it was not able because no man fulfilled it Theodoreâ—… when the Law was not able to performe what it intended by reason of their weakenesse to whom it was given the onely begotten Word of God made man by the humane flesh overcame sinne having fulfilled all righteousnesse And being not infected with any blemish of sinne and having undergone the death of sinners as if hee had been a sinner c. And on those words that the righteousnesse of the law might bee in us hee paid our debt saith hee and performed the end and scope of the law What was that That he might declare them to be just that is that hee might justifie them to whom the law was given Ambrose Quando impletur in â—…bis justificatiâ—… Legis nisâ—… cum datur remissiâ—… omnium peccatorum when is the justification of the law fulfilled in us but when the remission of all our sinnes is granted to us for as I have before alleaged out of Augustine All the Commandements are reputed done when that which is not done is pardoned If therefore this place were to bee understood of our fulfilling the righteousnesse of the law in or by our selves Christ had not obtained his end for so long as the flesh that is our inbred cotruption by reason whereof it is impossible for the law to justifie remaineth as in this life it alwayes doth even in the best so long it is not possible either to fulfill the law or to be justified by the observation of it § XII To the second place which is the third petition of the Lords Prayer I answere that wee pray not that we upon earth may in equality of obedience match the Angels in heaven but that we may imitate their obedience and bee like to them in doing the will of God willingly readily faithfully constantly For the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as signifieth not parity but likenessâ—… In the life to come wee shall indeed be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Matth. 22. 30. as the Angels but here wee may not dreame of Angelicall perfection To the third I answere that our Saviour is Authour of salvation to all that obey him which is to bee understood both of the obedience of faith which is the principall for this is the worke of God by which in Christ wee fulfill the law that wee beleeve in Christ and also of our new obedience But neither of both doth argue the perfect fulfilling of the law in our owne persons This threefold cord therefore is easily dissolved § XIII His fifth reason Whosoever have the holy Spirit they fulfill the Law All that are truely justified have the holy Spirit Rom. 5. 5. 8. 15. 1 Cor. 3. 16. Gal. 3. 2. Tit. 3. 6. Therefore all that are truely justified fulfill the Law The proposition hee proveth thus Whosoever have the fruits of the Spirit Gal. 5. they fulfill the Lawe All that have the Spirit have the fruits of the Spirit Therefore all that have the Spirit fulfill the Law This second proposition hee proveth because against those who produce the fruits of the Spirit as charity joy peace c. There is no Law that is the Law hath not whereof to accuse them as the breakers thereof Therefore whosoever is justified by the helpe of the Spirit he fulfilleth the Law and if he doe not fulfill the Law then hath he not received the Spirit neither is he truely justified To the proposition of the first syllogisme I answere that those who have received the Spirit doe keepe the Law But none fulfill the Law who have not the fulnesse of the Spirit and none have the fulnesse of the Spirit in whom the flesh remaineth lusting against the Spirit In whom this conflict is as it is in the best They cannot doe the things that they would Gal. 5. 17. And much lesse can they fulfill the Law from which they are so farre as that the good things they would they doe not and the evill things which they would not they doe Rom. 7. 19. And so to the proposition of the second syllogisme that those who have the Spirit have the fruits of the Spirit but not without measure nor in full measure but according to the measure of the gift of Christ Ephes. 4. 7. Having
received but the first fruits of the Spirit Rom. 8. 23. As for his third prosyllogisme that against such there is no law the meaning is not that those which have the fruits of the Spirit doe never transgresse the law for in many things we offend all but the words are to be understood either of the fruites of the Spirit that against such there is no law but against the contrary fruites of the flesh or of the persons indued with the fruites of the Spirit and then the meaning is either as 1 Tim. 1. 9. That the law is not given to such or as Gal. 5. 18. That those who are led by the Spirit are not under the law that is they are neither under the curse not yet under the terrour and dominion of the law as if they needed thereby to bee forced to obedience but they are as it were a law unto themselves willingly performing obedience to that which the law prescribeth according to the measure of grace received not but that sometimes they faile the flesh prevailing against the Spirit Not under the curse nor subject to the accusation and condemnation of the Law because in Christ who hath freed them from the curse their sinnes are forgiven Who then shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods children seeing it is God that doth justifie who shall condemne seeing Christ who dyed for us maketh also intercession for us But this doth not prove that therefore the faithfull sinne not But this proveth that when having sinned they confesse their sinnes God is just to forgive them because wee have an Advocate with the Father Christ Iesus the righteous and hee is the propitiation for our sinnes In this forgivenesse of our sinnes and Gods acceptation of us in Christ and not in our obedience doth our justification consist But he that fulfilleth the Law needeth not remission of sinnes which all doe need And therefore desperate is Bellarmines conclusion that whosoever is justified fulfilleth the Law and whosoever doth not fulfill the Law which no man doth is not justified § XIV And such also is his last argument which may thus bee framed Whosoever sinneth not fulfilleth the Law Of every justified man it may be verified that he sinneth not Therefore every justified man fulfilleth the Law The proposition he proveth because he that sinneth not doth not transgresse the Law and he that doth not transgresse the Law doth fulfill it First I answere to the proposition and the proofe thereof that they are true if understood of continued acts as thus hee that sinneth not that is that never sinneth hee that transgresseth not the Law that is that never doth transgresse it doth fulfill it For none doe fulfill the Law but they who continue in all the things that are written in the Booke of the Law to doe them which is duely to bee marked For the Papists seeme to bee of this opinion that by any one act of obedience wherein a man sinneth not hee doth fulfill the Law And so they feare not to say that every worke of charity doth absolutely merit eternall life wherein they doe grievously erre imagining that as one act committed against charity doth absolutely deserve damnation so any one act proceeding from charity doth absolutely merit salvation But who knoweth not that the whole law of God is copulative and so to bee understood As therefore in a copulative proposition consisting of many suppose twenty parts if any one bee false though all the rest be true the whole proposition is false and to be denyed So if a man should keepe all the Commandements and transgresse any one though it were but once hee is a transgressor of the law and is as Saint Iames saith guilty of all and by the sentence of the law is subject to the curse because he hath not continued in all the things which are written in the Booke of the law to doe them Hee that would bee thought to fulfill the law must not onely abstaine from all the things forbidden but hee must also doe the things commanded hee must doe all hee must continue in doing all And thus if the proposition and the proofe thereof bee understood he that sinneth not he that transgresseth not the Law that is he that never sinneth he that never transgresseth the Law doth fulfill it are true but otherwise they are false and to be denyed § XV. I come to the assumption which Bellarmine proveth thus Whosoever is regenerate and borne of God sinneth not All that are justified are regenerate and that because no man denyethit he proveth by manifold testimonies Ioh. 1. 12 13. 3. 5. 1 Pet. 2. 1 1 Ioh. 4. 7. Rom. 8. 15. Therefore those that are justified sinne not The proposition he proveth out of 1 Ioh. 3. 9. Whosoever is borne of God sinneth not neither can he sinne because he is borne of God Yet I will not answere him as he answereth us viz. that there be five expositions of this place and never a one of them to the purpose and so dismisse it being indeed unanswerable but I answer that the Apostle doth not meane that the regenerate are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or doe not sinne at all for to that erroneous sense both Iouin and Pelag. did abuse that place as Bellar. here doth but his meaning may be explained out of his own words in the same Epistle for as in the fifth chapter v. 18. When he saith whosoeveris borne of God sinneth not he meaneth as appeareth by the words going before that he sinneth not unto death that is committeth not that unpardonable sin for which we are not to pray v. 16. so here when hee saith whosoever is borne of God doth not commit sin his meaning may be collected out of the next verse going before vers 8. compared with Ioh. 8. 34. he that is borne of God worketh not sinne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for hee that worketh sinne he that is a worker of iniquity is of the Devill as hee saith vers 8. He that worketh sinne saith our Saviour Ioh. 8. 34. is the servant of sinne and therefore in him sinne reigneth As therefore in the fifth chapter when hee saith he that is borne of God sinneth not he meaneth that he doth not so sinne as he had said vers 16. viz. unto death so here when it is said he cannot sinne his meaning is in that manner as a worker of iniquity as the child of the Devill as the servant of sinne in whom sinne reigneth And in this sense Augustine saith in quo peccatum non regnat non peccat in whom sinne reigneth not he sinneth not namely as those who in the scriptures are called sinners that is impenitent sinners servants of sinne in whom sinne reigneth workers of iniquity Luk. 13. 27. Matth. 7. 23. who shall bee condemned But although they who are borne of God are not such as the Scripture calleth sinners neither doe so sinne as
siâ—…e qâ—… nâ—…n For as the Apostle saith without holinesse no man shall see God Heb. 12. 14. And for this cause we seriously exhâ—…rtall men who professe themselves to beleeve and to be iustified by faith to be careful that they may be precedents of good works for these are good and profitable and necessary as I shewed before when I propounded those arguments which wee doe use to move men unto good workes So much of his first testimony § XIX To that place of Saint Iames he addeth sixe other testimonies to which a short answer will suffice To the first out of Eccles. 18. 21 I have fully answered in the first controversie 2. His second testimony is Rom. 6. 19. As you have exhibited your members to serve uncleannessâ—… and iniquity unto iniquity so now exhibit your members to serve justice unto sanctification Where unto sanctification doth not signifie to get the first holinesse sor he speaketh to them who were holy and just but to increase sanctification But that by sanctification is meant justification and by sanctity justice it is plaine by the antithesis for he opposeth sanctification to iniquity His argument is thus framed Sanctification may and must bee increased by good workes which is proved by this text and not denyed by us Iustification is sanctification And that he proveth because what is opposed to iniquity is justification sanctification is here opposed to iniquity Therefore here sanctification signifieth justification Ans. That justification and sanctification are by no means to be confounded I proved at large in the first question for this is the source of all their errours in the doctrine of justification The Apostle doth carefully distinguish them For having in the former chapters treated of justification by faith without works that men should not abuse that doctrine to licentiousnesse of life in this and the next chapter he treateth of sanctification shewing in this chapter that sanctification is a necessary companion of justification And therefore exhorteth those that are justifiâ—… to the dueties of sanctification The abuse he preventeth vers 1. and 15. for wheras he had taught in the doctrine of justification that where sinne abounded grace did superabound he maketh this objection what then shall we continue in sinne that grace may abound God forbid So againe by Iustification we are freed from the curse of the Law and from the rigour and terrour or dominion it what then shall we sin because wee are not under the Law but under Grace God forbid The unseparable conjunction of these two benefits is shewed by the Sacrament of Baptisme for as it is a seale of that righteousnesse which is by faith unto us being baptized into the remission of sins so it is the laver of regeneration wherin as the Apostle saith we are baptized into Christs death and resurrection that as he dyed so we should dye unto sin and as he rose againe never to dye any more so wee should arise from the grave of sinne never to dye any more for how should they that are dead to sinne live any more therein And hereupon followeth his exhortation that we should not let sinne reigne in us nor give our members as instruments of unrighteousnes unto sin c. And as he doth dehort us from suffering sinne to relgne in us so he assureth the faithfull that sinne shall no more haue dominion over them because they are not under the Law but under grace and having prevented the abuse of that doctrine vers 15. he reneweth both his dehortation from suffering sinne to reigne in them because if it did reigne in them they must needes be the servants of it when as in their redemption they were freed from the bondage of sinne that they might become the servants of righteousnesse and also his exhortation vers 19. that they would yeeld their members as seruants to holinesse c. To his reason that by sanctification here is meant justification because it is opposed to iniquity I answere that both justification and sanctification are opposed to sinne and iniquity but with this difference In sin there are two things the guilt and the corruption or pollution By justification which is opposed to accusing and condemning Rom. 8. 33. wee are freed from the guilt of sin and damnation by our sanctification which is opposed to pollution wee are freed in some measure from the corruption that it is to say from the dominion of sinne § XX. His third testimony is 2 Cor. 7. 1. where the Apostle exhorteth that having these promises of our justification and adoption chap. 6. 16 28 wee should cleanse our selves from all pollution of the flesh and spirit perfecting or accomplishing our sanctification in the feare of God The Apostle doth not exhort us unto justification for that is never done in all the Scriptures but being justified and adopted wee are exhorted with our justification and adoption to joyne the dueties of sanctification and therein to grow and increase untill wee come to a perfect man in Christ. § XXI His fourth testimony 2 Cor. 9. 10. he will multiply your seed and will augment the increases of the fruits of our justice Where we are taught saith he that by almâ—…s-giving our wealth is diminished but our jâ—…stice is increased Answ. We answere that by the Christian practice of vertues our justice but not our justification is increased Howbeit the Apostle doth not speake of justice it selfe to be increased but of the fruites of justice by justice in this place meaning as vers 9. and Matth. 6. 1. liberalitie in almes-giving and by the fruites of righteousnesse almes Unto which that they might bee more and more enabled the Apostle prayeth that their seed may be multiplyed meaning thereby their store which in the faithfull is as it were the seed of almes that having alwayes all sufficiency in all things they might abound to every good worke being enriched in every thing to all bountifulnesse veâ—…s 8 11. so farre is the Apostle from signifying that by their almes-giving their wealth should be diminished § XXII His fifth testimony Ioh. 14. 23. If any love me hee will keepe my word and my Father will love him This new living after the fulfilling of the Commandements what is it sath he but the increase of love and thereby of righteousnesse which by observing the Law of God is required Answ. Wee confessè that by the observance of the Law of God our love of God is exercised and our righteousnesse increased though it be not proved out of this place For this love after the keeping of Christs word here mentioned is Gods love to us not ours to him § XXIII His sixth testimony is Apoc. 22. 11. hee that is just let him be justified yet Answ. The word yet or still doth not signifie increase but continuance or if increase were meant it could not bee understood of the righteousnesse of justification but of sanctification
soever wee doe is profitable to our selves but not to God Reply Beda giveth two reasons though Bellarmine conceale the better why we doing that which is commanded are notwithstanding called unprofitable servants The former quia Dominus bonorum nostrorum non indiget because the Lord hath no need of our good things Which though true yet doth neither so well fit the comparison wherein the servant though usefull to his master both abroad and at home could not by all his endevour deserve to himselfe so much as thankes neither agreeable to the reason which our Saviour rendreth because we have â—…one what is our duty to doe The latter we are unprofitable servants because saith he Non sunt condignae c. The sufferings of this life are not worthy of the glory that shall be reavealed that is because we cannot deserve the reward of eternall life by our service But as it is elswhere said saith he who crowneth thee in mercie and loving kindenesse hee doth not say in thy merits and workes because by whose mercie wee are prevented that we may in humility serve God by his gift we are crowned that in sublimity we may reigne with him So Bede § XI The third exposition he saith is Augustines viz. That we may be called unprofitable servants when we have kept all Gods Commandements because we doe no more than our duty which indeed is the reason which Christ himselfe doth render neither can wee from thence demand any just reward unlesse God had made a liberall Covenant with us For by our condition we are the bond-servants of God and if he will he may bind us to performe all manner of workes as it pleaseth him without reward This our condition Christ for the preservation of humility would have us to acknowledge Howbeit by his gracious covenant we may expect reward 2 Tim. 4. 7 8. Matth. 20. 13. Which God in his great bounty hath promised to this end that thereby he might draw us to performance of our duety as Augustine teacheth Replpy This answere of Bellaamine is worthy to be observed or rather admired first for the impudencie of it in that he fathereth this exposition upon Augustine who in the place by him quoted doth not once mention this Text of Luk. 17. 10. nor hath one word to that purpose for which this exposition is alleaged excepting the clause of Gods bounty which as it proveth this to bee that very testimony of Augustine which he quoteth so doth it evidently exclude merit Secondly for the force of truth which forceth him to contradict his owne assertions both here and in other places For first hee confesseth that hee which doth no more but his duty doth not merit and that wee doe no more but our duty Whereupon it followeth that we doe not merit Secondly where hee confesseth that wee can doe no more than our duty he renounceth all workes of supererrogation And thirdly in that he confesseth that for the same cause wee are unprofitable servants he taketh away all merit of condignity Fourthly he confesseth that without Gods gracious promise we could expect no reward Which proveth that the reward is due onely ratione pacti and not ratione ipsius operis which afterward he denyeth Fifthly he confesseth that such is the bounty and goodnesse of God that to allure us to the performance of our duty hee doth freely promise a reward Now what God doth freely promise to give he giveth freely and without desert For eternall life which in his word hee hath promised as a reward in his eternall counsell hee purposed freely without any respect of our worthynesse to bestow upon us and what in mercy hee either purposed or promised Christ by his merit hath purchased for us So that we attaine to heaven by a threefold right By Gods free donation electing us in Christ as his free gift Secondly by Christs merit as our inheritance Thirdly by Gods free promise as his gracious reward whereby he crowneth not our merits but his owne gifts and graces in us God indeed hath promised freely to reward our workes but that our workes should merit the reward he hath no where promised or taught § XII His fourth exposition is of Chrysostome that the Lord doth not say ye are unprofitable servants but biddeth them say so which is true But what will Bellarmine inferre therefrom that therefore they were not so God forbid For then our Saviour should have taught his Disciples to lye Neither doth God allow of counterfeit humility But the meaning of our Saviour was to teach his Disciples in humility to confesse the truth that because they had but done their duty if they had done all that is commanded they should not bee lifted up with a proud conceite that thereby they had merited but should no lesse truly than humbly confesse that they were unprofitable servants who by doing no more than their duty could not merit of God And this objection is also answered by Bernard Sed hoc inquies propter humilitatem monuit omne dicendum Planè propter humilitatem numquid contra veritatem But you will say that for humility sake hee admonisheth them thus to say No doubt for humilitie But did hee bid them speake against verity And the same is taught by Chrysostome elsewhere No man saith hee doth shew foorth such a conversation as to be worthy of the kingdome but it is wholly of his gift therefore hee saith when you shall doe all that is commanded say we are unprofitable servants we have done what is our duty to doe And againe in another place where he sheweth that what the Sonne of God did for us hee did not of duty but what good we doe wee doe it of duty Wherefore himselfe said when you shall have done all say ye are unprofitable servants for wee have done what was our duty to doe If therefore wee shew foorth love if we give our goods to the poore we performe our duty c. Object Yea but the servants which imployed their Talents well were commended as profitable servants Answ. They were commended as good servants and faithfull to their master And of him because they profitably imployed their Talents were graciouslie rewarded But of their merit nothing is said If they had not imployed their Talents well they should have beene punished And in that they did imploy them well they did but their duty and that also by assistance of Gods grace who both gave them the Talents and grace to imploy them well and therefore though they had reward yet they did not merit it § XIII Our fourth Testimonie is Rom. 6. 23. For the stipend of sinne is death but the free gift of God is eternall life through IESVS CHRIST our LORD where is an antitheâ—…is or opposition betweene death meaning eternall death the reward of sinne and eternall life the reward of righteousnesse that death is the stipend of sinne justly merited by it but
eternall life is not a stipend or wages merited by us but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the free gift of God which is a most pregnant place for if the Apostle had supposed eternall life to be a stipend or wages or merited reward he would have said that as death is the stipend of sinne so eternall life is the stipend of righteousnesse But the Apostle making an opposition between the reward of sinne and the reward of righteousnesse saith that the one is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a military stipend due to those who serve under Satans colours the other is not a stipend or wages deserved but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the free gift of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a military stipend or wages due to souldiers As when Iohn Baptist biddeth the souldiers to bee content 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with their stipend Luke 3. 14. So 1 Cor. 9. 7. For as Augustine saith Quod est merces operanti hoc militanti stipendium and worthily saith hee is death called a Stipendium Quia militiae diabolicae mors aeterna tanquam debitum redditur The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the vulgar Latine translateth Gratia signifieth a free gift not rendred as due to the merit of the receiver but vouchsafed freely out of the free bounty and undeserved favour of the giver For as Primasius saith Non est gratia si non gratis datur si debita merentibus redditur quod absit And Augustine Non erit Dei gratia ullo modo nisi gratuita fuerit omni modo wherefore it is called Gratia that we may understand it is of grace and not not of merits The Verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whence it is derived signifieth freely to bestow to gratifie or graciously to give And therefore is eternall life called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth freely bestow it The Argument standeth thus A free gift which is opposed to stipend or wages is not merited by us Eternall life is the free gift of God and is opposed to stipend or wages therefore it is not merited by us § XIV Bellarmine answereth that Augustine hath diligently answered this argument Epist. 105. Enchirid. â—…ap 107. But chiefly In libro de gratia lib. arb cap. 8. 9. From whence hee gathereth two Assertions First That the Apostle might well have said eternall life is the stipend of righteousnesse even as he said The stipend of sinne is death which confession of Augustine cutteth the thrâ—…at hee saith of our Assertion Sâ—…condly That the Apostle did not say Eternall life is the stipend of righteousnesse as he said Death is the stipend of sinne least any man should thinke that we so have righteousnesse of ourselves as we have sinne of our selves therefore eternall life is called grace not because it is not the reward of merit but that we have the merits themselves from grace To the former I reply that when Augustine saith that eternall life might well be called a stipend which hee maketh to bee all one with merces hee meaneth a stipend or reward freely given as if there were stipendium gratâ—…itum as well as merces gratuita And that this was his meaning I demonstrate out of the same places which Bellarmine doth quote and first out of Epist. 105. Debita redditur pâ—…na demnato indebita gratia liberato â—…t nec ille se indignum queratur nâ—…c dignum se iste glorietur Si antem gratia atque null is meritis reddits sed gratuita bâ—…nitate donata ipsa aterna vita gratia nuncupatur nâ—…n ob aliâ—…d nisi quia gratis datur Secondly Enchirid. cap. 107. Ipsam vitam aeternam quae certa merces est operum bonorum gratiam Dei appellat Apostolus stipendium enim inquit pâ—…ccatimors gratia autem Dei vita aeterna in Christo Iesu Dominâ—… nâ—…stro stipendium pro opere militiae debitum redditur non donatur Idâ—…ò dixit stipendium peccatimors ut mortem peccato non immeritò illatam sed debitam demonstraret Gratia verò nisi gratis sit gratia non est Thirdly Praefat. in Psal. 31. Merces nostra gratia vocatur figratiâ—… est gratis datur quid est gratis datur Gratis câ—…nstat Si reddatur tibi quod debetur puniendus es quid ergò fit Non tibi Deus râ—…ddit debitam poenam sed donat indebitam gratiam Fourthly Degratia lib. arbitr cap. 9. Cum Apostolus prius dixisset stipendium peccatimâ—…rs meritâ—… inquit stipendium quia militiae diabolicae mors aeterna tanquam debitum redditur Vbi cum posset dicere rectè dicere stipendium autem justitiae vita aeterna maluit dicere Gratia autem Dei vita aeternâ—… ut hinc intelligamus non meritis nostris Deum nos ad aeternam vitam sed pro sua miseratione perducere Whereby it appeareth that although hee saith that eternall life may bee called a stipend yet hee meaneth not a stipend or wages deserved or merited by us but a reward freely given us of God § XV. And as the former Assertion maketh not against us so the later maketh wholly for us against both the Pelagians and the Papists The Pelagians held that their good workes were done not by the helpe of grace but by the strength of their owne free will and so in that respect a reward was due unto them whereas they who bring forth good workes ex donâ—… gratiae had neither commendation nor merit Against them Augustine in many places disputeth proving that eternall life which is the reward of our good workes is called by the Apostle Gratia not onely because it selfe is freely given but also because the good workes whereof it is the reward are to be ascribed to Gods grace And that therefore the Lord when he rewardeth the godly life of the faithfull with eternall life hee giveth them gratiam progratia and that when he rewardeth our merits thereby meaning our good workes hee doth crowne not our merits but his owne graces Thus hee writeth Epist. 105. Omne meritum nostrum non in nobis facit nisi gratia cum Deus câ—…ronat meritâ—… nâ—…stra nihil aliud 〈◊〉 quà m munerâ—… suâ—… Sicâ—…t enim ab initio fidei misericordiam consecuti sumus non quia fideles eramus sed ut esseâ—…us sic in finâ—… quod erit in vita aeterna câ—…ronabit nos sicut scriptum est in miseratione misericordia Vndè ipsa vita aeterna quâ—… utique in fine sine fine habebitur ideò merit is praecedentibus redditur tamen quiâ—… eadem merita quibus redditur non à nobis parata sunt per nâ—…stram sufficientiam sed in nobis facta per gratiâ—…m etiam ipsa grâ—…tia nuncupatur Non ob aliud niâ—…i quia gratis datur nec ideò quiâ—… meritis non datur sed quia data sunt ipsa merita quibus datur Stipendium peccati mors rectè stipendium
quia debetur quia dignè retribuitur quia meritâ—… redditur Deinde ne justitiâ—… de humanose extolleret 〈◊〉 sicut humanum meritum malum non dubitatur esse peccatum non à contraâ—… retulit dicens â—…ipendium justitiae vita â—…terna haec ne praeter Mediatorem aliqua alia via quaereretur adjecit in Christo Iesu Domino nostro tanquam diceret Auditâ—… quod stipâ—…ndium peccaâ—…i sit mors quid te disponis extollere O humana non justitia sed nomine justitiae planè superbiâ—… quid te disponis extollere ac contrariam morti vitam aeternam tanquam dâ—…bitum stipendium flagitare Quaprâ—…pter O homo si accepturus es vitam aeternam justitiae quidem stipendium est sed tibi gratia est cui gratia ipsa justitia Tibi enim tanquam dâ—…bita reddereâ—…ur si ex tetibi esset justitiâ—… cui debetâ—…r Nunc igitur de plenitudine ejus accepimus non sâ—…lum gratiam qua nunc justè in laboribus usque in finem vivimus sed etiam gratiam pro hac gratia ut in requie postea sine fine vivamus Intelligendum est igitur etiam ipsa hominis bâ—…na merita esse Dei munera quibus cum vita aeternae redditur Quid â—…isi gratia pro gratia redditur Vita bona nostra nihil aliud est quam Dei gratia sine dubiâ—… vita eteÅ•na quae bonae vitae reà ditur Dei gratia est Et ipsa enim gratis datur quia gratis data est illa câ—…i datur Sed illa cui datur tantummodâ—… gratia est haec autem quae illi datur quâ—…niam praemium ejus est grâ—…tia est prâ—…gratia tanquam merces pro justiâ—…ia That which Augustine speaketh of the grace of justification is true of all grace Quomodâ—… est gratia si ex debito redditur How is it grace if it be rendred of duety § XI The Papists when thâ—…y are pressed with the authority of Saint Augustine would seeme to differ much from the Pelagians but it is more in shew than in trueth For they doe hold the merit of congruity and that grace is given to men according to their owne preparations and dispositions and that the efficacy of grace when it is offered is so to bee ascribed to our owne free will as that it is in our owne power either to accept or reject it For this Alphonsus a Castro setteh downe as a Catholike Assertion that when God hath stirred up our will to that which is good it is in the power of mans will either to assent to Gods monition or to dissent Ex hâ—…c autem quâ—…d nos monitioni illius consentimus qui tamen dissentire pâ—…teramus debetur nobis merces precium inde meritum nostrum And so our Rhemists that those whom God pardoneth worke by their owne free will and thereby deserve their owne salvation If therefore the grace of righteousnesse or the grace of glory be deserved by us both which the Papists teach the former by merit of congruity the latter by merit of condignity then contrary to Augustines Assertion neither the one nor the other is to bee called grace For that hee denieth to bee truely called grace which is not omni â—…odo gratuita So much concerning Augustines exposition now let us search the judgements of some others of the Fathers § XVII Tertullian interpreteth this Text thus Stipendiâ—… delinquentiae mâ—…rs Donativum autem Dei vita aeterna in Christâ—… Iesu Domino nostro Origen Benè autem Metaphâ—…ram i. Figuram militiae ex initio propositam servat ut militantibus sub peccati rege Stipendia debita mortem dicat exolvi Deum verò non erat dignum militibus suis stipendia tanquam aliquod debitum dare sed donum gratiam quae est vita aeterna in Christo Iesu Domino nostro The same hath Sedulius Hierome Stipendia peccati mors qui peccato militat remunerationem accipit mortem Gratia autem Dei vita aeterna non dixit similiter stipendia justitiae Nâ—…n enim nostro labore quaesita est sed Dei munere condonata Chrysostome the Apostle having spoken of the wages of sinne concerning the good he doth not observe the same order for hee did not say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the wages of your good deeds but the free gift of God shewing that they were not delivered of themselves nor received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a due debt nor retribution or remuneration of their labours but that all things came to them by grace Theodoret worthily he called death 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a military stipend but here saith hee upon those words Gratia autem Dei he doth not say wages but grace for eternall life is the gift of God For although a man should performe very great and absolute righteousnesse yet temporall labours are not equivalent to eternall blessings Phoâ—…ius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He said not the wages of your good workes but the free gift of God Theophylact Sinne to its servants for a reward of their service rendreth death but that which is to come from God hee calleth grace and not reward as if hee should say for you receive not the wages of your labours but by grace all these things happen to you in Christ who worketh these things Haymo What is it that speaking of the reward of sinne â—…e calleth it stipend but of the remuneration of the Elect he calleth it the grace of God For they that goe to warfare receive their owne wages but whatsoever the Elect have they receive it wholly from the grace of God whether they have faith or charity or any good worke and moreover for this grace of faith and good workes gratis accipiunt they freely receive eternall life c. And the same hath Rhemigius And to these you may adde two famous Cardinals the one Cajetan hee doth not say that the stipend of righteousnesse is eternall life but the gift of God is eternall life that we may understand that not by our merits but by the free gift of God we attaine to eternall life for the end The other Contarenus it is here to bee noted saith hee that the Apostle signifieth that death is due to sinne in justice for so much the name Stipend doth import but that eternall life is of the free gift of God § XIII Our fifth Testimony is Rom. 8. 18. which our Rhemists according to the vulgar Latine read thus For I thinke that the passions of this time are not condigne to the glory to come that shall be revealed in us which words so translated non condignae or as Ambrose and Augustine in many places read indignâ—… are a direct contradiction to the merit of condignity Neither ought they to cavill at our former translations which reade they are not worthy For what is their non
merits have that wholly redoundeth to the praise of Christs merit For hee is the Vine wee are the branches And as a branch caâ—…not bring forth fruit unlesse it abide in the vine even so we without Christ can doe nothing And as never any man was so unwise as to say that the fruitefulnesse of the branches detracteth from the glory of the Vine so no man that is not a very foole would say that it is a derogation from the glory of Christ if his servants by his Grace by his Spirit by faith and charity inspired from him bring forth good workes which are so truely just that unto them is due from the just Iudge a crowne of Iustice. Repl. To which answere I assent in some particulars First that it is indeed a great honour to Christ if his members doe bring forth much fruit Iohn 15. 8. As contrarywise it is a great dishonour to him when any of his members defile themselves with any crime 1 Cor. 6. 15. Secondly that having union with Christ as his members wee have also communion with him both in his merits to our justification and salvation and also in the vertue of his death to mortifie sinne in us and of his resurrection to raise us unto newnesse of life By influence of which virtue from Christ our Head the holy Spirit enableth us to bring forth the fruites of good workes But that these good works though wrought by the Spirit though proceeding from faith and charity though acceptable to God in Christ though graciously rewarded by him are so perfect and of such value that they should bee either satisfactory to Gods justice or meritorious of eternall life that we utterly deny these being prerogatives peculiar to our Head who onely hath both satisfied the justice of God and also merited heaven for us and that to this end that neither satisfaction should be required of us for our sinnes for which wee cannot satisfie but by eternall punishment nor merit of eternall life expected from us which cannot bee merited but by a price of infinite value For if there be need of either then either Christ hath not fully satisfied or not sufficiently merited for us And as it is a certaine trueth that Christ did not to this end satisfie for us that wee should satisfie which to us is impossible but that we should be freed from the necessity of satisfying Gods justice as being already satisfied so it is no lesse true that Christ did not to that end merit heaven for us that we should merit it which to us is impossible but that wee should bee freed from the necessity of meriting it which Christ hath al-sufficiently merited and should rely wholly and onely on the satisfaction and merit of Christ. If they say that Christ hath merited for us those graces and works by which wee are to merit heaven I demand whether Christ himselfe did merit heaven for us or not If so then need not our merits If not then doe they not onely part stakes with Christ but assume the greater merit which is of glory to themselves and leave the lesse which is of grace to Christ and that not entire neither For the obtaininig of righteousnesse as they doe not wholly ascribe to their owne free will so neither to Gods grace but partly to God offering grace and partly to their owne free will which willingly accepteth of grace when it might refuse it And this willingnesse whatsoever they pretend to the contrary is in mine opinion the very root from whence their conceipted merit doth spring § IV. His second evasion That merit of men are required not becaâ—…se of the insufficiency but because of the great efficacy of Christs merits which merited with God not onely that wee shâ—…ld obtaine salvation but that wee should obtaine it by our owne proper merits or which is all one that they merited not onely eternall salvation for us but also the virtue or power of meriting Repl. This answere is nothing but a meeâ—…e begging of the question taking for granted that which wee utteâ—…y deny and none of them shall ever bee able to prove that Christ merited for us that wee our selves should merit eternall life For first the power of meriting heaven at the hands of God is Christs peculiar neither can â—…ny meere man no not in the state of innocency nor any Angell not any meere creature merit any reward at the hands of God because when they have done all they have done but their duety Much lesse can wee who never doe all and that which wee doe is stained with the flesh and is mingled with manifold transgressions if not of commission from which none are free yet at least of omission Secondly that Christ died for our sinnes to free us from hell and that hee in his owne person performed all obedience both passive and active that thereby we might be justified and saved wee read in the Scriptures But that he dyed for our good workes to make them meritorious or that he merited for us the power of meriting heaven which power is proper to himselfe alone and presupposeth infinitenesse of merit and worth we reade not The similitude which Bellarmine useth of the Sunne whereby God doth illuminate the world and of other secondary causes which God doth use as meanes whereby to worke which argue not Gods inability but his omnipotencie in giving such power to his creatures to prove that God his saving us by our owne merits doth not argue the insufficiency of Christs merit but the sufficiency in giving such power to our merits is as meere a begging of the question as the former taking for granted that as God doth enlighten the world by the Sunne c. which all men know by experience so hee doth save us by our owne merits when as the Scriptures in plaine termes deny us to bee saved by our workes but wholly and onely by the merits of Christ. Besides the similitude is altogether unlike For God doth not illuminate the inferiour world by himselfe but by the Sunne nor performe those other actions by himselfe immediately for which he hath ordained secondary causes as his instruments working ordinarily by meanes But Christ by himselfe hath merited for us giving the virtue and power of meriting to nothing out of himselfe § V. His third Evasâ—…on That they doe not part the glory betweene Christ and themselves becaâ—…se they acknowledge their merits to be the gifts of God and that there is no good thing in themselves which is theirs and not Gods from whose grace the force of merit dependeth Which answere altogether taketh from our workes the power of meriting with God For how can we merit of God by that which is his But indeed this evasion which here is used to serve the present turne is not suitable with the Popish doctrine which teacheth men to part stakes with God as I have said First in respect of grace the efficacy whereof they divide
reward of their labours who are Gods workemen vers 9. labouring for him and not for themselves is the blessing of increase which God giveth thereunto Even as the harvest is the reward of the earing not to be asscribed to the merit of earing but to the blessing of God And so it is here plainely said though the Planter and the Waterer shall have their owne rewards yet their reward is not to bee asscribed to the merit of their labour but to the blessing of God I have planted saith Paul and Apollâ—… hath watered but God gave the increase So then neither he that planteth is any thing nor he that watereth but God that giveth the increase Or if the place should generally be understood oâ—… all workes both good and bad the meaning would be that the reward would be answerable either good or bad That of the Psalmist Psal. 62. 12. To thee Lord mercie for thou rendrest to every man according to his worke is not generally to be understood of the workes of all men both good and bad for the bad works of the wicked hee doth not reward in mercie but judgement without mercie shall bee executed upon them but of the good workes of the godly onely which though they bee good and acceptable to God in Christ yet he rewardeth them not according to merit but according to his mercie The place Apâ—…c 22. 12. may be an exposition of the rest For whereas in the rest it is said that God will judge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to their dâ—…eds here Christ saith he will render to every one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as his worke shall be viz. good or bad But here the Papists would seeme to bring a reason à pari that as the wicked are damned prâ—…pter peccata for their evill workes so the godly are saved propter opera bona for their good workes And as â—…vill workes merit hell so good workes pari ratione merit heaven Answ. it is impar ratio there is no equality in the comparison For first the Scripture plainely teacheth that by and for their evill works men are condemned and as plainely denieth that by or for good workes men are saved Ephes. 2. 8 9. Tit. 3. 5. Secondly any one sinne meriteth death because it is a breach of the Law yea of the whole law Iam. 2. 10. but not any one good worke can merit heaven because it is not the fulfilling of the whole law for there must be a concurrence of all duties In so much that if a man should performe all the Commandements and faile in one the breach of that one maketh him guilty of all Thirdly evill workes are purely and perfectly evill and therefore absolutely deserve death but the good workes are not purely and perfectly good as I have heretofore prooved therefore death is the due stipend of sinne but eternall life is the free gift of God Fourthly sinne is absolutely meritorious of damnation but so is not our obedience of Salvation For though we could performe all the commandements by a totall perpetuall and perfect obedience yet wee must acknowledge our selves unprofitable servants and much lesse could we merit thereby because we have done but our duety and where is no more but duety there can bee no merit Debitum non est meritum § XIIII His third argument is taken from those places which do so testifie eternall life to be rendred to good workes that they place the very reason why eternall life is given in good workes The places bee these Matth. 25. 34 35. Come ye blessed of my Father possesse the kingdome prepared fâ—…r you from the beginning of the world For I was hungry and you gave mee meat c. and in the same chapter vers 21. because thou hast beene faithfull in few things c. Apoc. 7. 14. These are they who came out of great tribulation c. therefore they are before the Throne of God In which places the particles enim quia ideo for because therfore are all causall His reason standeth thus To what things the causall particles are applied they are causes of that to which they have relation as namely of Salvation To workes of charity the causall particles are applied Therefore workes of charity are causes of Salvation To the proposition I answere that causall particles doe not alwaies nor for the most part signifie causes so properly called For that is a grosse erâ—…our of the Papists as I noted before The word cause sometimes is used properly to signifie that argument which hath relation onely to its effect by virtue whereof the effect hath its being either as from the efficient or as of the matter or as by the forme or as for the end Sometimes it is used generally to signifie any argument or reason whatsoever which is not the cause of the thing or of the being of that whereof it is said to bee a cause but of the consequence or conclusion and thus the rendring of any reason is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a rendring of the cause though perhaps it bee from the effect or any other argument And forasmuch as persons are discerned and knowne by their effects for as our Saviour saith By their fruits you shall know them therefore it is usuall in the Scriptures from the effect to argue and declare the cause As thus God is mercifull for hee rewardeth the godly according to their workes God is just for hee rewardeth the wicked according to their sinnes This man is elect because he truely beleeveth and repenteth this man truely beleeveth because hee is fruitfull of good workes This is a good tree for it bringeth forth good fruite To the woman that was a sinner much was forgiven for shee loved much In those and infinite more examples the cause or reason which is rendred is from the effect Therefore the proposition is false § XV. Now let us consider the places of Scriptnre which hee alleageth and first Matth. 25. 35. for when I was hungry c. This reason which is alleaged is not from the cause as if good workes were the meritorious cause of our inheriting the kingdome of heaven but from the effect to prove the cause which is expressed Verse 34. as I have shewed before For for what cause are men to be saved First because they are blessed of the Father that is justified and therefore entituled to this kingdome Secondly because they are elected and therefore this kingdome was prepared for them from the beginning Thirdly because they arâ—… the heires of God for whom our Saviour purchased this inheritance noted in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iâ—…rit But how shall it appeare who they are that are blessed and justified for whom this kingdome is prepared for whom this inheritance is purchased By the fruits of justification election redemption and namely by the workes of mercy and chariâ—…y towards the poore members of Christ according to which as the evidence our Saviour
harsh speech that God should bee said to bee a debtour to any crâ—…ature yet as Augustine saith hee may bee said to be a debtour as hee is a promiser and because it is a just thing to keepe promise hee may be said to owe the performance of that which hee hath promised But as his promise was not de debito but de gratuitâ—… so what hee freely promised he freely giveth 7. Out of Augustine he citeth three testimonies two out of his Epistle to Sixtus out of which Epistle I have before produced divers pregnant testimonies against merits so properlycalled His first allegation is this nullane sunt merita justorâ—…m sunt planè quia â—…usti sunt sed ut justi fierent merita non fuerunt In which testimony there is nothing for the merit of condignity but onely the name of merit which notwithstanding â—…ignifieth nothing but the good workes of the just which God will reward As if hee had said have the just no good workes which God will reward They have no doubt because they are just For as Saint Iohn saith he thâ—…t worketh righteousnesse is righteous 1 Iâ—…h 3. 7. But as the former words doe not prove the merit of condignity so the later words plainely disprove merits of congruity that they might become righteous saith hee they had no merits for as in the same Epistle Augustine teacheth against bothsorts of merits Sicut ab initio fidei misericordiam consequuti sumus non quia fideles eramus sed ut essemus sic in fine quod eâ—…it in vita aeterna coronabit nos sicut scriptum est in miseratione misericâ—…rdia Secondly as touching the other Augustine indeed saith that as the Apostle calleth death the stipend of sinne so he might truly have called eternall life the stipend of righteousnesse But yet hee could not say that it was debitum stipendium Because the Apostle by way of opposition saith that death is the stipend meaning the due and deserved stipend of sinne but eternall life is the free gift of God Nay he saith the contrary that it is not to be demanded tanquam debitum stipendium And elsewhere as we heard before though the Apostle might have said that eternall life is the stipend of righteousnesse yet he would rather say that it is the grace of God that hereby we might understand that God doth not bring us to eternall life by our merits but by his mercie And in the same hundred and fifth Epistle The stipend of sinne is death and worthily it is called a stipend because it is due c. Deinde ne justitia de humano se extolleret bono sicut humanum meritum malum non dubitatur esse peccatum non à contrario retulit dicens stipendium justitiâ—… vita aeterna sed gratia inquit Dei vita aeterna tanquam diceret audito quòd stipendium peccati est mors quid te disponis extollere contrariam mâ—…rti vitam aeternam tanquam debitum stipendium flagitare But of this point I have spoken more than sufficiently when I urged our fourth testimony out of Rom. 6. 23. But the third testimony Bellarmine chiefly urgeth Vita aeterna est tâ—…tum praemium cujus promissione gaudemus Eternall life is the whole reward in the promise whereof we doe rejoyce nor can this reward come before merits be had neither may it be given to a man before he be worthy For what more unjust than this and what more just than God We must not therefore demand the reward before wee merit to receive it Answ. Augustine as himselfe testifieth wrote this booke when he was newly baptised and as yet not accustomed or well versed in the Scriptures and therefore if he should have written any thing therein contrary to that which I have heretofore proved out of him it ought not to prejudge those manifold pregnant Testimonies by mee cited before which he wrought when he was of more mature judgement and of riper yeares Notwithstanding out of this testimony such as it is Bellarminâ—… collecteth five conclusions against us First that a man he meaneth â—…o doubt a righteous man hath the merits of eternall life that is as Bellarmine acknowledgeth Augustine to use the terme that he hath good workes which God will reward with eternall life and that we confesse Secondly that eternall life is one and all our reward But Augustine doth not say unâ—…m neither is it true For temporall Blessings are also rewards though but petty rewards in comparison of eternall life neither doth he say simply totum but tâ—…tum cujus promissione gaudemus For temporall benefits we are to use but not to set our hearts upon them but spirituall blessings are those wherein we are to rejoyce them we use these we are to enjoy for those are utenda but these are sruenda Thirdly that the reward of eternall life is given in justice that we should not say that it is given of meere liberality But Augustine every where else teacheth that it is given of grace and that it is called grace non ob aliud nisi quia gratis datur for no other cause but because it is freâ—…ly given and that it is not grace si non sit omni modo gratuita Neither doth it hinder it to be of Gods free grace that it is given in justice For these two in the workes of God especially in the worke of justification and salvation doe meet together Grace and mercie in respect of us in that he doth justifie and save us gratis by his grace justice not in respect of our merits which in justice can merit nothing at the hands of God but punishment but partly in reâ—…pect of Christs merits unto which eternall life is due and partly in respect of his promise made in Christ to all that truely beleeve which promise he is faithfull and just to performe Fourthly that the reward is not given before they be found worthy of it that shall have it lest wee should fay there is no dignity in workes I answere that our dignity standeth in Gods dignation or acceptation in Christ which dignity he vouchsafeth to all that truely beleeve in Christ. For to them Christ is the end and complement of the Law insomuch that whosoever beleeve in Christ they are esteemed to have fulfilled the Law Wee acknowledge the dignitie of good workes as being the fruits of the Spirit and as being good profitable and necessary but no dignity of merit doe we ascribe to them And yet the faithfull are not therefore unworthy nor destitute of merits so long as they are accepted in Christ and made partakers of his merits by faith Unto which faith Augustine useth to ascribe merit For indeed faith is that worke of God which hee requireth instead of all our merits because by it wee are partakers of the merits of Christ which whosoever hath is not without merits nor unworthy of the Kingdome
of heavenly happinesse but also the higher degrees of glory and finally which is a consequent of the premisses that they may trust in their workes as being true causes of salvation All which assertions are insolent and Antichristian § XV. But we being in our selves most miserable sinners say with Daâ—…iel To thee Lord belongeth mercie and Iustice but to us shame and confusion of face and therefore wee pray with David Enter not into judgement with thy servants O Lord for no man living can bee justified in thy sight namely if thou enter into judgement with him For if thou Lord marke iniquities who shall stand If we should argue with God we should not bee able to answere one of a thousand with Esay wee confesse that all our righteousnesses are as polluted clothes as being stayned with the flesh and therefore have cause to cry out with the Apostle wretched men that wee are who shall deliver us from this body of death But yet with the same Apostlc we thanke God through Iesus Christ our Lord with David we professe that with the Lord there is mercie and forgivenesse that he may bâ—… feared and with him there is plentifull redemption and hee shall redeeme the Israel of God from all their iniquities Wee beleeve that Christ by his death hath satisfied for our sinnes and by his obedience hath merited heaven for us that hee died for our sinnes and rose againe for our justification that wee are justified by his blood and by his obedience we are constituted just that hee is the end and complement of the Law for righteousnesse to all that beleeve in him that of God he is made unto us wisedome for our vocation righteousnesse for our justification holinesse for our sanctification and redemption for our glorification that according as it is written He that glorieth let him glory in the Lord. And howsoever we doe teach that those who are justified are also sanctified and that no man can bee assured of his justification without sanctification though wee seriously urge as our duety is the necessitie of good workes and of a godly life protesting with the Apostle that without holinesse no man shall see God though we teach that by our good workes wee are to make our Election our vocation our justification sure unto us though wee acknowledge that they are the evidence by which wee shall bee judged at the last day though finally in the doctrine of sanctification we urge the necessity and profit of good workes as much as ever any other Christians whether old or new yet in the question of justification if our workes or our inherent righteousnesse bee obtruded as the matter of our justification and merit of salvation then doe we loathe and abhorre them as polluted clouts wee renounce them as things of no value wee esteeme them or at least as Luther said the opinions of them as losse And contrariwise our whole affiance for our justification and all our hope of salvation we doe entirely repose in the onely mercies of God and merits of Christ ouâ—… most perfect and all-sufficient Saviour to whom with the Father and the Holy Spirit be all praise and glory for evermore Amen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a In novissimis â—…emporib i. regâ—…ance Antichrist Anselâ—… in 1 Tim. 4. 1. Vid. Diatrib de Antiâ—…h part 1. l. 3. c. 1. §. 3. c 1 Tim. 4. 1. 3. d This distinction is propounded by S. Augustine de Trinit lib. 13. c. 2. and by the master of the sentences Sent. 3. dist 23. e Vid. Diatrib de Antichristo lib. 4. c. 6. 7. g Idem l. 3. 6. 49. h De â—…ont Rom. lib. 4. cap. 3. i Bellar. de Concil li. 2. c. 17. Conc. Trid. sess 4. Pari pietatis affectu reverentia suscipiunt ei venerantur k Cesteri Enchirid cap. 1. Hutus praestantia multis par tib â—…peral Scripturas l Cesler ibid. m Hosius de expresso Dei verbo n Contr. Luciferian in Gal. 1. neque enim in Scripturarum verbis Evangelium est sed in sensu o De verbo non scripto l. 4. c. 4. * Rom. 10. 8. p See lib. 7. c. 3. §. 9 10 11 12. q See the learned work called the Grand imposture r Apud Euseb. lib. 4 cap. 15. s Gerdon contrv 1. c. 27. t Ibid. u Ibid. â—… 3. * Hosius de authorit Scripturae lib. 3. x Vid. Diatrib de Antichristo part 1. lib. 6. c. 4. §. 9. The excellencie of this argument * Lib. 6. Cap. 6. §. 2. a Iohn 1. 17. b Gal. 2. 5. c Rom. 1. 16 17. d Gal. 1. 6. 8. e Iohn 8. 44. f Iude 6. g Gal. 5. 4. h Gal. 3. 17 18. i Rom. 4. 14. k Gal. 3. 10. l Gal. 5. 2 3 4. Gal. 2. 21. m Of this see more lib. 7. c. 3. §. 10 11 12. The definition of Justification The name â—… Justificarâ—… o Lib. 2. The definition of Justification explaned 1. That it is an action of God Rom. 8. 33. Esay 43. 25. p Rom. 9. 16. 2. An action of God without us q Verse 34. r Ephes. 1. 7. Col. 1. 14. 2 Cor. 5. 19. Rom. 4. 5 7. s Sess. 6. cap. 4. Vt sit translatio ab eo statu in quo homo nascitur silius primi Adami in statum gratiâ—… adoptionis filiorum Dei per secun dum Adamum Jesum Christum salvatorem nostrum Justification though it alwaies concurreth with Gods gracious actions within us yet it is carefully to be distinguished from them Ephes. 1. 6. Justification an action of God continued t Heb. 7. 25. Rom. 3. 25. u The Covenant of Grace Chap. 8. pag. 109. Whether Justification bee wrought but once and at once * a Cor. 4. 16. 1 Iohn 5. 1. Iohn 1. 12 13. Gal. 3. 2â—… Rom. 8. 17. The Papists confuted who deny it either to be an action of God or an action without us or continued The Causes of Justification The principall efficient Rom. 3. 26 30. 4. 5 6. 8. 30 33. Gal. 3. 8. a Iaâ—… 4. 12. b Psalm 51. 4. Esay 43. 25. 2 Cor. 5. 19. Ephes. 1. 6. c 1 Iohn 21. 2. d Matth. 6. 12. Rom. 8. 33. Exod. 34. 7. Esay 43. 25. Marke â—… 7. The Motives * Psalm 6. 2. 123. 3. 31. 9. f In Rom. 3. 24. Scriptura sacra non dicit nos justificare per solam gratiam sed per gratiam simul iustitiam sed utramque Dei hocest per gratiam Dei per iustitiam Dei non per justitiam hominum 2 Tim. 1. 9. â—… Ephes. 1. 6. Rom. 11. 5. Eph. 1. 5 6. 2. 5. 8 2 Tim. 1. 9. g Ephes. 2. 8 The Lord is alsâ—… just in justisying a sinner Rom. 3. 25 26. The actions of the three persons distinguished The Father Rom. 3. 25. Iohn 3. 16. The Sonne Esay 53. 11. Rom. 8. 34. 1 Iohn 2. 2. Heb. 7.
justifie not onely peâ—…petuall in the Scriptures but also ordinary in the speeches and writings of men Wherein God is said to justifie men and man is said to justifie God and one man is said to justifie another and one and the same man to justifie himselfe without any signification of infusing righteousnesse into him but by cleering him and pronouncing him just Secondly that there is no further respect to be had in this controversie to the notation of the Latine or English word than as it is a true translation of the Hebrew word in the old Testament and of the Greek in the new now I shall make it evident that the Hebrew hitsdiq and so the greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Verbum forensâ—… a judiciall word taken from the courts of justice which being attributed to the Iudge is opposed to condemning and signifieth to absolve or to give sentence with the party questioned § III. In the definition we consider justification as an action of God whose alone worke it is and so the Scriptures consider it in many places as Rom. 8. 33. It is God that doth justifie for it is he only that forgiveth sinnes Esa. 43. 25. It is he onely that can by making us righteous in Christ give us right and title to the kingdome of heaven It is no action therefore of our owne or of any creature neither is it wrought by our owne preparations and dispositions For although every man is bound to use all meanes to attaine to justification yet it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that sheweth mercy For if God bee the agent in justifying us then are wee the patients And for that cause we are never in the Scriptures exhorted to justification or to the parts thereof which are not our Officia or duties but Gods Beneficia as wee are to the duties of sanctification whereunto we being already justified and regenerated doe cooperate with the Spirâ—…t of grace § IIII. Secondly when we say it is an action of God Imputing the righteousnesse of Christ and absolving the beleeving sinner and accepting him c. wee consider it not as an action of God within us working a positive or reall change as in sanctification but as an action of God without us For it is a judiciall act of God as the Iudge oppoâ—…ed to condemning And therefore as by his sentence hee doth condemne that is make wicked so by his sentence hee doth justifie that is of guilty he maketh not guilty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his sentence God doth justifie as Chrysostome and Oecumenius note upon Rom. 8. 33. where a judiciall proceeding in the businesse of justification is plainely described For there is mention of the accuser of Gods elect there is God that justifieth and none to condemne there is the advocate and intercessor to plead for us And as in condemning though the hebrew word Hirshiah opposed to justifying signifieth to make wicked for as Tsady is to be just and Hitsdiq to make just that is to justifie so Rashah to be wicked and Hirshiah to make wicked that is to condemne yet God by condemning doth not make a reall or positive change by infusion of wickednesse into the party whom by his sentence hee maketh wicked that is condemneth so in justifying though the word doe signifie to make righteous yet the Lord doth not Quatenus justificat as he justifieth worke a reall or positive mutation in the party whom by his sentence he maketh just that is justifieth in respect of any inward dispositions or qualities but onely a relative change or mutation in respect of his estate and condition before God and in respect of some relations to him It is true â—…hat in our justification we are of sinners made righteous but the righteousnesse which we have by justification standeth in remission of sinne and acceptation or constitution of us as righteous not in our selves but in Christ both which are wrought by imputation of his righteousnesse It is true also that whom God doth justifie he doth also sanctifie But in justification he doth not worke a reall change in the party as he doth in sanctification And this 〈◊〉 in the like actions of God viz. adoption redemption and reconciliation which three in substance differ not from justification For all agree in the not imputing of sinne by imputation of Christs righteousnesse but are diversified by certaine relations all which concurre in justification that men having their sinnes forgiven whereby they had beene either the children of the devill by adoption are made the sonnes of God or the vassals and bondslaves of sinne and Satan are by redemption made the servants of God or enemies to God by their reconciliation become his favourites or guilty of sinne and damnation in their justification they are accepted as righteous in Christ and consequently become Gods servants Gods favourites Gods sonnes and if sonnes then also heires of eternall life As therefore in adoption redemption reconciliation there is no reall change made in the party but onely a new relation acquired of being a sonne and hâ—…ire to the adoptour a servant to the redeemer a favourite to the reconciler which before he was not so neither in justification is there a reall or positive change as the Papists would have it but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 relative or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in relation in respect of those relations even now mentioned and in respect of his estatâ—… and condition before God being in his justification translated from the estate of damnation unto the state of salvation Even as the councell of Trent it selfe defineth justification to be a translation from that state wherein a man is borne the sonne of the first Adam into a state of grace and adoption of Gods sonnes through the second Adam Iesus Christ our Saviour which is done without any reall change wrought in the party as hee is justified For who before was guilty of sinne and damnation the same man remaining a sinner in himselfe and in himselfe worthy of damnation is in his justification absolved from the guilt of sinne and accepted as râ—…teous in Christ in whom also hee is made a servant a favourite a sonne of God and consequently as I said in the definition an heire of eternall life § V. And yet we deny not but that those whom God reconcileth unto himselfe receiving them into his grace and â—…avour in Christ them also he endueth in some measure with the graces of his Spirit whom he adopteth to be his sonnes in Christ them also he regenerateth by his holy Spirit whom he redeemeth from the guilt of sinne he also freeth from the dominion of sinne and whom he justifieth by faith he also sanctifieth by his Spirit that is whom he maketh just by imputation them also he maketh just by infusion of righteousnesse to whom he imputeth the merit of Christ his death and
〈◊〉 of one whereby hee fulfilled the Law viz. the second Adam the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or free gift opposite to the guilt of damnation which is our title and right to the kingdome of heaven commeth to all men that belong to the second Adam unto justification of life § V. The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is diversâ—…y used both in the plurall number and in the singular In the plurall it hath three significations for first it signifieth Iura the Lawes or Commandements of God either in generall and indefinitely as namely where no other word of the like signiâ—…cation is joyned with it as Psalm 119. 8 12. Rom. 2. 26. Or more particularly the precepts of the ceremoniall Law And this sense is most usuall when it is joyned with words signifying other lawes or precepts For the whole Law which is called mishmereth Iehovah the observation of the Lord that is all that the Lord requireth to bee observed is often distinguished into three parts Mitsvoth whiâ—…h the Septuagint translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Commandements of the morall Law Mishpatim which they translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the precepts of the judiciall Law Chuqqim which they translate sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the statutes and ordinances of the Ceremoniall Law Insomuch that the vulgar Latine for Chuqqim rendreth many times even where the 72. have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ceremonias as Gen. 26. 5. Deut. 4. 8 14 45. 5. 1 31. 6. 1. 17. 8. 11. 10. 13. 11. 1. c. The Apostle Rom. 9. 4. calleth the Morall Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Iudiciall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Ceremoniall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and accordingly the precepts of the Ceremoniall Law are called Heb. 9. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The ordinances of divine service and because they were but externall observations vers 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 carnall ordinances Secondly it signifieth the judgements of God Apoc. 15. 4. which by the vulgar Latine and others is translated Iudicia And as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifieth the just workes of God which are the acts of his justice so in the last place some expound 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apoc. 19. 8. to bee the just workes of the Saints and as the author of the Homilies in Saint Augustine justa facta or justè facta as the Greeke writers sometimes use the word which the Papists will needs translate justifications meaning thereby just workes and hoping thereby to prove that men are justified by them which we deny not in that sense wherein Saint Iames saith we are justified that is declared and knowne to bee just by them But if justifications bee the true translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that place then we are thereby to understand the merits of Christ by which the Saints are justified which are more fitly resembled by a garment than either inherent righteousnesse or righteous workes And is indeed called Matth. 22. 11 12. the wedding garment which garment is put on by a true faith by which the faithfull as they are exhorted Rom. 13. 14. put on Christ. Whereof Baptisme is a seale Gal. 5. 27. And this is that white garment which is to bee had from Christ to cover our nakednesse Apoc. 3. 18. Sometimes indeed the white robes doe signifie the glorious and happy estate promised to the faithfull as Apoc. 3. 4. 6. 11. 7. 9. which is purchased by the merits of Christ for which cause their robes are said to bee made white in the blood of the Lambe But here the holy Ghost expoundeth the fine linnen wherewith the Saints are arrayed to bee the justifications of the Saints which as I said are the merits and obedience of Christ put on by a true faith which being without us as garments use to be and yet being applyed unto us and put on by faith doe cover our nakednesse and therefore are more fitly resembled by fine linnen pure and shining than our owne righteousnesse which neither is without us as a garment nor yet pure but Christs righteousnesse imputed is both as a garment pure and perfect in it selfe and shineth forth by the light of good works Mat. 5. 16. § VI. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a verball derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 either as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to be just in which sense the precepts of God are said to bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psalm 19. 10. or as it signifieth to be justified In the former sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth that which is just either as the Law of God prescribing righteousnesse so the Law of nature written in the hearts of men is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 1. 32. or as the whole righteousnesse which in the Law is prescribed and so it is used Rom. 5. 18. For as by the transgression of one viz. the first Adam whereby the whole Law was violated guilt came upon all men that were in him unto condemnation so by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of one the second Adam whereby he fulfilled the whole Law the free gift which is our right and title to heaven came upon all men who are in him unto justification of life and Rom. 8. 4. God sent his Sonne the Law being impossible to be fulfilled by us in the likenesse of sinfull flesh that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that the Law requireth to justification might in our nature bee performed and fulfilled In the latter sense it is once onely used viz. Rom. 5. 16. in the same signification with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is justification vers 18. both of them being opposed to condemnation If therefore the words which the holy Ghost doth use to expresse the benefit of justification doe never signifie justification by inherent righteousnesse but the contrary as hath beene â—…hewed then that justification which the Papists teach is not that which is taught in the holy Scriptures but contrary to it § VII And the same is proved by these two reasons first because the Apostles when they expresse the benefit of justification in other termes they doe signifie the same not by such words as import infusion of righteousnesse but by such as plainely signifie either absolution from sinne which is the not imputing of sinne or imputation of righteousnesse Rom. 4. these phrases are used to signifie one and the same thing to justifie to impute righteousnesse without works vers 6. to remit sin to cover sins vers 7. not â—…o impute sin vers 8. to be justified and to be blessed and to be blessed is to have their sins remitted or covered vers 6. Rom. 5. 9 10. to bee justified by the blood of Christ and to be reconciled unto God by his death all one 2 Cor. 5. 19. to reconcile us unto himselfe not imputing our offences unto
us and vers 21. to make us the righteousnesse of God in Christ as he was made sinne for us Act. 26. 18. that by faith we may have remission of sinnes and inheritance that is that we may bee heires of the heavenly inheritance among them that are sanctified Ioh. 3. 18. He that beleeveth in Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not condemned that is as Paul speaketh Act. 13. 39. is justified but hee that beleeveth not him is condemned already That which Paul affirmeth Rom. 3. 21 22. now without the Law is manifested the righteousnesse of God being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets even the righteousnesse of God which is by the faith of Iesus Christ unto all and upon all that beleeâ—…e Saint Peter more plainely expresseth Act. 10. 43. unto him all the Prophets beare witnesse that every one which beleeveth in him receiveth remission of sinnes through his name § VIII Because the whole processe of the justification of a sinner is judiciall Rom. 8. 33 34. For the sinner summoning himselfe before the judgement seat of God as every one must doe that would bee justified his owne conscience being rightly informed by the paedagogie of the Law accuseth him the devill pleadeth against him the Law convicteth him and maketh him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subject to the sentence of condemnation if God should judge him according to his Law But the sinner being instructed in the Gospell and the holy Ghost having opened his heart to beleeve appealeth from the sentence of the Law to the promise of the Gospell and from the tribunall of justice to the throne of Grace humbly intreating the Lord for Christs sake to pardon his sinnes and to accept of the merits and obedience of Christ as a full satisfaction for them Our Saviour sitting at the right hand of his Father maketh intercession and as an advocate pleadeth for him that forasmuch as he himselfe hath paid the debt and satisfied Gods justice for the beleeving sinner therefore the Lord not onely in mercy but also in justice is to remit his sinne and to accept of him in Christ. The Lord as a gracious and righteous judge imputing to the beleever the merits and righteousnesse of Christ absolveth him from his sinnes and accepteth of him as righteous in Christ that is to say justifieth him The beleeving sinner being thus justified in the Court of heaven is not at the first justified in the Court of his owne conscience that is to say is not yet perswaded and assured of his justification untill the holy Ghost by the ministery of the Gospell pronouncing remission of sinnes and justification to every one that beleeveth teacheth him to apply the promises of the Gospell unto himselfe which he sealeth unto him by the Sacraments The beleever being thus perswaded and in some measure assured of his justification giveth diligence by practising the duties of repentance and sanctification to confirme and increase that assurance more and more unto the end of his life labouring by all good meanes to make sure his election his vocation and his justification and so proceedeth from faith to faith The beleever having thus beene justified in this life both in the court of heaven and in the court of his owne conscience after this life namely at the day of judgement when our Saviour will judge of mens faiths according to the evidence of their works shall be justified that is pronounced happy and blessed These three degrees of Gods most gracious proceeding with the faithfull I have set downe not that there are so many degrees of justification so properly called For the first degree onely is that justification whereof wee treat which admitteth no degrees The other are degrees of the declaration thereof the former privately to the conscience of the faithfull the other publikely to the whole world CAP. III. The allegations of the Papists concerning the word justification the two first significations thereof assigned by Bellarmine § I. HAving thus explained the true sense and meaning of these words which in the holy Scriptures are used to signifie justification let us now examine the allegations of the Papists concerning the same Bellarmine therefore saith that the word justification meaning the Latine word is used foure wayes in the holy Scriptures meaning the vulgar Latine edition when as indeed neither the Latine edition it selfe nor the Latine word is in this question further to bee respected than as it is a true translation of the Hebrew in the Old Testament and of the Greeke in the New First saith he it is taken for the Law which teacheth righteousnesse and so is used Psal. 119. 8. I will keepe thy justifications and vers 12. teach me thy justifications c. This Bellarmine barely expoundeth without any further enforcing but Gregory Martin and our Rhemists urge it as a principall argument that the precepts of the Law are therefore called justifications because the observation of them doth justifie us and therefore exclaime against us that in our translations wee in stead of justifications doe read statutes or ordinances As though in translating the holy Scriptures we did professe to translate the Latine edition and not the Original Text. Now the word which in the old Testament is by the vulgar Latine interpreted justificationes and by the 72. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Chuqqim which when it is used alone signifieth undefinitely any of the precepts statutes or commandements of God but being used with other words of the like signification from which it is distinguish'd signifieth the statutes and ordinances of the Ceremoniall Law insomuch that the vulgar Latine in many places even where the Greek hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rendreth Ceremonias a as I shewed before which though the Latines sometimes call justificationes yet by the confession of the Papists themselves do not justifie And the like is to be said of Luk. 1. 6. where Zachary and Elizabeth are said to have walked in all the Commandements and justifications of the Lord where the Greeke word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the translation of Chuqqim and signifieth the statutes of the ceremoniall Law as being distinguished from the Commandements of the morall Law but of the Greeke word I have spoken sufficiently before Chap. 2. § 5. If therefore the force of the Latine word justificationes bee urged I answer that the observation of the morall Law can justifie no man that is a sinner and much lesse the observation of the ceremoniall And the conclusion which they inferre from the force of the word that the precepts of the Law are called justifications because by the observation of them men are justified is directly contrary to that of the Apostle that by the workes of the Law no man living is or can be justified § II. But if they bee justifications whose are they For so they argue If good workes say they bee the