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
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
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
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 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
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 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
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
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
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
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