sense given by the Church of Rome and therein by the Pope who is as they say the supreme and onely authenticall interpreter of the Word from whom it is not lawfull to dissent So that in his sense any portion of the Scriptures though obscure must bee acknowledged the word of God but urged in any other sense it is the word of the Devill rather than the Word of God Now it is the sense of the Scriptures which is the Word of God rather than the letter the sense being the soule and life of the letter Non enim in legendo Scripturae sed in intelligendo consistunt saith Hierome The words saith Bellarmine are as the sheath the sense is the sword of the Spirit Thus hath the Church of Rome revolted from the generall doctrine of faith which is the written word of God or the holy Canonicall Scriptures The speciall doctrines of faith are the severall articles taught in the Scriptures which are the speciall objects of faith either quae justificat onely or qua justificat The justifying faith beleeâ—…h all the articles and doctrines of faith which are taught in the Word of God but the peculiar object of faith quatenus justificat is the doctrine of the Gospell As touching the speciall doctrines of Christian faith there are divers bundreds of errors wherein the Church of Rome hath revolted from the faith not at once but at diveâ—…s times and by degrees The number whereof is so great as that Popery or the Catholicisme of Papiâ—…ts may justly bee called the Catholike Apostasie But from the peculiar doctrine of faith quatenus justificat which is the doctrine of the Gospell concerning justification by faith in Christ alone the Church of Rome chiefly erreth as I have shewed in this Treatise and by their Antichristian doctrine in this point they are revolted from the Gospell which is Verbum fidei the Word or Doctrine of faith they are fallen from the comfortable doctrine of this grace and to them Christ is made of none effect as I have proved This assertion concerning the Apostâ—…sie of the now Church of Rome I â—…ppose as an antidote against the poison of their impudently depraved article concerning the Catholike Church wherein there is a double imposture or poysoâ—… both in respect of the object and also of the act of faith which two in every article of the Creed are to be considered For first in respect of the object whereas the Apostles Creed hath The holy Catholike Church they understand the Catholike Romane Church the mother for soâ—…th and mistresse of all Churches which they call â—…atholike not as it is one particular Church as every Orthodox Church was wont to bee called as the Catholike Church of Smyrna c. but as it comprehendeth all particular Churches which live in Communion with and in subjection to the See of Rome all which are as they say but one Church because they are subject to one visible head the Pope of Rome And they adde that out of this communion with the See of Rome and without this subjection to the Pope of Rome as the universall Bishop there is no salvation With this one nâ—…t they coâ—…y-catch those seduced soules which either they draw to their side or detaine in Communion with them Howheit it is a most shamelesse imposture For first can it bee imagined that the Apostles by Catholike understood the Romane Church which when they composed the Creede was not extant nor for divers yeeres after No doubt the Apostles meant that Church which then had a being and whereof themselves were members which also had been from the beginning of the world and was to continue for ever viz. the universall company of the Elect and that is the meaning of the word Catholike Secondly for the first sixe hundred yeares the Bishop of Rome did not challenge unto himsâ—…lse the Title or authority of universall Bishop but was onely the Archbishop or Patriarch of Rome unto whom the foure other Patriarches of Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and Ierusalem were no more subject than hee to them every one of them having the primacy within their severall Patriarchicall jurisdictions And although after the grant of the Tyrant Phocas in the yeare sixe hundred seven the Pope challenged for himselfe to be the universall Bishop and for his See to be the head of all Churches yet by the Greeke and other Churches which were and are the better and greater part of Christendome this claime never was nor is at this day acknowledged All which Churches notwithstanding wherein were innumerable Saints and Martyrs and the most holy Fatheâ—…s of the Church by this Romish article are most wicâ—…edly and schiâ—…matically excluded from Salvation because they acknowledged no subjection to the See of Rome But if the now Church of Rome be the Apostaticall Church having revolted from the ancient Religion of Christians by their idâ—…latry will-worship and supersâ—…ition and from the Ancienâ—… faith of Christians contained generally in the holy Canonicall Scriptures and more particularly in the Gospell as by other almost innumerable errours of Popery so more especially by those which I confute in this booke and if the head of this Catholike Apostasie that is to say the Pope be Antichrist then let all Christians who have any care of their soules consider whether it bee safe for them to live in the Communion of that Sect and in subjection to that See where they must have the apostaticall Church even the whore of Babylon to be their mother from whom they are commanded to separate Apoc. 18. 4. and the Antichrist to be their father their head their universall Bishop who prevaileth in them onely that perish 2 Thes. 2. 10. 2. As touching the act of faith their coozenage in respect thereof is worse if worse may be For where the Apostles Creed hath Credo sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam they understand this article as if the words were not Credo Ecclesiam I beleeve that there is a Catholike Church and that there is a Communion of Saints the members of that Church c but credo Ecclesiae or in Ecclesiam I give credit to the Church or I beleeve in the Church making the Church whereby they understand the now Church of Rome not onely the materiall but also formall object of faith in which they beleeve and for which they beleeve whatsoever it beleeveth or propoundeth to be beleeved And in this exposition they are growne so impudent as that they say that the Church Catholike meaning the now Romane Church is the very principle of our faith for which we are to beleeve the holy Scriptures and all other articles that it is the chiefe priâ—…ciple wheron the authority of the Scriptures dependeth and the last principle into which their faith is to bee resolved that in this article is summarily contained the whole Word of God not onely written but also unwritten that Christ propounded unto us the
second For if thou doest truely beleeve that Christ is the Saviour thou art bound to beleeve that hee is thy Saviour otherwise thou makest God a lyar That therefore thou mayest learne to apply Christ unto thy selfe God by his minister delivereth to thee in particular the Sacrament as it were a pledge to assure thee in particular that as the Minister doth deliver unto thee the outward signe so the Lord doth communicate unto thee that beleevest according to the first degree of faith the thing signified that is to say Christ with all his merits to thy justification sanctification and salvation § IV. This distinction of the degrees of faith as it is most comfortable for hereby we are taught how to attaine to assurance of salvation as elsewhere I have shewed for having the first degree which is the condition of the promise thou maiest apply the promise to thy selfe and by application attaine to assurance so it is most true and most necessary to bee held And first as touching the former degree which is the speciall apprehension and embracing of Christ by a lively assent accompanyed with the desire of the heart and resolution of the will as I have said that it is that faith which is the condition of the promise and by which wee are justified before God I have proved by plaine testimonies of Scriptures and other pregnant proofes The places of Scripture which I alleaged were these Mat. 16. 16. 17. Ioh. 20. 31. Act. 8. 37. 38. Rom. 10. 9. 10. 1 Ioh. 5. 1. 5. Whereunto may bee added 1 Ioh. 4. 15. Among the manifold proofes which I produced this is one that if there bee no other justifying faith but the speciall faith whereby wee are assured of the remission of our sinnes then two absurdities will follow The one that wee must apply the promises to our selves before wee have the condition thereof which as wee ought not to doe lest wee play the hypocrites so wee cannot doe unlesse wee will perniciously deceive our selves The promise is whosoever beleeveth in Christ hath remission of sinne whosoever beleeveth in Christ shall bee saved c. This promise is made to none but to those who truely beleeve and are endued with a justifying faith which is the condition of the promise It is evident therefore that a man must bee endued with justifying faith before hee can apply the promise and hee must apply the promise before hee can have any assurance by speciall faith The second absurdity is that a man must bee assured that his sinnes be forgiven before they be forgiven and so must beleeve a lie yea that a man must bee assured that they are forgiven to the end that they may be forgiven which is a great absurdity This therefore is an undeniable truth that before we can either apply the promises or attaine to assurance of remission of sinne we must be endued with true justifying faith which is the condition of the promise and the meanes to obtaine remission I must beleeve therefore by a justifying faith before I can have remission of sinnes I must have remission of sinnes before I can have any assurance thereof and I must ascend by many degrees of assurance before I come to full assurance which yet in this life is never so full but that still more may and ought to be added to it § V. As touching the second which by some is called speciall faith not onely in respect of the object which is Christ for so the former is also speciall but in respect of the effect which is by actuall application of the Promises to a mans selfe to assure him in particular of his justification and salvation It is by some both protestant and popish writers called fiducia that is affiance Howbeit the most of our Writers by it meant assurance But unproperly howsoever for neither is faith affiance nor affiance assurance This speciall apprehension application of Christ though scorn'd by the Papists yet is it of all graces the most comfortable most profitable most necessary Most comfortable for the very life of this life is the assurance of a better life Most necessary because without this speciall receiving of Christ first by apprehension and then by application we can have no other saving grace How can we love God or our neighbour for Gods sake how can we hope and trust in him how can we rejoyce in him or be thankefull to him if we be not perswaded of his love and bounty towards us and so of the rest Most profitable because from it all other graces proceed and according to the measure of it is the measure of all other graces as I have elsewhere shewed For if the love of God bee shed abroad in thy heart by the Holy Ghost that is if by faith thou art perswaded of Gods love towards thee thou wilt be moved to love the Lord and thy neighbour for his sake then wilt thou hope and trust in him then wilt thou rejoyce in him and bee thankefull unto him and so forth And the greater thy perswasion is of his love and goodnesse towards thee so much the greater will be thy love thy hope thy trust thy thankefulnesse thy rejoycing in him c. When as therefore the Papists detest and scorne our Doctrine concerning speciall faith they doe plainely bewray themselves to have no saving grace nor any truth or power of Religion in them § VI. But that this speciall receiving and embracing of Christ by faith is necessary to justification and that faith doth not justifie without it it doth evidently appeare by the third and fourth points before handled in the fourth and fifth Bookes For if we be justified only by the righteousnesse of Christ which is out of us in him then are we not justified by faith as it is an habit or quality inherent in us but as it is the hand and instrument whereby we receive Christ his righteousnesse which as it is imputed to us by God so we apprehend it by faith And because faith alone doth receive Christ and all his merits therefore the same benefits which we receive from Christ and are properly to bee ascribed unto him as the Authour of them are in the Scriptures attributed also to faith because by faith we receive Christ. By Christ we live Ioh. 6. 57. We live by faith Gal. 2. 20. Hab. 2. 4. By Christ we have remission of sinnes Eph. 1. 7. Act. 13. 38. By faith wee have remission of sinnes Act. 8. 39. 26. 18. By Christ wee are justified Esai 53. 11. Wee are justified by faith Rom. 3. 28. Gal. 3. 24. By Christ we have peace with God Col. 1. 20. We have peace with God by faith Rom. 5. 2. We have free accesse to God by Christ Eph. 2. 18. 3. 12. Heb. 10. 19. We have free accesse to God by Faith Rom. 5. 2. Eph. 3. 12. We are sanctified by Christ 1 Cor. 1. 30. Heb. 10. 14. We are
Exposition Ioh. 17. 17. so Ioh. 18. 37. Rom. 2. 8. â—…al 3. 1. 5. 7. Eph. 4. 21. 2 Thess. 2. 10 12. 1 Tim. 2. 4. 4. 3. 2 Tim. 2. 18. cum 1 Tim. 1. 19. 2 Tim. 3. 8. Heb. 10. 26 1 Pet. 1. 22. 1 Ioh. 2. 21. 2 Iob. 1. 2. Sometimes the word of Truth or of the truth Eph. 1. 13. 2 Tim. 2. 15. Iam. 1. 18. sometimes the truth of the Gospell Gal. 2. 5. 14. or the word of the truth of the Gospell Col. 1. 5. The 〈◊〉 whereof is Christ crucified 1 Cor. 1. 23. 2. 2. For this cause justifying faith is called oftentimes the faith of Christ because he is the proper Object thereof as Rom. 3. 22 26. Gal. 2. 16. 20. 3. 22. Phil. 3. 9. and faith in Christ as Act. 20. 21. 24. 24. 26. 18. Gal. 3. 26. Faith in the blood of Christ Rom. 3. 25. that faith which is in Christ Iesus 2 Tiâ—… 3. 15. sometimes the faith of the Gospell Phil. 1. 27. and which is all one the faith of the truth 2 Thess. 2. 13. Thus therfore I reason That to the beliâ—…e whereof alone and not of other things remission of sinnes justification and salvation is promised that I say is the proper object of justifying faith But to the beliefe in Christ or in the Doctrine and promises of the Gospell concerning salvation by Christ remission of sins justification and salvation is promised and not to the beliefe of other things Therefore that is the proper object of justifying faith That the Promise is made to beliefe in Christ and in the Gospell the Scriptures every whâ—…re â—…each as Ioh. 3. 15 16. 18. 36. 8. 24. 11. 25 26. â—…2 46. 20. 31. Act. 10. 43. 13. 38 39. 16 31. 26. 18. Rom. 10. 9 11. c. But not to the beliefe of other things is the promise made as of the Law or of the story of the Bible or of predictions excepting those stories and propheâ—…ies which concerne Christ. For howsoever a man cannot have a justifying faith who denieth credit to any of those other things which he findeth to be revealed by God yet not by beleeving of them but by beleeving in Christ â—…hee is justified § III. But here it may be objected that the faith whereby Abraham was justified had no relation to the promise of salvation by Christ but to the promises of God concerning his seed Whereunto I answere First that Abraham and all the rest of the faithfull before Christ beleeved in the promised seed which was the Messias to come and by that faith as the Papists themselves confesse were justifyed Secondly the promises which concerned his seed were either the same with the promise of the Gospell or it was implyed in them The maine promise was that in Abraham that is in his seed all Nations that is the faithfull in all Nations should be blessed For Abraham did not conceive that in himselfe all Nations should be blessed as if himselfe should be the foundation of Happinesse unto All but in his seed And so the Lord himselfe explaneth in Gen. 22. 18. and in thy seed that is in Christ all the nations of the Earth shall be blessed And so Zacharie Luk. 1. 68. 69 73. and Peter Act. 3. 25. This promise made to Abraham is the very same with the promise of the Gospell For as the Apostle saith the Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the Heathen through faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preached before the Gospell to Abraham saying in thee that is in thy seed shall all nations be blessed Which promise as it had beene formerly made to our first parents concerning the promised seed so was it after renewed to Isaac Gen. 26. 4. and to Iacob Gen. 28. 14. and in effect to David whose sonne according to the flesh Messias was to be who is therefore called the sonne of David and the branch of David In this promised seed Abraham and all other the faithfull beleeved and by beleeving in Him were justified § IV. The other promises concerning his seed are two The former concerning the multiplication of his seed that hee should bee Father of a multitude of Nations namely in Christ and that hee would be a God to him and his seed hee doth not say to seeds as of many but as of one and to thy seed which is Christ Gal. 3. 16. that is Christ mysticall 1 Cor. 12. 12. containing the multitude of the faithfull in all Nations both Iewes and Gentiles This promise therefore implyeth the former that in Christ the promised seed Abraham himselfe and his seed that is the faithfull of all nations should be blessed and in confirmation of this promise he was called Abraham because he was to be a Father of many nations that is of the faithfull of all nations for none but they are accounted Abrahams seed Rom. 9. 7 8. Gal. 3. 7. 29. and for the same cause hee received the Sacrament of Circumcision as a seale of that righteousnesse which is by faith Rom. 4. 11. And that in this promise of the multiplication of his seed the promise of the Gospell was included appeareth because his faith in this promise was imputed to him for righteousnesse not for the the approbation or justifying of that act as it happened in the zealous act of Phineas Psal. 106. 30. but for the justification of his person which could not be justified but by faith in Christ. Which the Papists themselves cannot denie The chiefe thing which Abraham apprehended in the promise concerning his seed was that although he were an hundred yeere old and Sarah past child-bearing yet he should have seed by her and in that seed himselfe and all the faithfull of all Nations should be blessed § V. The latter is that they should possesse the land of promise by which as by a type was signified the heavenly Canaan under which to all the faithfull was promised the Kingdome of heaven which was the Countrey which they professing themselves Pilgrimes did seeke Heb. 11. 13 14 15 16. and into which eternall rest Iesus was to bring them who beleâ—…ve even as Ioshua the type of Christ who also is called Iesus brought the Israelites after their peregrinations into that land of rest So that in the latter Promises concerning his seed and the land of promise the former was implyed concerning the promised seed and blessednesse by him as the principall object of Abrahams faith for which chiefly hee did so much affect and desire seed Insomuch that when the Lord had promised him to bee his buckler and his exceeding great reward Abraham replied Lord God what wilt thou give mee seeing I goe childlesse As Abraham therefore who rejoyced to see our Saviour Christs day and as he and the rest of the faithfull having not received the promises concerning the promised seed but having seene them a farre off were perswaded of them
faith doth not justifie alone first because it doth not dispose alone to justification there being seven dispositions whereof faith is but one and namely the first § I. NOw let us see what arguments Bellarmine doth bring to prove that we are not justified by faith alone Which question in his opinion may bee disputed three wayes either with relation to the time going before justification or to the time of justification or to the time following our justification In respect of the first the question which he maketh is whether faith doth justifie alone by way of disposing unto justification In respect of the second whether faith be the onely formall cause of our justification In respect of the third whether for the retaining and preserving of righteousnesse good workes be not required but faith onely sufficeth The first he disputeth De justif l. 1. c. 12. and in the twelve chapters following to the end of that booke The second that faith is not the onely and entire formall cause of justification he disputeth in the second booke The third he disputeth in the fourth booke Chap. 18. 19. where he endevoureth to prove that good workes doe justifie But in mine opinion hee should rather have disputed this question whether faith doth justifie at all or not For whereas they make two justifications the first habituall whereby of a sinner a man is made just the second actuall whereby a man of just is made more just by their doctrine faith doth not justifie as a part either of the one or the other but is required as a necessary companion and as it were causa sine qua non which is no cause For they make the formall cause of their first justification which they say truely is but one to be charity and the meritorious cause of the second to be good workes Onely that charity and those good workes must not be without faith All which they ascribe to faith is that they make it the beginning of justification and a disposition to it Neither doe we deny but that true faith is the beginning and the root of sanctification and of all inherent righteousnesse insomuch that from it both charity it selfe 1 Tim. 1. 5. and all other both internall graces and externall obedience doe spring but the act of justification neither in the first nor second doe they ascribe to faith Onely unto the first justification they require it as a preparative disposition for the habit of grace to bee infused which doth not differ from Charity and when it is infused to be a companion thereof And to the second as causa sine qua non without which workes doe not justifie § II. But to come to Bellarmines large discourse the greatest part thereof seemeth to bee impertinent and besides the purpose But to make all seeme pertinent he maliciously calumniateth us as if we held all those assertions which hee with such eagernesse doth confute But if we doe hold that faith doth not justifie by way of disposing either alone or at all and that it is not the formall cause of justification either alone as the entire cause or at all as any part thereof and that it is not a consequent of justification at all as works indeed are to what end doth all this dispute serve unlesse it be to make their seduced Catholiks who never are permitted to read any of our writings to beleeve that he hath doughtily confuted us § III. And that faith doth not justifie alone by way of disposing he endeavoureth to prove by five sorts of arguments The first from those seven dispositions required by the Councell of Trent to justification among which he reckoneth faith for one Whereunto in generall I answere that this whole discourse besides that it is impertinent for wee doe not hold as I have said that faith doth justifie by way of disposition either alone or at all it is also an idle speculation disagreeing from their practicke theologie and that in two respects First to their speculative justification they require foregoing preparations and dispositions but to the obtayning of justification in deed and in practise no such things are required For the efficacie of justifying a sinner they ascribe to their Sacraments which they say doe conferre gratiam gratum facientem that is justifie ex opere operato requiring as I conceive no preceding preparation or disposition in the party to be justified so hee doe not interpose the obstacle of any mortall sinne For if foregoing dispositions were required before the Sacraments then they should not justifie as I have said before ex opere operato but ex opere operantis Secondly they doe teach that in their first justification Charity and with it Faith and Hope are infused whereby a man that before was a sinner is made righteous And that therefore a man is first justified when these are infused and that these are first infused when a man is justified and yet they tell us of a true Faith true Hope true Love going before justification Which by their doctrine though they goe together I meane Faith Hope and Charity accompanied with other good dispositions are neither graces nor gifts of grace infused For before or without the Sacrament there is no justification which they have tyed to the Sacrament and before justification as themselves say there is no grace For if they were graces indeed as no doubt but they are where they are true and goe together accompanied with other good dispositions then men might be justified before the receit of the Sacrament as Abraham was and then the Sacrament to men so qualified should not conserre grace but seale it Thus to mainetaine their pernicious errour concerning the efficacie of the Sacraments justifying ex opere operato whereby they have turned religion into an outward formality that Faith that Hope that Charity which goe before the Sacrament as namely in Cornelius before his baptisme should be no true graces because all true justifying and saving grace is insused in the administration of the Sacrament and this infusion of grace is that which they call justification By their doctrine therefore justifying faith is that which in the very act of justification is infused and being infused doth justifie not by way of disposing but formally it selfe being informed by Charity And therefore according to their owne doctrine that faith which disposeth to justification is not justifying Faith And consequently all this discourse concerning six other preparative dispositions concurring with faith to prove that we are not justified by faith alone is besides the purpose For that faith which they make their first preparative disposition is not justisying faith neither doth justifie otherwise by Bellarmines owne confession than its next companion viz servile feare doth But wee when we say that faith alone doth justifie speake not of a bare and naked assent which is common to the wicked which cannot justifie either alone or at all but of a true
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
But faith that is Christ received by faith saveth alone Thus much may suffice to have answered his former Argument in defence of that difference which wee make according to the Scriptures betweene the Law and the Gospell in respect of justification § XIX His other argument to prove the necessity of good works which wee deny not is taken from his true pretended differences betwixt the Law and the Gospell whereof he setteth downe two principall and six secondary differences arising from the principall All of them impertinent to the matter in hand excepting the first and also the last which serveth to confute the first is that such is the difference betweene the Law and the Gospell as betweene a doctrine begunne and perfected for as in respect of the mysteryes to believed and the promises to be hoped for the Gospell excelleth the Law 〈◊〉 should have said the new Testament excelleth the old for of the the two Testaments that is of the Law and the Gospell largely and not strictly taken this difference is to be understood so also in respect of the precepts which are to be done For to omit the ceremoniall and judiciall Lawes which hee impertinently mentioneth hee saith that the Law and the Gospell have in a maner the same morall precepts but with this difference that in the Gospell some more heavy or weighty things are imposed upon Christians thaâ—… were in the Law exacted of the Iewes as in the matter of polygamy and billes of divorce which not withstanding by the morall Law were as much forbidbed to them as now to us Secondly that Christ did perfect the moral Law prescribing a more perfect righteousnesse than the Law required Thirdly that to the precepts hee hath added Counselles tending to perfection Answ. This difference is suitable to the rest of their wicked and Antichristian doctrine which in this whole treatise I confute wherby as they confound justification and sanctification so also the Law and the Gospell saving that in the Gospell they say greater perfection is required of inherent righteousnes to justification than the Law prefcribeth and so make it a Law of workes as much or rather more than the Law it selfe § XX. This is confuted by the eigth or last difference wherin hee truely saith that the Law of Mose was most heavy and unportable but the Gospell of Christ is an easie yoake and a light burden If Petor therefore exclaimed against those which sought to impose the Law of Moses upon Christians Act. 15. 10. what shall wee thinke of our Popish Rabbins that impose an heavier yoake than the Law it selfe For whereas Bellarmine saith the Gospell is the easier because of the grace of the newe Testament accompanying it yet the difference is to be understood in respect of the doctrine it selfe and the letter which if it reqâ—…ire more perfect obedience is in it self the heavier burden II. This difference by confounding the Law and the Gospell doth make void the covenant of grace which God made with Abraham and performed in Christ which was concerning Iustification by faith which as it could not be disannulled by the Covenant of works so much lesse was it repealed but renewed and ratified in the Gospell But if in the Gospell were taught justification by works and not by Christs righteousnesse apperhended by faith the Covenant of grace made with Abraham should in the Gospell be repealed rather than renewed For the covenant of works promiseth justification and life upon condition of perfect and perpetuall obedience the covenant of grace upon condition of faith And these two in the Article of justification are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 incompatible If therfore the Gospell doe teach justification by workes it maketh void the covenant of grace and thus the popish gospel overthroweth the Gospel of Christ. Thirdly This difference overthroweth a maine benefit which we have by Christ and without which we can neither be justified nor saved which is this that he hath freed us from the rigour of the Law which standeth in an exaction of perfect righteousnesse to be inherent in us and perfect obedience to be performed by us unto the acceptation either of our persons or actions which by reason of our corruption is impossible unto us And therfore miserable is their estcate who are in bondage to the Law either subjecting them to the curse if they offend in the least degree when in many things wee offend all or excluding them from justification and salvation if they yeeld not perfect and perpetuall obedience which by reason of the flesh is impossible From this curse Christ hath freed us in being made a curse for us bearing the punishment due for our sinnes and from this exaction of perfect righteousnesse to be performed by our selves hee hath freed us in being made unto us of God righteousnesse even Iehovah our righteousnesse performing perfect obedience to the Law for us But if the Gospell which they call the new Law require more perfect obedience than the old Law unto justification and salvation then doe wee continue in that miserable estate neither doth our blessed and most perfect Saviour availe us any thing Neither will this free us from this bondage that with the newe Law the grace of the new Testament whereby we should be enabled to obey the Law is conferred For first it is conferred onely to those who are already justified and secondly to whom it is conferred it is not given in such perfection in this life but that ever they are sinners in themselves sinne alwayes abiding in them So that still if wee must be justified by no righteousnesse but that which is inherent in us we remaine in that fearefull bondage seeing we have nothing either to free us from the curse in respect of our former sinnes or to entitle us to the kingdome of heaven our best righteousnesse being unperfect and stayned with the flesh Fourthly the righteousnes required in the new Law to justification is either the same with that which was prescribed in the old Law or more perfect If the same how then are we not justified by the works of the Law If more perfect then the Law of God was not perfect which the Scriptures testifie to be so perfect as nothing can bee added thereto Neither did our Saviour Christ perfect the Law by adding more perfection unto it in respect either of the precepts or the counsells which the Papists conceive to have bin added by Christ to the precepts For as touching the precepts he did but more perfectly explaine them freeing them from the depravations of the Scribes and Pharisees who rested in the outward letter as if the Law were not spirituall nor did forbid any more but the grosse sins which in the 〈◊〉 of the Law are expressed And as for the Counsells they are also morall duties for omission wherof men may according to the sentence of the Law be condemned as not to love our enemyes not
by faith without works If therefore St. Iames doe affirme that men are justified in the same sence that Paul denyeth the same and that Abraham was justified by his workes which Paul denyeth he is made to contradict the Apostle Paul § VI. But as the Popish doctrine is repugnant to the doctrine of the Apostle Paul so neither can it bee grounded upon this text which may appeare by a briefe Analysis thereof Where first you are to consider the occasion of this discourse and thereupon the scope of the Apostle therein The occasion was the dissolute life of many Christians who as Iude speaketh vers 4. did turne the grace of God into wantonnes vaine men as St. Iames calleth them vers 20. who when they had learned that a man is justified by faith without workes hereby tooke occasion to cast of all care of good workes As if it were sufficient for them howsoever they lived to professe them selves to believe The scope therfore and intendement of the Apostle is not to confute the doctrine of Paul concerning justification by faith alone but according to Pauls direction Tit. 3. 8. to perswade all those who professe themselves to believe to be studious of good workes And that hee doth by this argument because howsoever faith doth justifie alone yet the profession of faith alone without good workes will not justifie nor save a man but is altogether vaine and unprofitable The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or state of the question which hee propoundeth to argue manifestly appeareth by the proposition wherein the question is propounded and by the conclusion wherein the question is concluded the proposition vers 14. What profit my brethren if a man say hee hath faith and hath not workes will 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that faith save him Marke the wordes if a man shall say hee hath faith that is if a man shall professe himself to believe and hath not works that is a conversation answerable in some measure to his profession will that faith which is in profession onely justifie or save him this interrogation implyeth a most Emphaticall negation wherein hee doth not onely deny that faith which is onely in profession and doth not worke by love doth justifie or save a man but also for the truth of his deniall hee doth appeale as it were to their conscience sor so much is meant by the interrogation The question then is not whether true faith doe justifie alone as Bellarmine would have it but whether that faith which is alone and by it selfe vers 17. without workes without a Christian conversation be a true justifying or saving saith This the Apostle denieth and so doe wee In the rest of the discourse hee proveth this negative assertion by an argument from the contrary namely that this fruitlesse faith is not a true faith because it is dead Where the Apostle argueth to this effect That faith which is dead doth not iustifie or save a man The faith which is profession onely and is alone without workes is dead Therefore that faith which is in profession onely and is alone without workes doth not iustifie or save a man The assumption hee proveth in this whole discourse where the conâ—…lusion is alwayes this that the faith which is alone and without workes is dead and therefore that is the question wich is disputed and concluded § VII Now that the faith which is alone and without workes is dead hee proveth by five arguments 1. The first à parâ—… That charity which is onely in word and not in deed is vaine and unprofitable vers 15. 16. Even so pariratione that faith which is in profession only having no works to accompany it is dead vers 17. 2. The second argument is taken from the effects For a true lively faith may bee demonstrated by good workes and that which cannot be demonstrated by good workes is but a dead faith And this hee proveth vers 18. against the carnall Gospeller as it were by the partyes owne testimony or forced confession provoking him to make experience which kind of proofe is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thou professest the faith having no workes I also professe the faith and have workes come now to the tryall hee that hath a true faith may approve it by the fruits shewe then they faith if thou canst by thy workes which thou knowest thou canst not doe and I by my workes will approve my faith 3. The third argument is from the subject For a true justifying faith is not common to all men 2. Thes. 3. 2. and much lesse to Devils but is proper to the Elect Tit. 1. 1. But that faith which men professe without charity and without good workes is common to Devils vers 19. Thou professest that thou believest that there is one God thou doest well but if this thy beliefe be not accompanied with charity and good workes know this that the devils themselves who hate God doe though with horrour knowe and perforce believe the same 4. The fourth argument to prove that faith onely professed or which is in profession onely is not a true and a lively but a conterfeit and a dead faith is a twofold example of Abraham and of Rahab who were justified that is declared and knowne to be just by their workes For in this sence as the word is often used in the Scriptures as Mâ—…t 11. 19. Luk 7. 29. Râ—… 3. 4. 1. Tim. 3. 16 so of necessity it must bee taken in this place For by good workes which alwaies followe and never goe before justification wee are not made just but being already justified wee are by them declared and knowne to be just For hee is a righteous man that worketh righteousnesse And this the Schoolmen themselves doe teach that works doâ—… justifiâ—… â—…clarativè Thâ—…s Aquinas saith Opera nâ—…n sunt caâ—…sa quòd aliquiâ—… sit iâ—…tus apud Deum c. workes are not the cause why any man is just before God but rather they are the executions and manifestations of iustice Nam nullus per opera iustificatur apud Deum sed per habitum fidei For no man is iustified before God by workes but by the habit of faith And whereas it might bee obiected out of Iam. 2. that Abraham was iustified by workes hee answeareth the word to be iustified many be taken two wayes whereof the one is quantum ad executionem iustitiae manifestationem inrespect of execution and manifestation of iustice hoc mâ—…do iustificatur homo i. iustus ostenditur ex operib operatis and thus a man is iustified that is declared be iust by the workes which hee hath done And thus the ordinary glosse expoundeth the word in this place But let us come to the words vers 20. § VIII But wilt thou know O vaine man that faith that is that faith professed or in profession onely without workes is dead or that the faith which is without workes is knowne to be dead
as Abraham was that is by them as by fruites and effects hee is declared and approved to bee just and not by faith professed onely Hee doth not say a man is justified by workes as causes but as the effects For that and not the other is deduced from the example of Abraham § XIII The other example is of Rahab Verse 25. For though you may thinke that you need not compare with Abraham and yet have a true justifying faith yet you will bee ashamed to bee behinde Rahab the harlot who was no sooner justified before God by faith but she was also justifyed that is declared and knowne to bee just by her worke of charity towards the Espyes which shee wrought by faith Heb. 11. 31. Concerning this example of Rahab Bellarmine hath foure Assertions of which never an one agreeth with another First That Rahab was not declared to bee just because shee was an harlot which is false For though shee had beene an harlot yet now she beleeved and by her faith was justifyed before God and by her worke which shee wrought by faith was justified as Saint Iames saith that is declared to bee just Secondly That Iames briâ—…geth the example of Rahab to prove that by good workes a righteous person is made more righteous which also is false and contrary to his former Assertion Thirdly That by this worke of mercy shee was truely justified and of a sinner made just But Rahab as Bellarâ—…ine saith was an example of the first justification and therefore of a sinner not made just by her worke but by the habit of grace infused The trueth is by faith shee was justifyed before God and by her worke shee was declared to bee just before men Fourthly That by that worke as a disposition she was prepared unto justificaâ—…ion Which agreeth neither with his third where he said that by this worke shee was truely justifyed and of a sinner made just nor with Saint â—…mes whose meaning plainely is not that shee was prepared unto justification by this worke no more than Abraham was by his but that she was declared by this worke as a fruite of her faith and a consequent of her justification as Abraham was by his workes to be justifyed before God And thus much of the two examples § XIV There remaâ—…eth his fifth Argument which is a similitude Verse 26. For as the body without the Spirit is dead so faith without workes or that faith which is without workes is dead which words also may bee two wayes expounded For either the Apostle Iames speaketh of the habit of faith or of the profession of it If of the habit then the comparison standeth thus As the body of man without the Spirit that is without breath which is the prime signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to breathe in which sense it is called the spirit of the mouth and spirit of the nostrils I say as the body without breath is dead so that saith which is without workes which are as it were the breathing of a lively faith is judged to be dead For as Bernâ—…rd also saith As we discerne the life of this body by its motion so the life of faith by workes If therefore faith it selfe be here meant wee must by Spirit understand breath and not the soule For although the Papists absurdly make charity which is a fruite of faith 1 Tim. 1. 5. to be the forme of it yet me thinkes they cannot bee so absurd as to compare faith to the body and workes to the soule as though workes which are the fruites and effects both of faith and of charity were the forme and as it were the soule of faith If by faith we understand faith professed or the profession of faith as in this discouse hitherto it hath beene used and as it is used elsewhere as Act. 14. 22. Râ—…m 1. 8. then you may understand the similiâ—…de thus As the body of man without the Spirit that is the â—…oule is dead so the profession of faith without a godly life which is as it were the life and â—…oule of our profeâ—…on is also dead For hypocrites whose life is not conformable to their profession though they have a â—…ame that they live yet they are dead Apâ—…c 3. 1. Thus by five arguments Saint Iâ—…mes hath proved that the faith which is alone and without workes is not a true and a lively but a dead and counterfeit faith and yet 〈◊〉 both here and Lib. 1. dâ—… justif cap. 15. will needs have Saint â—…ames to speake of a true faith as if he supposed that a true faith might be without workes Therefore the Popish Doctrine of justification by workes as causes thereof cannot be grounded on this Tâ—…xt of Saint Iames. § XV. Yea but will some say the contradiction is not yet salved For Saint Paul affirmeth as you say that faith alone doth justify and Saint Iames in plaine termes denyeth that a man is justifyed by faith onely I answere when we say that faith onely doth justify we doe not meane absolutely that nothing doth justify but faith in no sense whatsoever For many things may truely bee said to justify aliâ—… atque aliâ—… sensu in divers senses as I have shewed heretofore God the Father as the prime efficient Christ as the meritorious cause God as the Iudge Christ as the Advocate God as the Creditour Christ as the Surety The grace of God as the moving cause the righteousnes of Christ as the matter the imputation thereof as the forme the holy Ghost as the applying cause the Word and Sacraments as the instruments of the holy Ghost Faith as the hand of the receiver works as testimonies and signes c. but our meaning is that we are justified by the righteousnesse of Christ onely which is apprehended by faith alone and that in us nothing doth concurre to the act of justification but faith alone it being the onely instrument whereby wee receive Christ. And thus have you heard what is to be alleaged against the Papists First that their doctrine concerning justification by workes which they would build upon this Text is repugnant to the Scriptures Secondly that by their exposition they make Saint Iâ—…mes to contradict Saint Paul Thirdly that their doctrine cannot bee grounded on this Text. § XVI Now for our selves I will shew that by our exposition the seeming difference betweene the two Apostles is manifestly reconciled and that by our Doctrine their Assertions not oâ—…ely may well stand together but also must necessarily goe together The reconciliation is easily made if we consider two things first the diversity of the Parties with whom the two Apostles had to deale For the Apostle Paul having to deale with Pharisaicall Iustitiaries who sought to bee justified by a righteousnesse inherent in themselves and by an obedience performed by themselves proveth by invincible arguments that a man is justified by faith without
2 3. â—… ad 8. As bee was justified so are we lib. 5. cap. 2. § 6. Adam Whether his sinne bee imputed lib. 4. cap. 10. § 1 2. Whether originall sinne bee traduced from â—…im l. 4. c. 10. § 3. Whether the transgression and the corruption bee communicated after the same manner ibid. § 4. The comparison betweene the first and the second Adam ibid. § 5. Adoption That it is true lib. 4. cap. 10. § 18. Such as is our adoption such is our justification ibid. § 19. Adoption according to Bellarmiâ—…es 〈◊〉 is twofold of the soulâ—… and of the body ibid. § 20. No reall change in adoption but it is relative and imputative ibid. § 21. Affiance Whether it be faith lib. 6. cap. 4. § 9. 11. Assent It being firâ—…e lively and effectuall is faith l. 6. c. 1. 2. § c. 4. § 10. B Bellarmine His contradictions l. 3. c. 4. § 3. â—… 3. l. 4. c. 2. § 5. ad literam o l. 4. c. 9. § 7. l. 4. c. 10. § 1 2. l 5. c. 6. § 7. l. 5 c. 8. § 2. in fine l. 6. c. 3. § 7. â—… 6. c. 8. § 7. â—… 4. l. 6. c 9. sub finem ad literam * l. 6. c. 10. § 11 l. 6. c. 15. § 10. l. 8. c. 2. § 11. l. 8. c. 9. § 3. â—… 2. § 4. C Causall particles Not alwayes nor for the most part notes of causes l. 8. c. 5. § 14. 16. 17. Cause The Causes of iustification l. 1. c. 2. The Causes efficient principall God l. 1. c. 2. § 1. The Father § 4. the Sonne the holy Ghost ibid. The moving Causes l. 1. c. 2. § 2. The instrumentall Causes lib. 1. c. 2. § 5. c. The essentiall Causes l. 1. c. 3. The matter lib. 1. cap. 3. 1 c. ad 7. l. 4. The forme lib. 1. cap. 3. § 7 c. l. 5. The finall cause lib. 1. cap. 6. § 1 2 3 4. Charity That it doth not justifie as well as faith l. 4. c. 11. § 2 c. That it is not the forme of â—…aith lib. 4. cap. 11. § 5. Whether perfect in this life l. 5. cap. 7. CHRIST The mericorious cause of justification l. 1. â—… 2. § 4. Whether hee obeyed the Law for himselfe or for us l. 1. c. 4. § 10. Whether he merited for himselfe lib. 1. c. 4. § 11. Christs exaltation Phil. 2. 9. was his declaration to be the Sonne of God lib. 1. c. 4. § 11. 12. How many wayes hee is said to justifie us lib. 2. c 5. § 8. The righteousnesse of Christ is Gods righteousnesse l. 4. c. 2 § 2 3 4. Christs rightâ—…ousnesse the materiâ—…ll cause of justification l. 1. c. 3 4. vide Materiall and Matter Christs righteousnesse both the matter and merit of our iustification lib. 1. cap. 3. § 1. Concupiscence In the regenerate a sinne lib. 2. cap. 8. § 7 8. 9. lib. 4. cap. 4. § 12. lib. 7. cap. 6. § 14. Concupiscence going before consent a finnenne lib. 2. c. 8 9. Counsells The Counsell of voluntary poverty l. 7. c. 7. § 4. The counsell of single life lib. 7. cap. 7. § 5 6. D David Not iustified by inherent righteousnesse lib. 4. c. 8. § 15. Definition Of Iustification lib. 1. cap. 1. § 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 2. cap. 2. § 1 2. The signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 3. The signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 4. The signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 5. The signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 6. Dispositions Seven alleaged by Bellarmine to disprove justification by faith alone lib. 6. cap. 10 11 12. Whether any dispositioâ—…s bee indeed required by the Papists lib. 6. c. 10. § 4. Whether faith hope love as they bee dispositions bee graces lib. 6. cap. 12. § 6 7. E Efficient The efficient principall of justification God lib. 1. c. 2. § 1. The motives grace and iustice ib. § 2. The actions of the Father the Sonne the holy Ghost distinguâ—…shed ibid. § 4. End The end or fiâ—…ll cause of iustification both supreme the glory of God lib. 1. c. 6. § 1. and also subordinate viz. salvation § 2. certainety of salvation § 2. sanctification § 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How to be understood Gal. 5. 6. l. 4. c. 11. § 3. 4. F Faith The instrument on oâ—…r 〈◊〉 of iustification lib. 1. cap. 2. § 7. Concerning it seven things considered 1. Thâ—… it iustifieth not as it is an habit or act in us but as the hand to receive Christs righteousnesse ibid. lib. 1. cap. 5. § 12. 2. It must therefore be such a faith as doth specially apprehend Christ. lib. 1. cap. 2. § 8. 3. It doth not prepare onely and dispose to iustification but it doth actually iustifie § 9. l. 6. c. 7. § 1 2. 4. It doth not iustifiâ—… absolutely in respect of its ownâ—… worth but relatively in respect of the object § 10. 5. The meaning of the question whether we be justified by faith or by workes § 11. 6. How faith is said to iustifie alone § 12. 7. That faith doth not sanctifie alone § 12. Whether the act of faith properly be imputed â—…torighteousnesse l. 1. cap. 2. § 7. cap. 5. § 12. That charity is not the formâ—… of faith l. 4. cap. 11. § 5. Of the distinction of saith that it is either formata or informis § 6. That faith is perfect Bellarmine produceth sixe reasons which are answered l. 5. c. 6. The full discourse of faith l. 6. The Popish 〈◊〉 concerning faith l. 6. c. 1. § 1. What faith is cap. 1. § 2. That it is not without knowledge § 3. against implicite faith lib. 6. cap. 1. § 3. c. The doctrine of implicit faith both falsâ—… for many reasons § 4. and absurd in that they say it may better bee defined by ignorance than by knowledge § 5. Bellarm. allegations out of the Scriptures for implicite faith § 6 of Fathers § 7. Testimonies of Fathers against it § 13. Bellarmines reason § 14. The doctrine of implicite faith wicked as being an egregious coozâ—…nage § 15 16 17. and pernicious to the people § 18. True justifying â—…aith cannot be severed from charity lib. 6. cap. 2. Our reasons I. Because hee that hath true faith is regenerate § 1. II. Because hee hath the Spirit of Christ dwelling in him § 2. III. Because hee is sanctified â—… 3. IV. Because hee is the true Disciple of Christ. § 4. V. Because true faith worketh by charity ibid. VI. Because true faith is formata ibid. VII Because if it be without charity it doth not iustifie VIII Because they who love not know not God ibid. 7. Other arguments out of Iames 2. § 5. 6. Other arguments defended against Bellarmine § 6. c. Testimonies of Fathers lib. 6. cap. 2. § 12. Bellarmines proofes that
Psalm 7. 4 9. c. § 3. III. Matth. 6. 22. § 4. IV. 1 Cor. 3. 12. § 5. V. Iam. 3. 2. § 6. VI. Psalm 4. 4. Esai 1. 16. Ioh. 5. 14. in which wee are exborted not to sinne § 7. VII From those places which teach that the workes of the faithfull doe please God § 8. VIII From these places which absolutely call them good § 9. Two Testimonies of Fathers § 10. Three Reasons I. If good workes are impure then either by reason of concupiscence l. 4. c. 4. § 12. or for want of charity § 13. or because of veniall sinnes concurring § 14. II. From six absurdities § 15 16. By righteousnesse inherent the Law is not fulfilled l. 4. c. 5. § 3. 4. 4. None are able to fulfill the Law first because all are transgressours § â—… Secondly because none can be iustified by it § 7. Thirdly because none can fulfill the first and the last Commandements § 8. Fourthly out of Act. 15. 10. § 9. Fiftly out of Rom. 7. 18. § 10. Sixthly Rom. 8. 3 § 11. By righteousnesse inherent we are not iustified proved by foureteene reasons l. 4. c. 8. vid. matter of iustification S Sacraments They are seales of iustification l. â—… c. 2. § 6. l. 6. c. 14. 8. Whether they iustifie ex opere operato l. 6. c. 10. § 3. The purpose and desire to receive the Sacrament Bellarmines sixâ—…h disposition to iustification l 6. c. 12. § 7. Satisfaction The imputation of Christs satisfaction acknowledged by the Papists l. 1. c. 3. § 8. Sanctification Not to be confounded with iustification l. 2. per totum How it is distinguished from iustification l. 2. c. 6. Sinners All men are sinners l. 4. c. 2. § 9. c. 8. § 7. l. 5. c. 2. § 2. Subject of faith Viz. the party to whom it belongeth lib. 6. c. 5. § 1. and the parts of the soule wherein it is sealed § 2. viz. the minde that is both the understanding and the will proved by Testimonies § 3. 4. 5. Whether the â—…nderstanding be commanded by the will to beleeve lib. 6. c. 5. § 6. T Truth The doctrine of iustification and Salvation by faith in Christ is called the Truth lib. 1 cap. 1. § 1. lib. 6. cap. 6. § 2. V Veniall Whether veniall sinnes doe contaminate the good works of the iust lib. 4. cap. 4. § 14. VVhether they doe â—…inder the fulfilling of the Law l. 7. c. 6. § 23. Whether they be onely besides the Law and not against it ibid. Vprightnesse It goeth under the name of perfection and upright men are called perfect lib. 4. c. 10. § 10. W. Word The word an instrumentall cause of iustification l. 1. c. 2. § 5. Workes Good workâ—…s â—…re the fruites and effects not causes of 〈◊〉 l. 1. c. 6. § 7. The necessiâ—… of gâ—…od works urged of us by better 〈◊〉 than the Popish doctrine doth 〈◊〉 c. 1. In what 〈◊〉 we deny good workes to iustifie l. 7. c. â—… § 1. That good workes doe noâ—… iustifie men before God prove by all the five 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 7. â—… 2. § 2. by foure other reasons § 3. 〈◊〉 thâ—…se that are iustified by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by their owne obedience of the Law § 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is 〈◊〉 to the Scriptures § 5. Bellarmines preamble to his answere in which hee considereth three things first what is meant by the Law of workes and by the Law of faith lib. 7. cap. 2. § 6 7. Secondly the differences betweene the iustice of the Law and in or by the Law § 8. Thirdly what is meant by workes which are excluded from iustification whether the workes of the Ceremoniall Law § 9. 10. or also of the morall and whether all or onely those which goe before faith § 11. Bellarmines proofes that those onely 〈◊〉 before or without faith are excluded l. 7. c. 2. § 13. Bellarmines dispute concerning the necessity of good workes l. 7. c. 4. his method § 1. He proveth them necessary not to iuâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 2. His first proofe is from the difference betweene the Law and the Gospell § 3. c. ad 19. Eight differences by hire propounded l. 7. c. 4. § 19 20 21 22. His second proofe from the doctrine of Christian liberty l. 7. c. 4. § 23. That good workes are necessary by way of efficacie Bellarmine proveth by three sorts of arguments first from Scriptures I. Testimoniâ—… Heb. 10. 36. lib. 7. c. 5. § 3. II. 1 Tim. 2. 14 15. l. 7. c. 5. § 4. III. Phil. 2. 12. § 5. IV. 2 Cor. 7. 10. § 6. V. 2 Cor. 4. 17. § 7. VI. Rom. 8. 13. § 8. VII Rom. 8. 16 17. § 9. VIII Rom. 10. 10. § 10. IX Matth. 25. 34 35. § 11. X. Iam. 1. 25. 2. 14. § 12. XI The Epistles of Peter Iames Iohn and Iude. l. 7. c. 5. § 13. Secondly from testimonies of Fathers § 14. Thirdly from reason § 19. because faith dâ—…th not save alone lib. 7. c. 5. § 16. 17. Of the verity of the â—…ustice of good workes l. 7. c. 6. § 1. VVhether they be sinnes l. 7. c. 7. § 17. That they be sinnes it followes upon the doctrine of the Papists lib. 4. c. 4. § 9. in fine 21. Bellarmines proofes that good workes doe iustifie l. 7. c. 8. The first Iam. 2. 24. lib. 7. c. 8. § 2. c. ad 19. Sixe other testimonies I. Eccl. 18. 21. § 19. vide l. 2. c. 4. § 2. 3. II. Rom. 6. 19. l. 7. c. 8. § 19. III. 2 Cor. 7. 1. l. 7. c. 8. § 20. IV. 2 Cor. 9. 10. § 21. V. Iohn 14. 23. § 22. VI. Apâ—…c 22. 11. § 23. The Papists high opinion of their works l. 8. c. 9. § 14. Our estimations of them § 15. Y Yoke Christs yoke easie lib. 7. cap. 6. § 4 5 6 7. FINIS Errata Page 2. line 20 even our juâ—…if p. 4. l. 9. â—…sadiq p. 6 â—… antepen speciall p. 9. marg l. 2. â—… 〈◊〉 2. 1. 2. l. 15. justificaâ—…i p. 13. l. a fin 19. VIII 〈◊〉 second p 15 l â—… 〈◊〉 6. concur l. penulâ—… standeth 〈◊〉 p. 16. marg l. 6. lib 1 cap. 2 p. 17. l. af 11. herâ—… l. 〈◊〉 7. men p. 18 l. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 28. 〈◊〉 is p. 19 l 1. breake l. 15 16. dele So the righteousnesse of our Meâ—…iator who is God p. 21 marg l 2. Ier 23 6. l af 5. dele sect p. 22. l. af 14. then he intendeth p 24. l. 6 〈◊〉 l. 11 partam l. 18. nothing else p. 26. l af 8 we are p. 27. l af 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no p. 28. l. 20 and sâ—…condly l. af 13. id eâ—…t compl p. 29. l. 1. receivâ—…d l. af 4. in us p. 31. l. 3. 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 l. af 12. yâ—…t we p. 32 l. 26. ad 〈◊〉 p. 38. l. 17 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 22. scales p. 43. l. antep upon Christ 〈◊〉
salse l uâ—…t dele Fatâ—…h ibâ—…d by God p 315. l 9. 〈◊〉 marg l. 13. 〈◊〉 80. l. 21. 〈◊〉 l. 26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l 35 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. prolâ—…gom p. 317. l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 318 l. 7. 8 and 〈◊〉 p â—…320 l. af 8. quoâ—…ism p. 321. l. 20 as are p. 325. l. 4â—… 〈◊〉 p. 326. marg l. 2. qâ—… 2. p. 327. l. af 7 〈◊〉 marâ—… l. 8. 9. Pist. 38. si 〈◊〉 p. 328. l. 12. walking marg l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p 334. l. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 1 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 336. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—… 337. ad l. 10. marg de 〈◊〉 lib. 1. c. â—…5 l. af 5. exprescâ—…d l. af 4. 38. p. 33. 8. â—… 18. to feed p. 340. l. 4. l. 15. p 342. l. 10. orgaâ—…call p. 350. marg l. 6. 1 Ioh. 5. 10. p. 357. l. af 11. faitb is p. 36â—… marg l. ult Rom. 4. 19. p. 373. l. af 16. 〈◊〉 respect of any l. â—…f 10. Bâ—…nedictus p. 376. l. 〈◊〉 iâ—… is p. 377. l. 23 〈◊〉 p. 378. l. 12. Blessed Ambr. â—… 21. 〈◊〉 â—… ef 12. just 〈◊〉 A TREATISE OF IVSTIFICATION THE FIRST BOOKE Wherein is set downe the true doctrine of Justification according to the word of God CAP. I. The excellencie of this argument is set forth and the definition of justification propounded and in part expounded § I. AMong all the articles of Christian religion there is none as I suppose either more necessarie to be knowne or more comfortable to be beleeved than the doctrine of justification whereby a faithfull man is taught to beleeve and know that hee being a sinner in himselfe and by sinne obnoxious to eternall damnation is by the mercies of God and merits of Christ through faith not onely freed from the guilt of his sinnes and from everlasting damnation but also accepted as righteous before God in Christ and made heire of eternall life This doctrine in many places of the Scripture hereafter to be cited is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by way of excellency called the truth and sometimes the truth of the Gospell as Gal. 2. 5. that is the truth of God revealed in the Gospell concerning justification and salvation by the free grace of God through the merits of Christ apprehended by faith being also the chiefe argument contained in the Gospell which is therefore called the power of God unto salvation because therein the Righteousnesse of God even that by which we are justified and saved is revealed from faith to faith as it is written The just shall live by faith or he that is just by faith shall live which doctrine is so inviolably and incorruptly to be held that if an Apostle if an Angell from heaven shall teach any other Gospell that is any other doctrine whereby to bee justified and saved than by the onely merits of Christ apprehended by faith hee ought to bee held accursed But by how much the more necessary and comfortable this doctrine is by so much the more it is oppugned by Satan who as at the first hee did not abide in the truth nor kept his first estate but left his habitation rather than hee would as some probably thinke embrace this truth namely that the second Person in Trinity should for the salvation of mankinde become flesh and that in him the nature of man should be advanced above the nature of Angels so hath hee ever since opposed it by all meanes as namely by raising not only other false teachers in the apostles times and since but even Antichrist and his adherents in these later times who have not onely perverted this doctrine but also subverted it and have as it were taken away the subject of the question for by confounding the law and the Gospell the covenant of workes and the covenant of grace the benefits of justification and sanctification and of two making but one they have wholly abolished that great benefit of the Messias about our justification whereby wee are freed from hell and entituled to the kingdome of heaven and consequently they are fallen from grace having disanulled the covenant of grace and made the promise of none effect For whosoever seeketh to be justified by inherent righteousnesse he is under the curse he is a debtour to the whole law and therefore to him Christ is become of none effect This being therefore a controversie of such importance that it concerneth our very title to the kingdome of heaven it is to bee handled with all diligence and not without invocation of the holy Spirit of truth whom wee beseech to guide and to direct us in setting downe the truth to confirme and stablish us in the profession of it and to assist and strengthen us against the enemies thereof But before I come to confute the errours of the Papists the enemies of the truth I will first set downe the true doctrine of justification according to Gods word § II. Iustification therefore is a most gracious and righteous action of God whereby he imputing the righteousnesse of Christ to a beleeving sinner absolveth him from his sinnes and accepteth of him as righteous in Christ and as 〈◊〉 heire of eternall life to the praise and glory of his owne mercy and justice Where first consider the name of the thing which wee have now defined and are hereafter to handle To justifie if you respect the notation of the Latine word signifieth to make just as to magnifie importeth to make great Neither is it to be doubted but that the Lord whom he justifieth doth constitute or make just Now the Lord maketh men just two wayes either by imputation of Christs righteousnesse which is out of them in Christ as being his personall righteousnesse or by infusion of righteousnesse as it were by influence into them from Christ their head To the faithfull therefore there belongeth a twofold righteousnesse the one of justification the other of sanctification The former is the righteousnesse of Christ and therefore the righteousnesse of God as it is often called the righteousnesse of God because it is the righteousnesse of him that is God and is imputed to the beleever the later is ours because inherent in us though received from God as all our good things are The former is perfect as being the righteousnesse of him that is God the later is but begun in this life and is to be perfected in the life to come By the former we are justified by the later we are sanctified If it be objected that there seemeth little or no difference betweene these two words for as to justifie is to make just so to sanctifie is to make holy And therefore as to sanctifie is to make holy by holinesse infused so to justifie is to make just by justice inherent I answer First that this is contrary to the use of the word
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
Gospell the covenant of workes and the covenant of grace as if the Gospell did unto justification require inherent and that a more perfect righteousnesse than the Law requireth And consequently with the false Apostles and teachers of the Galatians doe teach another Gospell than that which the Apostle taught which whosoever doth hee is accursed Whrefore the samethings which the Apostle objecteth against the Galatians who were seduced by their false Teachers are verified of the Papists who seekng to be justified by the workes of the Law are under the curse they are fallen from grace to them the promise is of no effect to them Christ dyed in vaine then Christ profiteth nothing as hereafter I shall shew For whosoever seeketh to bee justified by the workes of the Law hee is a debtour to the whole Law and to him who is a debtour to the whole Law that is to bee subject to the curse if he transgresse it and to be excluded from justification and salvation if he doe not perfectly fulfill it Christ profiteth nothing For whereas they distinguish the workes which they make the condition of both the Covenants that the one are the workes of Nature the other of grace it is evident that all good workes and all inherent righteousnesse is prescribed in the Law which is the most perfect rule of all inherent righteousnesse Secondly that inherent righteousnesse is not the condition of the covenant of grace but is the thing promised to all that truely beleeve For the better understanding whereof wee are to know that the covenant of workes was made with all mankinde in Adam the Covenant of Grace with the heires of promise in Christ. The former promiseth justification to these who in their owne persons performe perfect obedience that perfect obedience being the condition of the Covenant The latter that to us the sonnes of Abraham being redeemed and justified by faith the Lord will give grace to worship him in holinesse and righteousnesse before him in which our new obedience consisteth which as I said is not the condition of the promise but the thing promised § XXI Secondly by confounding justification and sanctification they teach men to place the matter of justification and merit of salvation in themselves For the matter of sanctification is inherent and that which is the matter of justification is the merit of salvation Againe that which is inherent is both prescribed in the Law and is also our owne though received from God which the Pharisie himselfe confessed when he thanked God for it But the holy Ghost doth teach us that wee are neither justified by the obedience or righteousnesse which is taught in the Law nor by that which is ours And in regard of this very difference betwixt the Papists and us wee are not unworthily called Evangelici the professors of the Gospell and they the enemies thereof who seeking to establish their owne righteousnesse doe with scorne reject the righteousnesse of Christ imputed which is that righteousnesse of God revealed in the Gospell from faith to faith This being the maine doctrine of the Gospell that we are justified not by any righteousnesse inherent in our selves or performed by our selves but by the righteousnesse of Christ alone apprehended by faith § XXII By confounding justification and sanctification and so of two benefits making but one they doe abolish and take away that maine benefit of the Messias by which we are not onely freed from hell but also intituled unto the kingdome of heaven which the Scriptures distinctly call our justification without which there can bee no salvation For whom God doth justifie all them and onely them he doth glorifie And that they doe wholly take away the benefit of justification it shall further appeare in handling the second question of this first controverfie whereof I am now to speake CAP. VII That the Papists exclude remission of sinne from Iustification and in stead thereof have put expulsion and extinction of sinne by infusion of righteousnesse and that they fouly erre therein § I. BVT heare it will be objected that so long as the Papists acknowledge remission of sinne to concurre unto justification they cannot be said wholly to take away the benefit of justification but rather to follow the judgement of some of the Latine fathers who sometimes comprehending the benefit of sanctification under the name of justification seemed to make justification to consist in remission of sinne and sanctification Whereunto I answere that indeed the Papists pretend so much For the Councell of Trent in expresse termes saith that justification is not remission of sins alone but also sanctification and renovation of the inner man and to the like purpose Bellarmine disputeth that justification doth not consist in the remission of sinnes alone but also in inward renovation And yet all this is but a meere colourable pretence For as they exclude from justification the imputation of Christs righteousnesse by which onely wee have remission of sinne so they doe indeed and in truth exclude remission it selfe And as in stead of imputation of righteousnesse they have brought in infusion of justice so in stead of remission of sinne by imputation of Christs righteousnesse they have brought in the utter expulsion extinction deletion of sinne by infusion of righteousnesse And for this they have some shew of reason For if they should hold that justification consisteth partly in remission that is in the forgivenesse or not imputation of sinne and partly in renovation or sanctification then they must confesse that there are two formall causes of justification which Calvin objected against the Councell of Trent and may truly bee objected against such of the Fathers as held justification to consist partly in remission and partly in renovation and consequently should bee forced to acknowledge two wayes of making men just by one and the same act of justification the one by imputation of that righteousnesse by which being without us we have remission of sinne the other by infusion of righteousnesse inherent by which sinne is expelled But the Councell of Trent doth stedfastly hold that there is but one formall cause of justification and that is infusion of justice whereby sinne is expelled What then becometh of remission of sinne which according both to Scriptures and Fathers concurreth to justification I say of it as of justification the name is retained but the thing is taken away § II. Heere therefore I am to shew two things first that the Papists from justification exclude remission of sinne by putting into the roome thereof the expulsion and extinction of sinne which belongeth not to justification but to sanctification and consequently doe wholly abolish by their doctrine the benefit of justification Secondly that remission of sinne is not the utter extinction or deletion thereof As touching the former when Calvin objected against the Councell of Trent that it made two
accepted of him and rewarded by him but wee deny that any man is justified by it This question therefore is concerning the matter of justification For whereas justification considered as an action of God is his making or constituting a man righteous either by Christs righteousnesse imputed as wee teach according to the Scriptures or by righteousnesse infused as the Papists hold It is therefore apparent that as according to our Doctrine the righteousnesse of Christ is the matter and the imputation thereof the forme of justification so according to their doctrine inherent righteousnesse should be the matter of justification and the infusion of it the forme But howsoever wee differ in respect of logicall termes in setting downe the state of this controversie because they against reason make inherent righteousnesse the forme of justification yet the true state of the controversie betweene them and us is this whether wee bee justified before God by Christs righteousnesse which is out of us in him imputed to us or by that righteousnesse which being infused of God is inherent in us whether it bee the righteousnesse of God as the Apostle calleth it that is of Christ who is God inherent in him or a righteousnesse from God inherent in us we hold the former the Papists the latter § II. Now this is the principall point of difference betweene them and us in this whole controversie and that in two respects First because the righteousnesse of God whereby wee are justified is the principall matter contained or revealed in the Gospell Rom. 1. 16 17. For which cause wee who maintaine justification by that righteousnesse of God which is taught in the Gospell which the Pápists oppugne are worthily called the professours of the Gospell whereof the Papists are professed enemies Secondly because upon this all the other points of difference doe depend For if wee were justified by righteousnesse inherent then it would follow First that to justifie were to make just by infusion of righteousnesse inherent Secondly that wee are justified by the grace of God or rather graces inherent in us Thirdly that the forme of justification were infusion of righteousnesse Fourthly that faith doth justifie as a part of inherent and habituall righteousnesse and therefore also that it doth not justifie alone Fifthly that workes justifie as our actuall righteousnesse But on the contrary if wee bee justified by that righteousnesse which is not inherent in us but out of us in Christ then it followeth first that to justifie doth not signifie making righteous by justice inherent Secondly that we are not justified by inherent grace but by the gracious favour of God accepting us in Christ. Thirdly that wee are not justified by infusion but by imputation of righteousnesse Fourthly that faith doth not justifie as a part of inherent righteousnesse but as the hand to receive Christ who is our righteousnesse Fifthly that workes doe not justifie as causes to worke but as fruits and signes to declare and manifest our justification § III. And as the proofe of this inferreth the rest so the rest being proved are so many proofes of this For first if to justifie doe never in the Scriptures signifie to make righteous by infusion of righteousnesse then wee are not justified by inherent righteousnesse neither is justification by inherent righteousnesse that justification which the Scriptures teach Secondly if wee bee not justified by grace inherent then not by habituall or inherent righteousnesse if by the gracious favour of God freely without respect of any cause of justification in us then not by workes or inherent righteousnesse Thirdly if by imputà tion of Christs righteousnesse then not by infusion of inherent justice Fourthly if by faith as it is the hand to receive Christs righteousnesse then not by righteousnesse inherent Fifthly if not by workes as any cause then not by inherent righteousnesse But the two first I have fully and clearely proved already the first in the second booke and the second in the third And the rest I shall by the grace of God demonstrate in their due place § IV. That which hath already beene said both here and heretofore together with that which shall hereafter bee produced to prove the other three points remaining to bee proved might bee a sufficient demonstration of this point But because the proofe of this point being the principall doth prove all the rest as I have shewed therefore I will not onely bring a supply of divers arguments by disproving the popish assertion and proving our owne but also answere the cavills and objections of the Papists And first I will prove our assertion and disprove theirs joyntly and together and then severally I will disprove their assertion viz. that wee are justified by righteousnesse inherent in ourselves and prove ours to wit that wee are justified by the righteousnesse of Christ which is out of us in him CHAP. II. That we are justified by Christs righteousnesse and not by that which is inherent in us proved joyntly by three arguments § I. FIrst therefore That righteousnesse whereby we are justied is Gods righteousnesse and not ours The righteousnesse of Christ which is out of us in him is Gods righteousnesse that which is inherent in us is ours Therefore wee are justified by the righteousnesse of Christ which is out of us in him and not by that which is inherent in our selves The former part of the proposition is proved out of Rom. 1. 17. and 3. 21. Thus The righteousnesse which there is said to be revealed in the Gospell is that righteousnesse by which wee are justified This proposition is confessed of all The righteousnesse of God is that righteousnesse which is revealed in the Gospell Rom. 1. 17. In the Gospell is revealed the righteousnesse of God from faith to faith as it is written the just by faith shall live Rom. 3. 21. The righteousnesse of God is without the Law manifested viz. in the Gospell even the righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Iesus Christ unto all and upon all that beleeve Therefore the righteousnesse of God is that righteousnesse by which wee are justified The whole proposition in both the parts is proved out of Rom. 10. 3. where it is not onely signified that wee are justified by Gods righteousnesse and not by our owne but there is also such an opposition made betwixt Gods righteousnesse and ours in the point of justification that whosoever seeke to be justified by their owne rigâ—…teousnesse cannot be justified by the righteousnesse of God Wherefore Paul in the question of his owne justification renounceth his owne righteousnesse desiring to bee found in Christ not having his owne righteousnesse which is of the Law as all inherent righteousnesse is but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God by faith Phil. 3. 9. § 2. The assumption in respect of the former part viz. that the righteousnesse of Christ is Gods righteousnesse is easily proved first
performed as well as we can because commanded knowing that God will accept of our upright though weake indevour § XXI The sixth and the last who seeth not that these words good workes are mortall sinnes imply a contradiction for they shall be good and not good c. Answ. We doe not affirme that good workes are mortall sinnes neither doe we deny them to be truly good Onely we deny them to bee purely and perfectly good And we acknowledge the impurity and imperfection concurring with them to bee a sinne and consequently that the good workes of the faithfull are good per se as being commanded as being the fruits of the Spirit and of faith working by love but sinfull per accidens as being stained with the flesh yea but saith Bellarmine Bonum non existit nisi ex integra causa malum verò ex quolibet vitio that is that is not to bee accounted a good worke whereunto all things doe not concurre which are requisite but that is evill wherein there is any defect therefore if there be any defect or imperfection to bee found in any worke that worke is not to be accounted good but evill Answ. that rule of Diony sius is true according to the rigour of the Law which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from which our Saviour hath delivered us but it is not true according to the covenant of grace wherein the Lord accepteth the sincere and upright indevours of his children though defective and unperfect for perfect performance their wants being not imputed unto them but covered with the robe of Christs perfect righteousnesse As therefore their persons though in themselves sinners are in Christ accepted as righteous so their actions though in themselves defective are acceptable in Christ. Here therefore wee may justly retort both the accusation it selfe and all these absurdities upon the Papists who be necessary consequence are proved to hold that all the workes of the righteous are simply evill and so absolutely to be called sinnes Those works wherein is found any defect or imperfection are not good but absolutely they are to bee called sinnes as the Papists teach But in all even the best works of the righteous there is to be found some defect imperfection or blemish as being stained with the flesh This assumption is plainely taught in the holy Scriptures as I have proved heretofore Therefore all even the best actions of the righteous are absolutely to be called sinnes as the Papists teach Here then let all men againe take notice of the Popish pharisaisme or pharisaicall hypocrisie of Papists with whom no man is just or justified in whom is any sinne no action good but simply evill in which is any defect and yet their persons are just and their actions not onely good but also meritorious and that ex condigno and that ratione operis of eternall life CHAP. V. Our fourth Argument that the righteousnesse by which wee are justified satisfieth the Law so doth Christs righteousnesse so doth not that which is inherent in us § I. NOw I returne to our owne proofes The fourth argument therefore to prove joyntly that we are justified by Christs righteousnesse and not by ours may be this By that righteousnesse alone and by no other we are justified by which the Law is fully satisfied By the righteousnesse of Christ alone the Law is fully satisfied and not by any righteousnesse inherent in us or performed by us Therefore wee are justified by the righteousnesse of Christ alone and not by any righteousnesse inherent in us or performed by us For the proofe of the proposition three things are to be acknowledged first that whosoever is justified is made just by some righteousnesse for as I have shewed heretofore to thinke that a man should be justified without justice is as absurd as to imagine a man to be clothed without apparell secondly that all true righteousnesse is a conformity to the law of God which is the perfect rule of righteousnesse insomuch as what is not conformable to the Law is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is iniquity and sinne thirdly that there can be no justification without the Law be fulfilled either by our selves or by another for us For our Saviour when he came to justifie us and save us protested that hee came not to breake the Law but to fulfill it and professeth that not one jot or tittle of the Law should passe unfulfilled Matth. 5. 17 18. Saint Paul likewise avoucheth that by the doctrine of justification by faith the Law is not made void but established Rom. 3. 31. The proposition therefore is undenyable The assumption hath two parts the former affirmative that by the righteousnesse of Christ the Law is fully satisfied the other negative that by any righteousnesse inherent in us or performed by us the Law neither is nor can be fully satisfied For the clearing of the assumption in both the parts wee are to understand that to the full satisfying of the Law since the fall of Adam two things are required the one in respect of the penalty unto the suffering whereof sinne hath made us debtours the other in respect of the precept to the doing wherof the Law doth bind us The former to free us from hell and damnation the other to entitle us to heaven and salvation according to the sanction of the Law If thou dost not that which is commanded thou art accursed if thoudoest it thou shalt be saved In respect of the former the Law cannot be satisfied in the behalf of him who hath oncetransgressed it but by eternal punishment or that which is equivalent in respect of the latter it is not satisfied but by a totall perfect and perpetuall obedience § II. Now our Saviour Christ hath fully satisfied the Law for all them that truly beleeve in him in both respects For hee hath superabundantly satisfied the penalty of the Law for us by his sufferings and by his death and he hath perfectly fulfilled the Law for us by performing all righteousnesse in obeying his Father in all things even unto death and by them both he hath justified us freeing us from hell by his sufferings and entituling of us unto heaven by his obedience And therefore the holy Ghost affirmeth that wee are justified by his bloud Rom. 5. 9. and by his obedience verse 19. For his sufferings were the sufferings of God in which respect they who put him to death are said to have killed the Author of life Act. 3. 15. and to have crucified the Lord of glory 1 Cor. 2. 8 and for the same cause the bloud by which we are redeemed is called the bloud of God Act. 20. 28. or which is all one the bloud of the Sonne of God 1 Iohn 17. His obedience likewise was the obedience of God For Iesus Christ the word that is the second person in Trinity being in the forme of God God coequall with his Father for our sakes
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
proposition because a third thing may be added and that is this or because the spirit of grace or regeneration who is the author and efficient of both hath unseparably united them in one and the same subject wherein working the one that is faith with it and by it he worketh the other As touching the Assumption the former part that the one is not of the nature of the other it is denied by the Roman-Catholike the latter that the one doth not necessarily spring from the other by the true Catholikes For the Papists hold that charitie is the forme of justifying faith without which it neither doth nor can justifie And therefore they of all men ought to hold that justifying faith cannot be severed from charitie For whereas Bellarmine saith that charitie is but the outward forme of faith by which it worketh I acknowledge no outward forme but of artificiall bodies As for that which is principium motus by which any thing worketh it is the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the actus primus the proper forme whereby any thing as it is that which it is so it worketh and produceth his proper and naturall effects And such is the unseparable coexistence of the forme and the thing formed that posita forma res ipsa ponatur sublata forma res ipsa 〈◊〉 The Papists therefore hold things repugnant and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when they teach that charitie is the forme of justifying faith and yet that justifying faith may be severed from it The second that the one doth not necessarily spring from the other we deny For true faith doth necessarily and infallibly encline the beleever to love God and his neighbour for Gods sake For that faith whereby we are perswaded of Gods love to us in Christ cannot but move and encline us to love God neither can we love God as good if we doe not first beleeve that hee is good And such as is the measure of our faith concerning Gods goodnesse to us such is the measure of our love to him Bellarmine consesseth that saith enclineth and disposeth a man to love but saith a disposition and inclination non cogit doth not compell a man but leaveth him free As though there were no necessitie but of coaction or constraint § VIII That charitie doth necessarily follow faith as an unseparable companion he saith we have no sound proofes and therefore are faine to illustrate it by certaine similitudes which he calleth examples Answ. Whether we have any sound proofes or not I referre the Christian reader to the fifteene arguments which Bellarmine tooke no notice of besides those sixe I vindicated from his cavils As for similitudes they were not brought to prove the point but to illustrate and to make it more plaine As if I should compare a regenerate soule to fire as Christ did Iohn Baptist to a burning and shining lampe I might say which was Luthers similitude as in fire or rather if you please in the Sunne-beames two things concurre light and heate and neither is without the other the beames of the Sunne alwaies by their light producing heat so in the regenerate soule there are faith as the light and charitie as the heate and neither is without other because the spirit of regeneration as it were the Sunne by shedding abroad the beames of Gods love into our hearts that is by working in us faith by which we are perswaded of Gods love towards us in Christ inflameth our hearts with the love of God the beames of Gods love reflecting from our soules some warmth of love towards God To this Bellarminâ—… answereth that charitie in the Scriptures is compared to fire c. Answ. So it may in respect of the heate as faith also may in respect of the light as therefore in the fire concurreth both light and heate which cannot be severed so in the regenerate soule faith and love Bucers similitude was of a sicke man who being desperately sicke if a Physician shall assure him of health and much more if hee shall cure him by forgoing something that is most deare unto him cannot if hee beleeve so much but affect and love him so wee being desperately sicke of sinne and neare to death and damnation if the Lord shall by giving his owne Sonne not onely redeeme us from death but also entitle us to the kingdome of Heaven wee cannot if wee bee truly perswaded hereof by faith but love God againe who hath so loved us For we love God because he first loved us To this Bellarmine answereth that hee which beleeveth is inclined to love him in whom hee beleeveth but is not forced thereunto which no man averreth § IX A third similitude he would seeme to produce out of Calvins Institutions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ and his spirit cannot be separated so faith and charitie cannot be severed but though both the parts of this comparison are true yet there is no such similitude propounded by Calvin But in that place he proveth that true faith cannot bee severed from a godly affection because true faith embraceth Christ as he is offered unto us of his Father now of his Father hee is made unto us not onely righteousnesse to bee received by faith unto justification but holinesse also to bee applied by his spirit unto sanctification And therefore those that receive Christ receive also his spirit Bellarmine answereth that it is true indeed that he which receiveth Christ receiveth him with his spirit sed credendo recipit i. credit illum habere spiritum sanctificationis but he receiveth by beleeving that is he beleeveth that Christ hath aspirit of sanctification but from hence it doth not follow that the spirit of sanctification is alwaies with faith in a man unlesse it be objectively even as health is in a sicke man that hath it not when he thinketh of it and desireth it Thus in popish divinitie to receive the spirit of Christ is to beleeve that Christ hath a spirit of sanctification but not to be partaker thereof or to have the communion of the holy Ghost which notwithstanding all those have who truely beleeve in Christ. For all that truely beleeve are the sonnes of God as I have shewed and to so many as be his sonnes God doth send the spirit of his sonne into their hearts his spirit dwelleth in them and he by his spirit And if any man have not the spirit of Christ hee is none of his If therefore all that receive Christ receive also his spirit then all that truely beleeve are also endued with charitie as I have proved before § X. His sixth argument is taken from an absurditie which he saith followeth upon our doctrine For saith he they doe therefore contend that a man is justified by faith onely because if justification depended upon the condition of works or our obedience of the Law no man could be certaine of his justification to which effect the Apostle argueth
most worthy to be urged and beat upon as being that thing which above all other things in this world is to be desired and laboured for according to the â—…xhortation of the Apostle Peter Give diligence to make your calling and election sure But this speciall faith the Papists above all things deridâ—… and detesâ—… â—…thereby discovering themselves to bee as I have elsewhere shewed voide of all truth and power of Religion It being as I have said and proved a thing most profitable most comfortable most necessary without which no Christian can have any true pâ—…ce or sound comforâ—… or ougâ—… to have contentment in his present estate untill â—…e have â—…tained unto it in some measure And when hee 〈◊〉 attained to some measure he must endevour more and moâ—…e to increase it But hereof I have treated in another place wherâ—…unto I referre the Christian Reader CAP. VII Of the acts or effects of faith and first whether faith doth justifie or only dispose to justification Secondly whether it doth justifie formally § I. THe next controversie is concerning that act or effect of justifying faith in respect whereof it is called justifying faith Of this there are three Questions the first whether Faith doth indeed justifie or onely dispose a man to justification Secondly whether it justifie formally as part of inherent righteousnesse or instrumentally as the hand to receive Christ who is our righteousâ—…esse Thirdly whether it justifie alone The assertions of the Papists in the two former questions doe not seeme to â—…ang well together For if faith goe before justification disposing a man thereto how doth it justifie formally as part of that righteousnesse whereby a man is as they speake formally just And if no dispositions bâ—…e required to justification to what purpose doe they tell us that a man must be disposed and prepared by faith and other virtues For howsoever in their speculations they require preparative dispositions to justification yet in their practise they seeme to require 〈◊〉 For their justification which is in fact and in deed is restrained to their Sacraments as namely to Bapâ—… And their Sacraments justifie ex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore without necessity of any foregoing dispositions For if any virtuous or good disposition were required then should their Sacraments justifie not ex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but ex 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Onely they require that he who is by the Sacrament to be justified doe not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—…lis 〈◊〉 that is interpose the obstacls of some mortall sinne And what be these dispositions which must goe before justification § II. Forsooth there are seven which according to the decree of the Councell of Trent Bellarmine reckoneth De justif lib. 1. ca. 13. to prove that faith doth not justifie alone because the other sixe also doe dispose men thereunto The seven are faith feare hope love penitencie a purpose and desire to receive the Sacrament a purpose of amendment of life All which doe but prepare and dispose a man But it is the Sacrament as namely of Baptisme that doth actually justifie and without which no man is justified But I would gladly know whether these seven preparatives be fruits of grace or works of nature Not of grace for as they teach no man hath grace before Iustification What then they are the fruits of nature holpen I wot not by what grace which if it were true would not onely prove the maine assertion of the Pelagians Gratiam secundùm merita dari or as in other words it is expressed in the Councell of Trent Secundùm propriam cajusque dispositionem operationem For though according to their doctrine these preparations are not merits of condignity as they say yet they bee of congruity but also disprove the doctrine of the Apostle that we are justified freely by his grace But this seemeth to me absurd that men should have one justifying faith and so one hope and one love c. going before justification and another infused in our justification and that by the one justifying faith going before we should be prepared to justification and by the other infused in our justification we should in part be formally justified But this is certaine that that faith which in order of time goeth before justification is no true justifying faith For that which goeth before justification goeth also before regeneration and what goeth before regeneration is of nature and not of Grace But faith in order of time goeth not before justification though in order of nature it doth for so soone as a man beleeveth he is justified as Hierome saith Talis est ille qui in Christum credidit die qua credidit qualis ille qui universam legem implevit Such a one is hee that beleeveth in Christ the very day that hee beleeveth as hee that hath fulfilled the whole Law nor in order of nature before regeneration for in our regeneration it is wrought As therefore no man hath faith who is not regenerated so no man hath faith who is not thereby justified The Scripture is plaine that in Christ whosoever beleeveth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is justified Act. 13. 39. He that beleeveth in Christ is passed from death to life Ioh. 5. 24. 6. 54. which passage from death to life is justification whereby as themselves teach a man is translated from the state of death and damnation into a state of Grace and Salvation Faith therefore actually justifieth and not disposeth onely to justification § III. The other question is whether faith doth justifie formally as they speake as being a part of inherent righteousnesse or instrumentally only as the hand to receive Christ who is our righteousnesse The Romane Catholikes hold â—…he former the true Catholikes the latter But the former I have sufficiently disproved before and proved the latter For if we be not justified by any grace or righteousnesse inherent in our selves or performed by our selves which I have before by many undeniable arguments demonstrated then it followeth necessarily that we are not justified by faith as it is a gift or grace an act or habit or quality inherent in us or performed by us And if we be justified by the righteousnesse of Christ onely which being out of us in him is imputed to those who receive it by faith which also before I invincibly proved then also it followeth by necessary consequence that wee are justified by faith onely as it is the instrument or hand to apprehend or receive Christ who is our righteousnesse Wherefore where faith is said to justifie or to bee imputed to righteousnesse it must of necessity be understood relatively and in respect of the object to which purpose both justification and all other benefits which we receive by Christ are attributed to faith as I have shewed before Not that faith it selfe worketh these things but because by it wee receive Christ and with him all his merits and benefits And for the same cause the
faith of all the faithfull though unequall in degrees in some greater in some lesse is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a-like precious in the righteousnesse of God and our Saviour Iesus Christ 2 Pet. 1. 1. which is an evidence that faith doth not justifie in respect of its owne dignity or worthinesse but in respect of the object which it doth receive which being the most perfect righteousnesse of Christ unto which nothing can be added is one and the same to all that receive it Of this see more lib. 1. cap. 2. § 10. § IV. Here now the Papists because wee deny faith to justifie in respect of its owne worthinesse and merit take occasion to inveigh against us as if we made it Titulum sine re and as it were a matter of nothing Which is a malicious and yet but a frivolous cavill For first in respect of justification we acknowledge it to bee the onely instrument or hand to receive Christ to be the condition of the Covenant of Grace to which the Promises of remission of sinnes and of Salvation are made without which the promises of the Gospell doe not appertaine unto us and without which our blessed Saviour doth not save us Secondly in respect of Sanctification wee attribute all that and more which the Papists ascribe unto it in respect of their imaginary justification That it is the beginning the foundation and root of all inherent righteousnesse the mother of all other sanctifying Graces which purifieth the heart and worketh by love without which it is impossible to please God without which whatsoever is done is sinne § V. But howsoever here the Papists would seeme to plead for faith yet the truth is that as they have abolished the benefit of justification as it is taught in the holy Scriptures so with it they have taken away the justifying faith For though they retaine the name yet in their doctrine there is no such thing For first to faith they doe not ascribe the power to justifie but only to be a disposition one among seven even such a one as servile feare is of a man unto inherent righteousnesse or to the grace of Sanctification it selfe being not as yet a justifying or sanctifying grace Secondly that faith being infused becommeth the beginning and a part of formall inherent righteousnesse But so small a part they assigne unto it that they say that the habit of formall righteousnesse differeth not from the habit of charity so that in justification it hath no use at all and in sanctification charity is all in all which is a manifest evidence that the Church of Rome is fallen away from the ancient doctrine of the faith For both Scriptures and Fathers every where ascribe justification to faith and not to Charitie to faith and not to workes but the Papists ascribe the first justification to charitie which they make to be the onely formall cause of justification which as themselves teach is but one and the second justification they assigne to workes CHAP. VIII Whether we be justified by Faith alone The state of the Controversie and some reasons on our part § I. NOw I come to the third question which is the principall concerning faith whether we be justified by faith alone as wee with all antiquity doe hold or not by faith alone but also by other habits of grace as charitie and the rest and by the workes of grace which the Papists hold to concur in us to the act of justification as the causes thereof Where first we are to explaine our assertion and afterwards both to prove and to maintaine it And great reason there is that wee should explaine it because the Papists most wickedly against their owne knowledge calumniate our doctrine in this point I will therefore explaine all the three termes Fides justificat sola Faith doth justifie alone for by Faith wee doe not understand as I have shewed before neither the profession of faith or faith onely professed which S. Iames doth deny to justifie nor that faith which is a bare assent which is the faith of Papists and is common to them with the Divels and with other hypocrites and wicked men for such a faith we deny to justifie either alone or at all but a true lively and effectuall beleefe in Christ being a speciall apprehension or receiving and embracing of Christ and of the promises of the Gospell joyned with application or at least with a true desire will and endevour thereof The which faith also wee deny to be true if in some measure it doe not purifie the heart if it doe not worke by love if it cannot be demonstrated by good workes § II. Now for the word justifie shall I need to tell you that by justifying we doe not meane sanctifying And yet such is the blinded malice of the papists as that because they wickedly confound justification and sanctification which we carefully according to the Scriptures distinguish they beare the world in hand that our assertion is this in effect that faith alone doth sanctifie and that nothing concurreth to sanctification but faith onely and consequently that wee teach the people so they can perswade themselves that they have faith they need not take care either for other graces or for a godly life But howsoever we hold that faith doth justifie alone yet wee doe not hold that it doth sanctifie alone but that our sanctification is partly habituall unto which with faith concurre the habits of other sanctifying graces as hope charity c. and partly actuall which is our new obedience in the practice of good workes § III. But the word sela alone doth most displease the Papists who will needs part stakes with Christ in their justification This therefore is to be explaned And first when we say that faith alone doth justifie we doe not meane fidem solitariam that faith which is alone neither doe we in construction joyne sola with fides the subject but with justificat the predicate meaning that true faith though it bee not alone yet it doth justifie alone Even as the eye though in respect of being it is not alone or if it be it is not a true and a living but a dead eie which seeth neither alone nor at all yet in respect of seeing unto which no other member doth concurre with it it being the onely instrument of that faculty it is truely said to see alone so faith though in respect of the being thereof it is not alone or if it bee it is not a true and lively but a counterfeit and dead faith yet in respect of justifying unto which act no other grace doth concurre with it it being the onely instrument of apprehending and receiving Christ it is truely said to justifie alone wherefore as the brazen Serpent which was a figure of Christ was life up and set on high in the wildernesse that whosoever was bitten by the fiery serpents might by looking onely
beleeveth on him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is counted for righteousnesse even as David also describeth the blessednesse of the man unto whom God imputâ—…h righteousnesse without workes Gal. 2. 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the workes of the Law but by the faith of Iesus Christ to which adde the words following in the same verse for by the works of the Law shall no flesh bee justified adde also Chap. 3. vers 10. 11. as many as are of the works of the Law that is who seeke justification by the workes of the Law are under the curse For it is written cursed is every one that continueth not in all the things which are written in the Booke of the Law to doe them But that no man is justâ—…fied by the Law in the sight of God it is evident for the just shall live by faith Ephes. 2. 8 9. By grace are yee saved through faith not by workes lest any man should boast Phil. 3. 8 9. I account all things but losse and dung that I may gaine Christ and may be found in him not having mine owne righteousnesse which is of the Law as all inherent righteousnesse is but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God by Faith Tit. 3. 5. Not by workes of righteousnesse which we have done but according to his mercy he saved us § VI. Bellarmine before he maketh answere to these testimonies noteth three things First what the Apostle meaneth by the Law of workes and by the Law of Faith Secondly what difference there is betwixt the justice of the Law and the justice in the Law Thirdly what the Apostle meaneth by workes when he saith a man is justified without workes For the first he cavilleth with Calvin and Chemnitius and others as though they understood simply by the Law of workes that which requireth workes and by the Law of faith which requireth faith as if the Law of faith did not also require workes and the Law of workes did not also require faith whereas our writers distinguish the two covenants of God that is the Law and the Gospell whereof one is the covenant of workes the other the covenant of grace doe teach that the Law of workes is that which to justification requireth works as the condition thereof the Law of faith that which to justification requireth faith as the condition therof The former saith doe this and thou shalt live Rom. 10. 5. Gal. 3. 12. Mat. 19. 17. the latter beleeve in Christ and thou shalt be saved Iohn 3. 16. Act. 16. 31. But the Papists whiles they teach that in the Gospell perfect righteousnesse is required in us to justification and salvation as the condition thereof as much or rather more than in the Law they doe either confound the Law and the Gospell making either of them to be the Law of workes or else as the Apostle speaketh of the false teachers of the Galathians they teach another Gospell than that which Christ and his Apostles taught which whosoever doth though he were an Angell from heaven he ought to be held accursed But you will say is not obedience to the Law required in the Gospell I answere it is not required unto justification and salvation as the condition but the ability of performing obedience is the grace of the New Testament which is promised to those that beleeve And therefore our new obedience is required as the fruit of our redemption and as the way wherein wee being justified are to walke towards our glorification and as the cognizance of them that shall be saved § VII Bellarmine having rejected our exposition setteth downe his owne the summe and effect whereof in plaine termes is thus That the Law of workes is the letter or the doctrine whether of the Law or of the Gospell prescribing what is to be done but affording no helpe to performe the same And that the Law of faith is the Spirit or the grace of the New testament promised to those that beleeve whereby they are enabled to performe that which is commanded Which distinction betweene the letter and the Spirit as it is propounded by Saint Augustine is true but cannot bee applyed to this place Rom. 3. 27. where by Law on both parts is meant Doctrine according to the proper signification of the Hebrew word Thorah The Law of workes signifying the Morall Law which unto justification requireth workes the Law of faith signifying the Gospell which to justification requireth faith onely and is therefore called the word of faith and the Law of faith For although Bellarmine elsewhere seemeth to make this to be a principall difference betweene the Law and the Gospell that the Law is the letter commanding the Gospell is the Law of faith meaning thereby the grace of the New Testament which is the Law written in our hearts wherby we are enabled to performe obedience to the Law yet hee confesseth that the Gospell in the Scriptures doth ever signifie the doctrine of the Gospell and withall confesseth the doctrine of the Gospell as it commandeth any thing to be a Law of workes So that lex fidei the Law of faith according to this exposition is as well opposed to the Gospell as it signifieth the doctrine thereof as to the Law But the difference betweene the Law of workes which is the morall Law and the Law of faith which is the Gospell in the question of justification whereof the Apostle treateth is to bee fetched from that righteousnesse which either of them requireth to justification For both of them require righteousnesse therunto The Law requireth the righteousnesse of workes the Gospell in which without the Law is revealed the righteousnesse of God by which we are justified teacheth the righteousnesse of faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Chrysostome upon this place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what is the Law of saith to be saved by grace And this explication fitly agreeth to the scope of the Apostle teaching that by the doctrine not of the Law but of the Gospell all boasting is excluded As if the Apostle had thus argued The true doctrine of justification excludeth all boasting See Ephes. 2. 8 9. but the Law of workes that is that doctrine which teacheth justification by workes doth not exclude all boasting See Rom. 4. 2. which the Law of faith doth teaching that wee are justified by remission of sinnes and saved by grace therfore that doctrine which teacheth justification by works is not the true doctrine but that which teacheth justification by faith without workes § VIII As touching the difference which hee putteth betweene the justice of the Law or that which is in it or by it I have spoken before in the third question of this controversie where I shewed that if it be admitted according to Augustines meaning who was the Author of it it maketh wholly against Bellarmine For though a
those words of the Apostle Ephes. 2. 8 9. Tit. 3. 5. To avoid this evident truth Bellarmine coyneth a twofold distinction First that the word gratis may bee understood as opposed to merits of condignity going before justification and so it excludeth not the dispositions and preparations which the Papists teach goe before justification which according to their doctrine are but merits of congruity But it is evident that not onely merits of condignity but all merit whatsoever yea and all respect of our owne worthinesse and well doing is excluded so that gratis is as much as without any cause in us or any desert of ours or worthines in our selves And thus the councill of Trent it selfe expoundeth this word We are therefore said to be justified gratis freely because none of those things which goe before justification whether faith for workes deserve the grace of justification for if it be grace then is it not of workes for iâ—… it were of workes then grace were not grace as the same Apostle saith Secondly saith he it may bee understood as opposed to our owne merits or good workes done without grace for those that proceed from grace are not opposed to grace and therfore not excluded Whereunto I reply we cannot have any good thing but by gift from God and what good thing we have from God that is called ours as our faith our Charity our Hope our good â—…orkes Neither can wee without grace merit any thing but punishment It is therefore absurd to understand the Apostle as excluding merits without grace when as if we should doe all that is commanded which cannot be done without grace we must confesse that we deserve not so much as thanks because we have done but what was our duty to doe Neither can wee bee said to be justified gratis if there be any meritoriâ—…us cause of justification in our selves though received from God In regard of our selves indeed wee are justified gratis but it is not gratis in nor without paying a great price in respect of Christ. And therefore to those words justified freely by his grace is added through the redemption whiâ—…h is in or by Christ. By the word gratis therefore the Apostle signifieth thaâ—… in us there is no materiall cause no merit of justification but onely in Christ. And where he saith that grace cannot bee opposed to grace I say it may as in that opposition which is of relatives as of the cause and the effect For the effect cannot be the cause of its owne cause and therfore works which are the fruits and effects of justification cannot bee the causes thereof The other argument is from the word grace For if our justification be of grace then not of workes as the Apostle teacheth Rom. 11. 6. and if of workes then not of grace So Ephes. 2. 8 9. you are saved by grace not of workes For to him that worketh the reward that is justification or salvation is not imputed of grace but it is rendred as of debt but to him that worketh not but onely beleeveth in him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is imputed namely of grace to righteousnesse Rom. 4. 4 5. Even as David also describeth the blessednesse of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousnesse without workes verse 6. CHAP. IV. Bellarmines arguments proving the necessity of good workes and first from the difference betweene the Law and the Gospell Secondly from the Doctrine of Christian liberty § I. NOW I come to Bellarmines arguments concerning good works which when he should prove they concurre to justification as causes thereof hee proveth them to be consequents thereof rather than causes And having little to say to the question it selfe he intermingleth many impertinent discourses Impertinent I say to the question though not to his purpose which was to calumniate us as though we held all those assertions which he laboureth to confute In his fourth booke therefore which is de justitia operum he propoundeth two maine questions to be disputed unto which divers others are coincident The former concerning the necessity of good workes the other concerning the truth of them As if we either denied that good workes are necessary or that they are truely good To the former hee referreth three questions the first whether the faithfull are bound to keepe the Law of God as though wee taught they were not the second concerning the difference betweene the Law and the Gospell as if we taught that the difference standeth in this that by the Law good workes are necessary by the Gospell not The third concerning Christian liberty as though we taught that the faithfull in their conscience and before God are subject to no Law Concerning the truth of the righâ—…eousnesse of good works after hee hath disputed the question whether the Law be possible whether the workes of the righteous bee sinnes he commeth at length to handle the controversie it selfe whether good workes doe justifie or not Concerning the former questions it shall suffice to shew what our tenet is in every of them and to defend our assertions against his cavils â—…o farre as concerneth this present controversie of justification by workes passing by the rest as impertinent As touching therefore the first principall question which concerneth the necessity of good works the Reader will beare me witnes by that which before I have delivered that we hold good workes necessary in many respects and that we urge the necessity of them by better arguments than the Romish doctrine doth afford we confesse that they are necessary necessitate presentiae for persons come to yeeres that are already justified and are to bee saved as necessary consequents of justification and as necessary forerunners of Salvation onely we deny them to be necessary necessitate efficientiae as causes either of justification or Salvation § II. That good workes are necessary to Salvation which we deny not Bellarmine greatly busied himselfe to prove but that they are necessary to justification as causes thereof which is the question betweene us for ought that I can discerne he goes not about to prove in his whole discourse of the necessity of good workes wherein he spendeth nine Chapters For after he had in the first Chapter calumniated us as if wee denied good workes to bee necessary to Salvation in the Chapters following hee proveth they bee necessary because as hee propoundeth his proofes in the Argument of his booke we are bound to keepe the Law of God And that he proveth by discussing the other two questions concerning the difference betwixt the Law and the Gospell and concerning Christian liberty But by these arguments Bellarmine neither proveth his owne assertion nor disproveth ours His assertion is that good workes doe concurre unto justification as a cause thereof which we deny He argueth they be causes why because they are necessary As if every thing that is necessary were a cause But whereto are they necessary to salvation saith Bellarmine Why
freely professe that by how much wee have received the greater favours from God in redeeming us and bringing us into the liberty of his children in freeing us from sinne and from the yoake of the Law by so much the more are we bound to obedience not to be justified or saved by it but to testifie our thankefulnesse and to glorifie God who hath beene so gracious unto us c. Much more might be said concerning Christian liberty but this is as much as is pertinent to the question in hand If any desire to bee better informed in this point I referre them to my treatise of Christian liberty which I published many yeaâ—…es agoe CAP. V. That good Workes are not necessary by necessity of Efficacie § I. ALL this while Bellarmine as we have seene hath wandred from the question but now he saith he will come neerer unto it For now hee will prove the necessity of good workes not onely by way of presence but by wâ—…y of efficacie But to what will he prove them necéssary to justification no such matter But yet that is the question which hee ought to prove if hee will disprove justification by faith alone that good workes doe concurre to justification as causes thereof For though they were as they are not causes of Salvation yet it is manifest that they are consequents and therefore no causes of justification So that Bellarmine though hee be come neerer the question yet he is not come home to it But perhaps it will be said that Bellarmine prevented this objection when he first propounded this as his fifth principall argument to prove that faith doth not justifie alone because good workes are necessary to Salvation His argument may thus be frarned If faith did justifie alone then it would save alone but faith doth not save alone without good workes which are necessary to Salvation in those that are come to yeares Therefore faith doth not justifie alone without good workes which are so necessary to Salvation etiam hominibus justificatis even to them that are justified that without them faith alone doth not save Answ. The proposition is denied first by Bellarmine himselfe who teacheth though falsely that not all who are justified shall bee saved when notwithstanding the Apostle saith â—…hom the Lord hath justified he also hath glorified And further he holdeth that they who are justified may utterly and finally lose their justification though they lose not their faith and farther that they may also lose their faith which as he absurdly teacheth is lost by any act of infidelity and consequently both their justification and Salvation Yea but saith Bellarmine their justice cannot be lost nor their Salvation whiles they have faith if they be justified by faith onely But Bellarmine himselfe saith though falsely that the faith of them who are justified may be lost and with it their Salvation and therefore by his doctrine a man bee justified by faith and yet not be saved by it Secondly it is denied by some of the Fathers who though they teach that faith alone sufficeth to justification as you have heard yet deny that it alone sufficeth to Salvation because some other things as namely good workes are thereunto required To the assumption that saith alone doth not save If such a faith be meant as is alone severed from Charity and void of workes I doe confesse that it neither saveth nor yet justifieth I doe not say alone but not at all But if he speake of a true lively faith in Christ which purifieth the heart and worketh by love of which onely we speake and understand it relatively as we doe then I constantly affirme that faith in Christ alone that is Christ alone received by faith is the onely meritorious cause of our Salvation and that neither workes nor any other graces are causes of salvation unlesse hee meane caussas sine quibus non which are no causes § II. But for the further proofe of his consequences Bellarmine saith that we cannot deny them because Luther teacheth that a Christian man cannot lose his salvation unlesse he will not beleeve and that the Lâ—…therans affirme that salvation as well as justification is to bee ascribed to faith alone Answ. Wee can deny what either Luther or those that are called Lutherans doe affirme without warrant of Gods word therefore this was but a slender proofe Howbeit we doe not deny that assertion of Luther nor the like which though full of true comfort yet are most maliciously calumniated by the Papists as if hee taught men not to care what sinnes they commit so that they can say they have faith Whereas Luther delivereth speeches of that kinde to comfort the distressed consciences labouring under the burden of sinne assuring them that although their sinnes bee many and great yet they ought not to despaire if they can finde in their heart to beleeve in Christ. Which is most true For though our sinnes be many the mercies of God are more though great yet the merrits of Christ are greater And though the Lutherans doe say that salvation as well as justification is to bee ascribed to faith alone yet that is no proofe of Bellarmines consequence but a flat deniall of his assumption which it behoveth him to prove Upon these things thus premised Bellarmine inferreth that all the testimonies which afterwards namely in his fourth Booke he was to alleage out of Scriptures and Fathers to prove that good workes are so necessary to salvation even to men that are justified that without them faith alone doth not save them doe also prove that faith alone doth not justifie which is the thing saith hee which wee have undertaken to prove which notwithstanding wee doe constantly deny protesting against this inference of Bellâ—…mine and affirming that although good workes be so necessary to salvation as that that faith which is without them doth not save a man yet that doth not hinder our assertion that faith doth justifie alone because they doe not concurre to the act of justification at all and much lesse as the causes thereof for they follow justification though ordinarily they goe before salvation and howsoever that faith which is alone severed from charity and destitute of good workes doth neither justifie as I have shewed heretofore nor save yet notwithstanding faith relatively understood that is Christ received by faith doth save alone § III. But to returne to his fourth Booke though Bellarmine still doe wander yet I must be content to follow him To prove therefore that good workes are necessary to salvation by necessity of efficiency as causes thereof hee useth three kindes of proofes testimonies of Scriptures sentences of Fathers and reason Out of the Scriptures hoe produceth tenne testimonies besides some whole Epistles The first testimony Heb. 10. 30. For patience is necessary for you that doing the will of God ye may receive the promise Here first saith he wee have the terme necessary and
by Scriptures Fathers and Reason Out of the Scriptures he produceth three sorts of testimonies the first of these Which testifie that the law is not onely possible but also easie as first Mat. 11. 30. For my yoke is easie and my burden light Secondly 1 Ioh. 5. 3. And his Commandements are not grievous To the former I answere that by the yoke and burden of Christ wee are not to understand the yoke of the law exacting perfect obedience to bee performed by us unto justification or for default thereof subjecting us to the curse for this was the chiefe yoke of bondage which neither we nor our fathers were able to beare Act. 15. 10. From which our Saviour hath made us free but by the yoke and burden of Christ we are to understand his Law and Doctrine evangelicall which may bee reduced to two Heads the Law and Doctrine of faith the Law and Doctrine of obedience and that twofold the obedience of his precepts which is called our new obedience and Obedientia crucis which is the taking up and bearing our crosse The law of faith respâ—…cteth our justification the Doctrine of our new obedience respecteth our sanctification the obedience of the Crosse is Christian patience or Tolerantia crucis And these yokes or burdens Christ is it seemeth would have men comming unto him to take upon them by learning of him which argueth that by them Christs Doctrine or Discipline is meant that they might bee eased from those yokes under which they labour and those burdens under which they are wearied And these are of two sorts the guilt of sinne which is a most heavie yoke or burden under which the guilty conscience laboureth and the corruption of sin wherewith men being overladen are wearyed From the former men are freed in their justification by the law of faith which is easie and light Christ having taken our burden upon him For even as the Israelites in the wildernesse when they were bitten by the fiery serpents had no greater burden or taske laid upon them than to lift up their eyes towards the Brasen Serpent and were cured Even so wee when wee are stung by the old Serpent and labour under the guilt of sinne and desire to bee eased or cured thereof this charge our Saviour layeth upon us to lift up the eye of faith to him that was figured by the brasen Serpent and wee shall finde rest unto our soules From the second men are freed in their sanctification by Christs Law or doctrine of obedience both active and passive The active is our new obedience whereof as of sanctification there are two parts mortification whereby we dye to sinne and our vivification wherby we live to God both which the Doctrine of Christ doth teach Tit. 2. 11 12. The grace of God which bringeth salvation hath appeared to all teaching us that we should renounce all ungodlinesse and wordly lusts there is mortification and that wee should live soberly and justly and holily in this present world there is our vivification So Ephes. 4. 20 21 24. Those that have learned Christ have been taught to be put off the old man and to put on the new § V. This yoake also is easie to the faithfull and this burden light First because the faithfull being freed from the terrour and coaction of the Law are enabled to obey God with willing minds as not being under the Law but under grace Secondly because as the Lord promised in the Covenant of grace which is the doctrine of the Gospell to give grace to the heires of promise wherby they are enabled to serve him with upright hearts and with willing and constant minds so doth he assist them with his grace making them both able and willing to worship him in holinesse and righteousnesse Thirdly because the new obedience required of us doth not consist in the perfect performance which the Lord doth not expect from such weakenesse as is in the best of us but in the sincere and upright desire purpose and endeavour to walke in obedience according to the measure of grace received Fourthly because our unperfect obedience is accepted of God in Christ and the wants thereof pardoned by the intercession of Christ who with the odours of his own sacrifice perfumeth the incense of our prayers and of other duties making them acceptable unto God And this was figured by that ceremony of the golden plate as I have shewed heretofore which the high priest who was a type of Christ was to weare in the foresront of the Miter with this inscription Holinesse of the Lord that is of the Messias who is IEHOVAH our righteousnesse to the end that Christ figured by the high priest might beare the iniquity of the holy things which the children of Israell should hallow in all their holy gifts and it was alwaies to bee upon his forehead that they may be accepted before the Lord. Fifthly because if through humane frailty the flesh prevailing against the Spirit the faithfull doe at any time offend as in many things we all doe we have an Advocate with the Father Christ Iesus the righteous and he is the propitiation for our sinnes 1 Ioh. 2. 2. He sitting at the right hand of his Father maketh intercession for us Rom. 8. 34. Heb. 9. 24. § VI. Against the fourth reason Bellarmine taketh exception For whereas some of our Divines have taught as he saith that therefore it is called an easie yoake and light burden because of the remission of such offences as the faithfull commit he pusheth at them with this Dilemma That this remission or not imputation either taketh away the obligation of the Law so that the faithfull â—…hough they doe offend doe inâ—…urre no guilt or else doth not take away this obligation but that the faithfull contract the guilt which afterward is remitted If the former then saith hee it ceasseth to be a Law For it is no Law which doth not binde If the latter then it is a hard yâ—…ake and a heavy burden which cannot be borne To the former I answere that remission is of guilt contracted and therefore it is absurdly surmised that there should be remission where was no guilt To the latter that according to the Law of faith the guilt contracted is remitted to the faithfull returning unto God confessing their sinne and craving pardon in the name and mediation of Christ. Which proveth the Law of workes to bee an hard yoake and heavie burden but the Law of faith to be easie and light For by the Law of workes the guilt is contracted and by the Law of faith it is remitted § VII But the obedience of the Crosse also serveth to free us from the Corruption of sinne For hee that hath suffered in the flesh ceasseth from sinne And therefore David pronounced the man blessed whom the Lord chasteneth and teacheth out of his Law For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quae nocent docâ—…nt Wee learne
workes Saint Iames having to deale with carnall Gospellers vaine men turning the grace of God into wantonnesse who having heard that faith doth justifie without workes did cast off all care of good workes thinking it sufficient to professe themselves to beleeve though their life were dissolute Against these Saint Iames proveth that vaine is the profession of faith without good works â—… that the faith which is without works is not a true liuely justifying faith but a dead and counterfeit faith that whosoever is justified before God by faith must also be justified that is declared and approved to bee just not onely by profession of his faith but also by the practise of good workes Wherefore in this respect there is no more difference betweene the two Apostles Paul and Iames than betweene Lâ—…ther and us who are Preachers of the Gospell at this day For as Luther having to deale with Popish justitiaâ—…ies who taught justification by workes urgeth most zelously justification by faith alone and in the question of justification after the example of Saint Paul speaketh contemptuously of workes so we having to dâ—…le with Libertines and carnall gospellers insisting in the steppes of Saint Iames urge the necessity of good workes § XVII Secondly wee are to consider the divers acceptions of the words faith workes justifie in the writings of the two Apostles Paul speaking of a true lively faith which worketh by love saith in effect that faith alone doth justifie Iames speaking of the faith of hypocrits which is in profession only sâ—…vered from the grace of sanctification and destitute of good workes â—…aith that such a faith doth neither justifie alone nor at all as being not a true but a dead and counterfeit faith Paul speaking of the câ—…uses of justification before God denyeth workes to concurre to the act of justification as any cause thereof Iames speaking of the effects and â—…ignes of justificatiâ—…n whereby it may beâ—… knowne affirmeth that workes must concurre in the parties justified that by them our faith may be demonstrated â—…nd our justification manifested Paul therefore rejecteth workes obtruded as causes of justification Iames urgeth thâ—…m as effects and signes thereof Paul speaking of Iustification in the proper sense as it signifieth that gracioâ—…s action of God whereby wee are made or constituted just affirmeth that wee are justified by faith without workes Iames speaking of thâ—…t justificâ—…tion whereby we are not mâ—…de just before God but declared and 〈◊〉 to God our 〈◊〉 and our conscience to bee just and indued with a true faith 〈◊〉 that we are so justified not onely by the profession of faith but also by good workes Now these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 very well stand together For although it be most true which Saint Paul affirmeth that true faith doth just fie alone yet it is 〈◊〉 true which Saint Iames faith that the faith which is alone doth not justifie neither â—…lone nor at all because it is not 〈◊〉 true and a lively but a 〈◊〉 and dead faith For 〈◊〉 the living eye though it see alone yet is not alone so a liuely fâ—…ith though it justifie alone yet never iâ—… alone though it justifie without workes yet it is not without workâ—…s Though good workes doe not 〈◊〉 to the act of justification aâ—… any cause therâ—…of according to Saint Pauls doctrinâ—… yet they must concurre in the same subject that is the party justified as necessary fruitâ—… and 〈◊〉 of â—… true justifying â—…aith 〈◊〉 Saint Iaâ—…esâ—…cheth â—…cheth Though we be justified before God that is both absolved from our 〈◊〉 and accepted in Christ as righteous by faith alone without respect of workâ—… as Saint Paul teacheth yet according to the doctrine of â—…aint Iames weâ—… are to bee justified that is declared and approved to be just not onely by faith professed but also by good workes Finally though good workes nâ—…n 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet 〈◊〉 justificaâ—… as Augustinâ—… useth to speake or as he also saith non prâ—…edunt iustifiâ—…andum sed justificatâ—… 〈◊〉 though they doe not goâ—… before justification as causâ—…s 〈◊〉 Pâ—…l teacheth yet they must follow in the parties justified as effects according to Saint Iames his doctrine § XVIII But the assertions of the 2. Apostles not only may wel stand togeâ—…her but also according to our doctrine they must necessarily goe together For if we shall be altogether conversant in setting forth the commendation of good works and in urging the necessity thereof not informing the people in the doctrine of justification by faith alone they will be ready to place the matter of their justification and the merit of their salvation in themselves as the Papists doe And so being ignorant of Gods righteousnesse and seeking to establish their owne righteousnesse they doe not submit themselves to the righteousnes of God But wee must so urge the necessity of good workes in the doctrine of sanctification that wee remember that in the question of justification they are of no value On the other side if wee shall be wholly taken up in the doctrine of justification by faith alone teaching that in the question of justification they are of no worth and doe not withall informe the people of the profit and necessity of good works in other respects how ready will they bee to cast off all care of good workes and content themselves with a bare profession of faith But wee joyne these assertions together after the doctrine and practise of the Apostles in their Epistles Wee teach that justification and sanctification are unseparable companions And theresore as they who are sanctified may bee assured of their justification so without sanctification none can bee assured of their justification It is true that there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus but who are they that live not after the flesh but after the Spirit Râ—… 8. 1. that are new creatures 2 Cor. 5. 17. that crucifie the flesh with the lusts thereof Gal. 5. 24. It is true that a true lively faith doth justifie alone but what manner of saith is that that purifieth the heart Act. 15. 9. and worketh by love Gal. 5. 6. and may be demonstrated by good workes Iam. 2. 18. It is true that wee are not justified by our workes nor saved for them yet those are neither justified nor saved that are without them for as they are necessary consequents of justification so they are necessary antecedents of salvation For though they be not the cause of our salvation yet they are the way by which we are to come to salvation though they be not causa regâ—…andi as Bernard saith yet they are via regni Though they bee not the merit of salvation yet they are the evidence according to which God will judge us By faith wee have our inheritance and our title to Gods Kingdome but it is to be inherited among those that are sanctified A godly conversation though it be not properly a cause of our glorification yet it is
causa 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
sinne he hath deserved And how then can he by the sufferings of this life wherby he is not able to â—…atisfie for his sinne deserve eternall life The third out of Bernard we doe know saith he that the sufferings of this time are not worthy to the future glory nec si unas omnis sustineat No that they are not though one man should sustayne them all which though it be a very great yet is a very true amplification that if one man should beare all the afflictions of all men in this world yet his afflictions of this time would not be worthy of the glory that shall be revealed Such amplifications are used no lesse truely by Chrysostome and Anselm Chrysostome saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. If we should dye ten thousand deaths and if wee should shew forth al virtue yet could wee not recompence the least part of those honours that God hath already bestowed upon us And if wee cannot by all such meanes be answearable to God for his favours â—…ouchsafed in this world by what meanes might we hope to merit eternall life in the world to come If a man should serve God most devoutly a thousand yeares yet he should not condignely merit to bee in the kingdome of heaven halfe a day saith Anselme § XXII In the sixth place Bellarmine alleageth three testimonies as objected by us viz. Phil. 3. 7 8 9. Ephes. 2. 8 9. Tit. 3. 5 7. The first we doe not use to produce against merit of salvation but against justification by inherent righteousnesse and was the sixth Testimony of ours which Bellarmine endevoured to answere as hee doth here See Lib. 7. Cap. 3. § 15. The second was the fourth Testimony which he tooke upon him to answer See my reply Lib. 7. Cap. 3. § 13. The third was the fifth Testimonie of which see Lib. 7. Cap. 3. § 14. But though we doe not alleage the first against merit of workes yet by by consequent it doth disprove it For if workes doe not concurre to justification as the matter therof then can they not be the merit of salvation as hath beene said Secondly if in the question of justification which concerneth our title to Salvation they are to be accounted as things of no worth yea as losse then are they not meritorious of eternall life And whereas Bellarmine challengeth us to alleage any one Father that understandeth Paul to speake of workes done after grace I alleaged before Saint Chrysostome upon the place who understandeth the Apostle as speaking of all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he said all both old and new both past and present and that I confirmed by reason And when he saith that Augustine calleth the righteousnesse of the faithfull Eminentissimam it is apparant that he speaketh not of that which wee have by our obedience performed to the Law but of that most eminent righteousnesse which wee have by faith The other two places exclude workes from being any causes as well of Salvation as of justification And it is plaine that the Apostle speaketh of salvation and of all the degrees thereof that it is wholly to bee ascribed to the grace of God and not our worthinesse His words in the former By grace you are saved through faith noâ—… of workes The latter not by workes of righteousnesse which we have done but according to his mercie he saved us Whence ariseth this argument If by our merits we are saved then by workes but not by our workes therefore not by merits Or thus If not by workes we are saved because we are saved by grace then much lesse are we saved by our owne merits CAP. III. A new supply of reasons produced against merits and maintayned against Bellarmines cavills § I. OVr first reason The true Doctrine of justification and Salvation taketh from us all cause of boasting in our selves that he which glorieth may glory in the Lord and contrariwise that which doth not take away all cause of boasting in our selves is not the true Doctrine The Doctrine of justification by faith without workes and of salvation by Gods free grace without our merit taketh from us all cause of our boasting in our selves but the Doctrine of justification by workes and of salvation by our owne merits doth not take away all cause of boasting in our selves Both proved Rom. 3. 27. 4. 2. Ephes. 2. 8 9. The effect of Bellarmines answere is that they who plead their owne merits as proceeding from grace doâ—… not glory iâ—… themselves but in the Lord. Reply First so long as they bee ours though given of God as all other good things are we are apt to glory in them as appeareth by the Pharisee who boasteth of his merits though he acknowledgeth that hee received them from God and therefore rendreth thankes for them Secondly the pleading of merit is it selfe a proud boasting Matth. 20. 12. Thirdly the Papists plead merit as proceeding from their owne free will which they require as a necessary condition of merit Fourthly If the good worke proceed meerely from Gods grace then can we not by it merit any thing of God But the Papists teach that by it they merit of God and consequently deny it so farre forth as it meriteth to proceed fâ—…om the grace of God and therefore when they plead merit they glory in themselves rather than in the Lord. § II. Our second reason That doctrine which derogateth from the infinite and all-sufficient merit of Christ is to bee renounced as false and Antichristian The Popish doctrine of merits viz. that we are to be saved by our owne merits and that the faithfull by their owne workes doe truely and condignely merit eternall life derogateth from the infinite and all-sufficient merit of Christ. Therefore it is false and Antichristian The assumption they deny yea though indeed they doe derogate from the merit of Christ yet they denounce anathema against them that shall say so But we not only say it but prove it For first If Christ hath already most sufficiently and fully merited heaven for us then our merits are needlesse or if our merits bee needfull as they teach then are not Christs sufficient for us which is no better than blasphemie Secondly they who teach that Christ hath not merited for all that beleeve and as soone as they truely beleeve the right of eternall life doe greatly derogate from the merit of Christ. For the Scriptures doe teach that Christ hath so merited the right of eternall life to all the faithfull that by him they have alreadie eternall life being alreadie translated from death to life But they who teach that the faithfull are to merit the right of eternall life by their owne good Workes doe in effect teach that CHRIST hath not merited it to the faithfull Therefore they who teach that the faithfull are to merit the right of eternall life by their owne good workes doe greatly derogate
righteous sinne not p Iam. 2. 10. q Gal. 3. 10. r De justif 3. 3. c. 15. s Expos in Gâ—…l c. 5. t Ioh. 9. 31. t 1 King 8. 46. u Eccl. 7. 20. * 1 Ioh. 1. 8 10. Our proofes that the Law is not possible were propounded before x Lib. 4. cap. 5. His discourse concerning the perfection of 〈◊〉 s was before refuted Lib. 4. y Lib. 4. c. 2. §. 8. 9. cap. 3. 4. Whether the best workes of the faithfull be sinnes z De justif l. 4. c. 15. 16. 17. * Lib 4. c. 2. 3. 4. De justif lib. 4. c. 18. The place of Jam. 2. 14. c. fully discussed and cleared A seeming difference bâ—… tweene Saint Paul and Saint Iames. How it may be reconciled a Erasm. Cajetan Musculus c. Bellarmines reconciliation of Paul and Iames. b Lib. 1. c. 1. §. 8. l. 2. c. 6. §. 5. c Heb. 11. 8 9 17. Bellarmines absurdities noted d Rom. 4. 4 5. The Popish doctrine not grounded on Iam. 2. The Analysis of that passage beginning at the foureteenth verse That the faith which is with out workes is dead proved by five arguments e 1 Iâ—…hn 3. 7. f Jn Gal 3. lect 4. g Ibid. Verse 20. expounded The example of Abraham Verse 21. Verse 22. Verse 24. Verse 25. The example of Rahab The fifth argument â—… similâ—… verse 26. h De resurrect sermâ—…â—… Object Concerning the contradiction of faith onely and not onely Our reconciliation of the two Apostles First from the diversity of the Partieâ—… with whom they dealt Secondly from the divers acceptions of the words faâ—…th justifie wo kes By our doctrine the â—…ssertions of the two Apostles must goe together i Râ—… 10. 3. k Rom. 6. 1 c. â—…ph 2. 8 9 10. Tit. 3. 8. 1 Ioh. 1. 7 9. 2 1 2 3 4. l Act. 26. 1â—… 20. 32. m Tit. 3. â—… Sixe oâ—…her testimonicâ—…â—…lleaged by Bellâ—…rmine n De justif l. 4. c. 19. o Lib. 2. cap. 4. §. 2. 3. Testimon 2. Rom. 6. 19. p Lib. 2. q Rom. 6 r Rom. 6. 3 4 c. s Vers. 18. His third tesâ—…imony 2 Cor 7. 1. His fourth tesâ—…mony 2 Cor. 9. 10 His fifâ—…h â—…estimony Ioh. 14. 23 His sixth testimony Apoc. 22. 11. Lib. 2. cap. 4. §. 5. cap. 5 §. 10. Bellarmines two Reasons This controversie in a manner the same with that of the necessity of efficiencie The state of the controversie a Concil Trident sess 6. cap. 16 can 32. b De justif l. 5. c. 10. Quolibet actu charitate informaâ—…o homo beatitudinem meretur Th. 1. q. 62. art 5. c. c Secundum propriam cuiusque dispositionem sess 6. cap. 8. d Mal. the Irish Iesuit pag. 699. e Conc. Trid. sâ—…ss 6. cap. â—…6 vitam aeternam verè promeruisse f Can. 32. verè mâ—…reri vitam aeternam g In Heb. 10. h Bellarm. de justif l. 5. c. 17. i Vasquez in prima secundae q. 114. disp 214. cap. â—… Of this seâ—… more in the answere to the challenge made by a Iesuit in Ireland pag. 520. Of the name merit k 2 Tim 1. 9. The use of the word in the Latine Fathers in a geâ—…erall sense of obtaining or finding 〈◊〉 l Sâ—…apleton in prâ—…mptuar â—…eria 5. post passionem Doâ—…ni Si aliquis veterum vocabulo promerendi usus est scilicet in illa historia Luk. 7. non aliter intellâ—…xit quà m consecutionem de â—…acto m Schol. in hymnum nocte surgentes 179. n Epist. ad Iubaâ—…anum o Consecutus sum p Adeptus sum q De Baptismo contra Donatist l. 4. c. 5. r Serm. 63. s De fide resurrect t De Cain Abel u De dignit sacerd cap. 5. * Presat in Abdinam x De fide operibus c. 14. y De tempore serm 49. z In Rom. 4. a Luk. 10. l. 22. b De prâ—…destin gratia c. 16. c De tempore serm 58. d Ibid. e De â—…ivit D. l. 5 c. 24. f In Psal. g Moral l. 9. c. 27. h In benedictione Cerei Salmeron in 1 Tim. 1. disp 3. pag. 421. The use of thâ—… word in a more speciall sense i Epist. 105. ad Sixtum k In Levit. hom 3. l Advers Pelag. l. 2. 285. m De temporâ—… serm 5â—… n De justif l. 8. cop 8. o Ubi est nulla ratio meriti p De â—…ratia lib arb l. 1. c. 14. §. â—…anc esse Of the thing it selfe what merit is Arguments against merits q Viguerius r De quadruplici debitâ—… s Serm de verbis Origeniâ—… t Ethic. l. 8. c. 14. u In Gen. 6. 5. disput 5. * In Psal. 94. Whether God by his promise maketh himself a debtour x De verbis Apost serm 16. Rom. 4. 4. y 1 a. 2 ae q. 114. ad 3 um z Lib. 1. dist 43. dub 3. a Epist. 119. pag. 1110. b Durand The party meriting The thing meriting first must be our owne c 1 Cor. 15. 10. Esay 26. 12. d De justif lib. 5. cap. 10. § teâ—…iò e In Rom. 4. f Vigner cap. 9. §. 3. v. 1. g De annunciat sâ—…rm 1. h Quaest. 135. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i Et illud quod sumus quâ—…d habâ—…mus sive sunt boni actus sive boni habituâ—… seu usâ—…s totum est in nobis ex liberaliâ—…ate divina gratis danâ—…e conservante Et quia ex dono gratuito nullus obligatur ad dandum ampliâ—…s sed potius recipieâ—…s magis obligatur danti Idâ—…ò ex bonis habitibus ex bonis actibus seu usibus nobis à Deo dat is Deus non obligatur nobis ex aliquâ—… debito justitiâ—… ad ali quid amplius dandum ita quòd si non dederit sit injustus sed potiùs nos sumus Deo obligati Et sentire vel dicere oppâ—…situm est temerarium seu blaspemum Iâ—… 2 dist 27. qu. 2. §. 13. 14. Secondly that which doth merit must be free and not due k â—…lictov in Canonem missae l De justif lib. 5. cap. 10. m De quadruplici debito n De justif lib. 5. cap. 14. §. tertiò o Jbid. That worke which meriteth should be pure and perfect p Moral lib. 9. cap. 2. q Serm. 1. in annunciat r In Psal. 93. s â—…n Psal. 36. Conc. 2. t Euseb. Emiss ad Monach. serm 3. u â—…ulgent ad Mon. Lib. 1. * In Mat. 25. 46. Homil. 79 * So the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is sometimes used by approved Authours as Demâ—…stbenes Plutarch Gregory Nazianzen in which sence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometime signifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id munificientia liberalitate riclare cere See Hener Stephani Thesaurum Tom. 3. Col. 1559. A H ex Dudaeo The rule aâ—…cording to which the reward is rendred x August contr Pelag. Coelest l. 2. c. 24. y De Trin. l. 11. z De justif l.
A TREATISE OF IVSTIFICATION BY GEORGE DOVVNAME DOCTOR OF DIVINITY and Bishop of Dery IEREMIAH 23. 5 6. I will raise unto David a righteous branch and this is his name wherby he shall be called Iehovah our righteousnesse 2 CORINTH 5. 21. Him that knew no sinne God made sinne for us that we might become the righteousnesse of God in him LONDON Printed by Felix Kyngston for Nicolas Bourne and are to be sold at his shop at the South Entrance of the Royall Exchange 1633. REVERENDISSIMO IN CHRISTO PATRI AC DOMINO D. GEORGIO ABBATO ARCHIEPISCOPO Cantuariensi dignissimo totius Angliae Primati ac Metropolitae amplissimo GEORGIVS DOVNAMVS EPISCOPVS DERENSIS HOC QVICQVID EST VOLVMINIS DE JVSTIFICATIONE Peccatoris ceu grati Animi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 summaeque observantiae amoris 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicat consecratque A Preface concerning the Apostasie of the now Church of Rome THis ensuing Treatise as it cleareth the Doctrine of the Gospell in that high point concerning our title to the Kingdome of Heaven so it helpeth to discover the Apostasie of the now Church of Rome from the faith For though the Papists doe vaunt that their Church meaning especially the See of Rome is so farre from falling away from the faith that it cannot fall into errours in matters of faith yet they cannot deny but that in the latter times and namely in the time of Antichrist there should be a great defection from the faith and as it were a Catholike Apostasie whereof Antichrist was to bee the head Of this Apostasie the holy Ghost hath prophesied in divers places of the Scriptures as 1 Tim. 4. 1. 2 Thess. 2. 3. Mat. 24. 24. Apoc. 13. 12 14 15 16. And hath also set downe the notes and markes whereby they may bee knowne who make this Apostasie from the faith As 1. to forbid marriage 2 To command abstinence from meates both of them for religion and conscience sake 3 Idolatry for that is by spirituall fornication to fall from God Psal. 73. 27. Hos. 1. 2. 9. 1. which by the Septuagint is thus expressed Hos. 4. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. Ostentation of miracles the proper badge of the Antichristian Apostasie in these latter times 2 Thess. 2. 9. Mar. 24. 24. Apoc. 13. 14. All which notes I have proved in my Latine Treatise of Antichrist properly to agree to the now Church of Rome the forbidding of marriage and commanding abstinence from meates part 1. lib. 3. cap. 2. 3. Idolatry ibid. cap. 3. § 5. Miracles lib. 6. cap. 1. § 5. whereby it is evident that the new Church of Rome hath made this Apostasie Now let us consider in what respects the Church of Rome is revolted from the faith By faith in this question we understand not the habit or grace of faith but the Doctrine of faith Non id quo creditur not that by which we beleeve sed illud quod creditur buâ—… that which we doe beleeve In which sense the word faith is often used both in the Scriptures and also in the monuments of Ecclesiasticall writers Now the Doctrine of faith is either generall or speciall The generall are the whole canonicall Scriptures or the written Word of God in generall which is objectum fidei adaequatum the even object the rule and foundation of faith so that whatsoever doctrine is contained in the Scriptures either expressely or by necessary consequence is to bee received as a doctrine of faith and whatsoever is not so contained in the Scriptures is not dogma fidei From the holy Scriptures which God hath propounded to be the only rule of faith they are revolted unto the doctrines devices of men by changing the rule of faith which they have done divers wayes For first whereas the rule the foundation and chiefe principle of faith whereinto it is last resolved is the authority of God speaking in the holy Scriptures they have set up another rule which is the authority of the Romane Church and therein of the Pope which they make the superiour rule from which the authority of the Scriptures themselves dependeth and into which their faith is last resolved For the Pope is as they say virtually the Church and what they say in this kinde to magnifie the authority of the Church is specially to bee under stood of the Pope who onely for sooth hath an infallible judgement and not subject to errour for if you will beleeve them a generall or oecumenicall Councell without the Pope may erre but the Pope alone without a Councell cannot erre yea the authority of the Pope and Councell together is no greater than the authority of the Pope alone from whom all Councels have their authority for ab arbiâ—… pontificis tota conciliorum authoritas pendet quae tantam habent quantam Papa indulget and thus Bellarmine denieth this assertion aliquid majus est concilium cum pontifice quam pontifex solus If therefore the authoritie of the Church be greater than that of the Scriptures as they teach and if the authority of the Pope be absolutely above the Church universall as they also teach then much more is the authoritie of the Pope above the Scriptures Now whosoever taketh upon him authority above the Scriptures which are the undoubted Word of God hee is undoubtedly Antichrist whose judgement to make as the Papists plainely doe the chiefe principle of faith into which their faith is last resolved is no better thâ—…n to revoli from Christ to Antichrist Secondly they change the rule of faith by making their traditions that is such doctrines and observations as are taught and observed in the Church of Rome having no ground nor warrant in the holy Scriptures to bee the Word of God the word unwritten and a rule of faith which also they doe not onâ—…ly match with the holy Scriptures but even in many respects preferre before them and acknowledge them to bee the more entire and perfect rule of faith Thirdly they have changed the rule of faith by making those bookes canonicall which all antiquity almost yea and all succeeding ages untill the Councell of Trent following therein the judgement of Hierome did hold Apochryphall or at the most but Eeclesiasticall which might bee read in the Church for morall instruction but not as rules of faith Fourthly they change the rule of faith when in stead of the originall Text of the old and new Testaments which were penned by the Prophets and Apostles themselves they make a corrupt and that sometimes a barbarous translation of I know not whom to be the authentike text and the rule of faith preferring the vulgar Latine translation before the originall text which the penmen of the holy Ghost did write Fifthly they change the rule of faith when in stead oâ—… the true sense and mâ—…aning of the holy Scriptures expounded by the Scriptures according to the analogâ—…e of faith they obtrude the
arguments of Calvin and Chemnitius defended against Bellarm. The first because iustifying is opposed to condemning lib. 2. cap. 5. § 2. 3 4. Secondly that as the hebrew so the greeke signifieth § 5. Bellarmines proofes that the hebrew word signifieth to make iust by infusion of righteousnesse inherent § 6. 7 8 9 10. The third and fourth concerning the latine word iustificare § II. The use of the latine word in the Fathers § 12. The manifold differences betwixt instification and sanctification Litb 2. cap. 6. Their confounding of iustification and sanctification is the ground both of the Papists calumniations against us lib. 2. cap. 6. § 19. and of their errours in the doctrine of iustification which are pernicious § 20. 21 22. The Papists from iustification exclude remission of sinne lib. 2. cap. 7. § 1. 2. vid. remission The popish distinction of iustification into the first and second lib. 1. cap. 1. § 8. lib. 3. cap. 6. § 5. lib. 7. cap. 3. § 4. 5. cap. 8. § 4. Men are said to be iustified either before God in foro coelesti which properly is iustification or in the court of their owne conscience which is the assurance of iustification lib. 1. cap. 1. § 7. lib. 2. c. 2. § 8. L Law Law of faith and the Law of workes lib. 7. cap. 2. § 6. 7. The difference betweene the Law and the Gospell See Gospell Whether the faithfull doe or can fulfill the Law lib. 7. cap. 6. § 3. The Law not possible by reason of the flesh lib. 4. cap. 5. § 3 c. ad finem capitis Bellarmines proofes that the Law is absolutely possible lib. 4. cap. 5. § 5. lib. 7. cap. 6. § 4. First by Sciptures testimonies of three sorts I. That the Law is easie lib. 7. cap. 6. § 4. 7 6 7 8. II. That the law is kept by love lib. 7. cap. 6. § 9. 10 11 12. III. Examples of them that have fulfilled the law § 13. 14 15. iust that they kept the law with a perfect heart and with their whole heart § 15. 16. Secondly by fathers § 17. The difference betweene the Pelagians and Papists not great § 18. His testimonies examined § 19. 20 21. That the Fathers did not meane that the law is absolutely possible § 22. Bellarmines paradox that a man may fulfill the law though he cannot live without sinne § 23. Testimonies of Fathers that the fulfilling of the law is not possible to us § 24. Sixâ—… reasons to the same effect lib. 4. cap. 5. § 6 c. Bellarmines sixe reasons answered lib. 7. cap. 7. I. Because a man may doe more than is commanded § 1. 2 3 4 5 6. II. If the precepts were not possible they would binde no man lib. 7. cap. 7. § 7. 8. III. Then God should bee cruell c. § 9. IV. Then Christ â—…isseth of his end § 10. 11 12. V. They who have the Spirit fulfill the law § 13. VI. Because they sinne not § 14 15. Liberty Christian liberty lib. 7. cap. 4. § 23. Life eternall Life eternall considered by Bellarmine as an inheritance and so due to due to the person by right of adoption and as a reward and so due to workes lib. 8. cap. 9. § 3. Eternall life promised in three respects lib. 7. cap. 4. § 6. 7 8. lib. 8. cap. 9. § 3. Love Bellarmines fourth disposition to justification lib. 6. cap. 12. M Matoriall The materiall cause of justification Christs righteousnesse lib. 1. cap. 3. Whether Christs passive righteousnesse onely lib. 1. cap. 4. Which is denyed I. Because by it alone the Law is not fulfilled § 2 3. and that is defended against divers exceptions 4. 5. 6 7. II. Because by Adams disobedience imputed to us we were made sinners § 8. III. Because Christs obedience is accepted for us § 9. that Christ obeyed the Law for us § 10. that he did not merit for himselfe § 11. Object If Christ obeyed the Law for us then wee need not § 13. Object 2. If we be justified by the obedience of Christ why needed hee to dye for us § 14. IV. To what end served Christs obedience if wee bee justified onely by his sufferings § 15. V. Because there are two distinct parts of justification § 16. Obiect Then two formall causes of iustification § 17. That instification doth not consist onely in remission of sinne § 18. Obiect Remission is as well of the sinnes of omission as of commission § 19. Obiect By it wee are made innocent § 20. Three arguments of I. P. § 21. the arguments of I. F. § 22. 23. Matter of iustification lib. 4. The state of the controversie betweene us and the Papists concerning it lib. 4. cap. 1. § 1. It is the principall question in the whole controversie of iustification wheron therest depend lib. 4. cap. 1. § 2. and is proved by the rest § 3. That we are iustified by Christs righteousnesse and not by inherent proved first ioyntly lib. 4. cap. 1. § 4. I. Because we are iustified by Gods righteousuesse and not by ours lib. 4. cap. 2 Christs righteousnesse is Gods righteousnesse § 2. 3. 4. inherent is ous § 5. the severall parts of inherent righteousnesse are called ours § 6. II. Because by Christs righteousnes we stand iust before God and not by ours § 7. III. Because Christs righteousnesse is perfect and so is not ours § 8. that the righteousnesse of all mortall men is unperfect because are at sinners proved by seven reasons § 9. The question concerning the imperfection of mans inherent righteousnesse further discussed cap. 3. 4. See righteousnesse inherent IV. VVe are iustified by that righteousnesse by which the Law is fully satisfied lib. 4. cap. 5. The righteousnesse of Christ hathfully satisfied the Law § 2. Our righteousnesse cannot satisfie the law § 3. 4. Bellarmines reasons that the law may be fulfilled § 5. V. Because by the righteousnesse of Christ and not by ours we are absolved redeemed reconciled and saved lib. 4. c. 6. VI. Because we are justified by the righteousnesse of faith and not of workes lib. 4. cap. 7. § 1. VII The righteousnesse by which we are iustified is not prescribed in the Law § 2. VIII The righteousnesse whereby wee are iustified satisfieth the iustice of God § 3. IX Because no man is iustified without remission of sinne § 4. X. The true doctrine of iustification ministreth comfort § 5. XI From experience lib. 4. cap. 7. § 6. Severally that we are not iustified by inherent righteousnesse proved by foureteene arguments I. Because it is prescribed in the Law lib. 4. cap. 8. § 1. 2 3 4. II. Because that doctrine confoundeth the Law and the Gospell and maketh void the covenaâ—…t of grace § 5. III. It depriveth men of the chiefe part of christian liberty § 6. IV. Because all men are sinners § 7. V. Because all meâ—… 〈◊〉 by 〈◊〉 Law aâ—…cursed § 8. VI. Because none doe fulfill the Law § 9.
Greeke Fathers § 2. and eleven of the Latine Fathers § 3. The authority of foure Councils § 4. Bellarmines reasons to prove merits § 5. Other questions concerning merits discussed l. 8. c. 7. whether trust is to bee reposed in merit § 2. De intuitu mercedis § 3 4 whether it bee lawfull to doe a good worke with intent to merit thereby lib. 8. cap. 7. § 5. The seven conditions required in merit l. 8. c. 8. whereof three are not contrâ—…verted § 1. The fourth that it bee liberum § 2. Fifthly that it be the worke of a man in state of grace § 3. Sixthly that it have the promise of God § 4. Seventhly that it proceed from charity § 5. All these conditions concurring doe not make a worke meritorious lib. 8. c. 8. § 6. Bellarmines dispute that good workes are condignely meritorious non solum ratione pacti but also ratione operis examined l. 8. c. 9. His seven arguments to prove condigne merits ratione operis l. 8. c. 9. § 5. c. What things may be merited l. 8. c. 9. § 13. N Necessity of good workes urged by us l. 7. c. 1. By Bellarmine c. 4. O Obiect of Faith Lib. 6. cap. 6. The proper obiect of iustifying faith is CHRIST § 2. The obiect of Abrahams faith § 3 4 5. Christ the proper obiect of faith in two respects § 6. Bellarmines dispute first that the obiect of faith is not speciall § 7. By virtue of the iustifying faith all other articles may become the obiect of speciall faith l. 6. c. 6. § 7. Whether every man is bound to beleeve that he is elected c. § 8. Secondly whether a man may be iustified without speciall faith § 9. Thirdly whether a man is iustified by speciall faith l. 6. c. 6. § 10. Osiander His errour that the righteousnesse of God by which we are iustified is the righteousnesse of the Godhead dwelling in us l. 1. c. 3. § 2. P Papists They take away iustification l. 1. c. 1. § 1. l. 2. c. 6. § 22. From iustification they exclude remission or forgivenesse of sinnes lib. 2. cap. 7. § 2. They confound the Law and the Gospell and make void the covenant of grace l. 4. c. 8. § 5. They deprive Christians of the chiefe part of their christian liberty § 6. They are fallen from grace lib. 7. c. 3. § 9 10 11 12. Their maine errours in the article of iustification l. 2. c. 1. § 1. Paritie Parity of righteousnesse l. 4. c. 13. Parts of iustification Lib. 1. c. 4. § 16 17. c. 6. § 5. Passive righteousnesse of Christ. Whether we be iustified by it onely l. 1. cap. 4. Paul Not iustified by inherent righteousnesse l. 4. c. 8. § 15. Pelagians Their errours concerning grace lib. 3. cap. 6. § 2. Perfect Whether any such lib. 4. c. 10. § 10 11. l. 7. c. 6. § 15. 16. Penitencie Bellarmines fifth disposition to iustification l. 6. c. 12. § 9 10. Purpose to receive the Sacrament Bellarmines sixth disposition to iustification l. 6. c. 12. § 11. Purpose of a new life Bellar. 7th disposition l. 6. c. 12. § 12. R. Remission of sinne is not that onely thing wherein iustification consisteth lib. 1. cap. 4. § 16. 17. 18 21. n. 3. Obiect It is as well of the sinnes of omission as of commission lib. 1. cap. 4. § 19. Obiect 2. By it men are made innocent therefore iust § 20. Three arguments of I. P. § 21. of I. F. § 22. 23. Some make remission the entire forme of iustification lib. 1. cap. 5. § 1. 4. It is not that righteousnesse which is imputed lib. 1. cap. 4. § 1. cap. 5. § 5. 6. Remission of sinne and acceptation as righteous the two parts of iustification lib. 1. cap. 6. § 5. Remission of sinne is by the Papists excluded from iustification lib. 2. cap. 7. § 1. 2. Remission of sinne is not the utter extinction of it lib. 2. cap. 7. § 3. It is as the forgiving of a debt § 4. What it signifieth in the Scriptures ibid. Three questions I. What that is which is remitted § 5. whether the Macula § 6. 7. II. The bookes out of which God doth wipe or blot our sinnes § 8. III. By what act of God are our sins remitted § 9. The utter deletion or extinction not granted in this life § 10. The guilt and punishment not taken away by infusion of righteousnesse § 11. Remission doth not worke a reall change § 12. Absurdities which follow this assertion that remission is the utter extinction of sinne § 13. and are necessary consequents of their doctrine of iustification by inherent righteousnesse § 14. lib. 5. cap. 5. § 6. 7 8. Bellarmines proofes out of the Scripture that remission of sin is the utter abolition of it lib. 2. cap. 8. those places of Scripture mention either the taking away of sinne § 2. or the blotting out of sinne § 3. or the purging of sinne § 4. or the not being of it § 5. or the perfection of righteousnesse § 6. Other arguments from the efficacie of Baptisme § 7. 8. his unanswereable argument out of Rom. 5. 19. answered lib. 2. c. 8. § 10. See more of this question lib. 5. cap. 5. § 6 7 8. Reward Reward merces is either gratuita free or debita due l. 8. c. 5. § 3. 4. 5. The reward of eternall life equall but not of glory l 4. c. 13. § 2. How farre foorth good workes are rewarded l. 8. c. 9. § 12. VVhether good workes may bee done with an eye to the reward l. 8. c. 7. § 3. 4. VVhether they may bee done with intent to merit § 5. Righteousnesse The righteousnesse of God a moving cause of iustification l. 1. c. 2. § 2 3. Righteousnesse of Christians twofold l. 1. c. 1. § 2. Bellarmines distinction of righteousnesse of the Law and in or by it l. 4. c. 8. § 2. 3 4. l 7. c. 2. § 8. The righteousnesse of God is the matter of iustification not the righteousnesse of the Godhead lib. 1. c. 3. § 2. But the righteousnesse of the Mediator the man CHRIST IESVS § 3. His whole righteousnâ—…sse both negative and also possitive § 3 4. Which is truely called the righteousnesse of God § 5. The comfort arising out of this doctrine § 6. Righteousnesse inherent Not perfect l. 4. c. 2. § 8 c. and c. 3. Reasons proving the works of the faithfull not to be purely and perfectly good I. Out of Esai 64. 6. Lib. 4. cap. 3. § 4 c. ad 11. II. Because there is a mixture in them of sinne out of Exod. 28. 36 38. § 11. Eccles. 7. 20. § 12. III. The fruâ—…t is as the tree § 13. IV. Actions purely good may stand in iudgâ—…ment § 14. an instance in prayer § 15. Testimonies of Fathers § 16. Bellarmines proofes I. Allegation of Scriptures And I. Iob 1. 22. l. 4. c. 4. § 1 2. II.
For all they who have true faith are borne of God 1 Iohn 5. 1. Iohn 1. 12 13. And those who are once borne of God are never unborne againe but being made sonnes by faith as all the faithfull are Gal. 3. 26. they are also made heires of God and coheires with Christ Rom. 8. 17. As faith therefore is never utterly lost no more is justification For so long as wee have faith so long wee are justified But the habit of faith wee never lose though perhaps some act of faith may sometimes bee interrupted Therefore our justification is but one continued act and in that sense we are justified but once § VIII Now whereas we have defined and defended according to the Scriptures that justification is an action of God and such an action as is without us and a continued act hence we may conclude against the Papists first that neither their first nor second justification is that justification which is taught in the Scriptures Not the second for that is not Gods action but their owne who being justified before by habituall righteousnesse infused from God doe themselves as they â—…each by practising of good workes increase their righteousnesse that is justifie themselves by actuall righteousnesse as the merit of their second justification Not that wee deny that inherent righteousnesse is by practise of good workes increased but that wee hold that justification is not our owne act neither that we are justified by any righteousnesse inherent in our selves or performed by our selves nor that the righteousnesse of justification which is indeed the righteousnesse of Christ can be increased and therefore no degrees of justification Not the first which they make to bee an action of God within us working in us a reall change or positive mutation by infusion of the habits of grace and specially of charitie and confound it with habituall sanctification from which notwithstanding it is necessarily to be distinguished Secondly justification being an action of God is not to bee confounded with justification passively understood and much lesse with justice it selfe But the Papists not onely understand it passively but also confound it with inherent Iustice. Thirdly they doe not hold justification to bee one continued act from our vocation to our glorification But such an act as may not onely be interrupted ostentimes and lost for a time as they say it is by every mortall sinne and againe be renewed so oft as they goe to shrift but also that it may totally and finally bee lost Which error I have confuted at large in my Treatise of perseverance CAP. II. The efficient causes of Iustification § I. BUt in this definition besides the Genus not onely all the causes of Iustification but also the essentiall parts thereof are briefly comprised which I will now distinctly propound The causes because in the knowledge of them standeth the science of every thing the essentiall parts because in them justification it selfe consisteth The causes of justification as of all other things are foure The Efficient the Matter the Forme the End The Efficieâ—…t causes are of two sorts either principall or instrumentall The principall is God which I noted in the definition when I said it is an action of God For it is God that justifieth as the Scriptures in many places doe testifie as namely Rom. 3. 26 30. 4. 5 6. 8. 30 33. Gal. 3. 8. God I say the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost For it being an outward action of God or as the Schoolemen speake ad extra respecting the Creatures it is the common action of the whole Trinity And thus God alone as the Iudge doth justifie For he alone is the Lawgiver who hath power over our soules against whom wee sinne and by our sinne become his debtours when we transgresse his law And therefore he alone properly forgiveth sinnes as himselfe professeth Esay 43. 25. and as the Scribes and Pharisees confesse as a received truth Luk. 5. 21. For who may take upon him to remit those debts which wee owe to God It is he who reconcileth us unto himselfe in Christ not imputing our sinnes 2 Cor. 5. 19. and accepting of us in his beloved Ephes. 1. 6. It is he alone that forgiving our sinnes freeth us from hell and giveth us right to his heaveâ—…ly kingdome Which doctrine serveth first for our direction and instruction where to seeke and to sue for justification and remission of sinnes Not to any creature but to God alone in the name and mediation of Christ to whom alone our Saviour directeth us to sue for pardon Secondly it ministreth strong consolation to all the faithfull For seeing it is God that justifieth them who shall lay any thing to their charge Who shall condemne c Thirdly it sâ—…rveth for the confutation or rather condemnation of the Pope and all popish priests who take upon them power not as Ministers of the Gospell to declare and pronounce remission of sinnes but as Iudges to remit them it being a proper attribute of God Exod. 34. 7. which he appropriateth to himselfe Esay 43. 25. and which no meere man can without blasphemy arrogate to himselfe Mark 2. 7. § II. With the principall cause we are to joyne the consideration of the motives or moving causes both without God which of some are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and also within himselfe which are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are indeed principia agendi The former are mans misery which though it be not properly a cause but the object of mercy yet is said to bee a motive and is used as a reason to move to mercy and thence misericordia hath its name and Christs merits which properly are the procatarcticke cause of our justification besides which there is no other merit The moving causes within God are his Mercy and his Iustice which I signified in the definition when I said that justification is a most grâ—…cious and rightâ—… action os God For as in many if not in all the workes of God his mercy and justice meet together so especially in the worke of our Iustification and redemption which Cardinall Câ—…jetan e well observed The holy Scripture saith he doth not say that we are justified by grace alone but by grace and justice together but both of God that is by the grace of God and by the justice of God and not by the righteousnesse of men By grace I understand the gracious love and favour of God in Christ vouchsafed unto us in him before all secular times 2 Tim. 1. 9. in which he hath graciously accepted us in his beloved by which as we are elected and called and shall be saved so by the same we are justified and that freely without any cause in us Rom. 3. 24. Now the Lord is said to justifie us by his grace first because of his free-grace hee gave his owne Sonne to
conscience of the faithfull in the assumption according to Gods Word contained in the proposition therefore I have remission of sinnes therefore I shall be saved And in this sense Ministers are said to remit sinnes Ioh. 20. 23. and consequently to justifie when they doe pronounce remission of sinnes to them that beleeve and repent And whatsoever they doe in this behalfe upon earth according to the Word is ratified in heaven § VI. As touching the Sacraments in them first the benefit of the Messias is represented before our eyes by the outward signes whereupon the Sacrament is called Verbum visibile Secondly such is the Sacramentall union betweene the signe and the thing signified that together with the signe the thing signified that is Christ with all his merits is offered in the lawfull use of the Sacrament Thirdly the benefit of the Messias is not only offered in the lawfull use together with the signe but also conferd and given to every faithfull and worthy receiver And hereof the Sacrament is a pledge given to the beleever to assure him that as the Minister doth give unto him the signe so the Lord doth give unto him the thing signified And in this sense every Sacrament is a seale of that righteousnesse which is by faith Rom. 4. 11. annexed to the promise of the Gospell which by delivery of the Sacrament is particularly applyed to every faithfull receiver to assure him in particular of his justification and salvation by Christ. Thus the ministery of the Gospell is the meanes to beget faith and the Sacraments the instruments to confirme the same But the Papists deny both for that faith is begotten in the ministery of the Word and that so men attaine to remission of sinnes and justification they say it is a fiction of the heretikes of these times Neither doe they grant that Sacraments are seales of righteousnesse or that they were ordained to seale the promises unto us But they hold them to bee such effectuall instruments as doe by vertue inherent in themselves conferre justifying grace which they call gratiam gratum facientem ex opere operatâ—… By which doctrine a they have turned Religion into a meere outward formality according to the prophecy of them 2 Tim. 3. 5. ascribing all the degrees of salvation to be atchieved in this life viz. Vocation Iustification Sanctification to the externall use of the Sacraments so they have made their doctrine of justification to bee an idle speculation whereof in their practice there is little or no use For to what purpose doe they dispute of justification by vertuous preparations and gracious dispositions when they teach that the Sacraments doe ex opere operato that is by the very performance of the outward act justifie the receiver requiring in him neither any vertuous preparation or gracious disposition for without them hee is justified Onely this caution they doe interpose that hee doe not ponere obicem mortalis peccati that hee put not the obstacle of mortall sinne For if those things should necessarily be required then the Sacraments should conferre grace not ex opere operato as they stifly hold but ex opere operantis So much of the hand of the giver § VII The instrument on our part which is as it were manus accipientis the hand of the receiver is the grace of justifying faith which I noted in the definition when I said that the Lord imputeth the righteousnesse of Christ to a beleeving sinner Now as touching saith divers things are to be considered For first it is said to justifie not as it is a qualitie or habite in us as the Papists teach ipsa fides saith g Bellarmine censetur esse justitia faith it selfe is accounted to be justice and it â—…elfe is imputed unto righteousnesse Rom. 4. 5. for so it is a part of sanctification but as it is the instrument and as it were the hand to receive Christ who is our righteousnesse For if we should be justified by faith as it is an habit in us properly then we should be justified by habituall and inherent righteousnesse which hereafter I shall fully disproveAnd if we be not justified by it as it is an habit then much lesse as it is an act as 〈◊〉 and his followers teach as though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ipsum credere did properly justifie Which opinion is worse than the other For faith doth justifie as hereaster shall be proved as the instrument only but it is the instrument not as it is an act but as it is an habit producing that act and therefore it is said that we are justified by faith and that faith is imputed unto righteousnesse But if wee should bee justified by it as it is an act then we should be justified by our owne workes which hereafter is also to be confuted and further if we were justified by it as it is an act then we should be no longer justified actually than we doe actually beleeve 〈◊〉 so there should bee an intercision of justification which I proved before to be a continued act so ost as there is an intermission of the act of faith which is ridiculous Againe if wee should be justified by faith either as it is an habit or an act in sensu proprio as they speake and not relatively or metonymically then should we be justified by one habit alone or by the act of one habit and consequently by a partiall and most unperfect righteousnesse When it is certaine that all the habits and acts of grace which are in the best concurring together are not sufficient to justifie a man before God for the reasons hereafter to be delivered lib. 4. 7. It is true that faith is imputed for righteousnesse and is accepted of God as the perfect performance of the whole law but this is to bee understood relatively in respect of the object received by faith that is Christ who is the end and complement of the Law to all that beleeve insomuch that whosoever truly beleeveth in Christ hath fulfilled the Law § VIII 2. is the consequent of the former For if faith doth justifie onely as it is an hand or instrument to apprehend and receive Christ then justifying faith must be such a faith as doth apprehend receive and embrace Christ which is not done neither by the implicite nor the unformed nor the bare historical and generall faith of the Papists but it is done first by a lively and effectuall assent to the speciall doctrine concerning justification and salvation by Christ which is the condition of the Evangelicall promise and then by a sound application of the promise to our selves as having that condition For by a lively and effectuall beleefe we receive and embrace Christ not only in our judgements by a willing and firme assent being undoubtedly perswaded and assured thathe is the Saviour of all that truly beleeve in him but also in our hearts by an hungring desire
our obedience our sanctification standeth wherefore faith which justifieth alone is but one of those many graces wherein besides our obedience our sanctification doth consist CAP. III. Of the Essentiall causes of Iustification viz. The matter and the forme § I. BUt let us come to the essentiall causes of justification that is to say the matter and the forme The matter of justification considered as it is an action of God is that which the Lord imputeth unto us for righteousnesse and accepteth as our righteousnesse and that is the righteousnesse of Christ which I noted in the definition when I said imputing to a beleeving sinner the righteousnesse of Christ. The Papists confounding not onely justice and justification but also the matter which is the materiall cause and the subject say that the matter of justification is the soule of man or at the least the will of man because that is the seat of justice whereas indeed of justification though passively understood not the soule or the will is the subject but the person or the whole man For justification is totius suppositi of the person and not of any part or faculty of man But for the better clearing of this point let us briefly consider other not unlike actions First when Rebecca arrayed or clothed her sonne Iacob with the raiment of Esau her elder sonne the matter of this action was that which being applyed unto him did clothe him viz. Esau's garment the forme of that action was the applying of it to him which was the indution or putting it on For she clothed him by putting upon him Esau's garment So the Lord justifieth us by putting upon us our eldest brothers righteousnesse which is our wedding garment Which similitude is used not only by Saint Ambrose but also by Pighius himselfe as heereafter shall bee shewed The matter therefore of justification is Christs righteousnesse the forme is the imputing thereof Secondly the actions of redemption reconciliation and justification in substance are the same As therefore the Lord redeemeth us and reconcileth us by applying unto us and accepting for us the righteousnesse and merits of Christ as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or price of ransome and as the propitiation for God was in Christ reconciling the world to himselfe 2 Cor. 5. 19. so hee justifieth us by applying unto us and accepting for us the same righteousnesse and merits of Christ as our righteousnesse As the matter therefore of our redemption is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or price of ransome which Christ payed for us the matter of reconciliation is the propitiatory sacrifice which Christ offered for us the matter of justification is Christs righteousnesse which hee had and performed for us so the forme of redemption as it is Gods action is the applying unto us the price of ransome which Christ payed and the accepting of it in our behalfe the forme of reconciliation the applying unto us the propitiation made by Christ and accepting of it in our behalfe the forme of justification the applying or imputing of Christs righteousnesse unto us and accepting it in our behalfe In like manner the Papists if they would consider Iustification as an action of God should according to their owne doctrine conceive that of their first justification whereby as they teach a sinner is made righteous by infusion of righteousnesse the matter is the righteousnesse infused or inherent the forme the infusion thereof because according to their doctrine the Lord in the first justification maketh a man righteous by infusion of righteousnesse The Papists confesse after a sort the righteousnesse of Christ to bee the merit of justification but they deny it to be the matter thereof whereas indeed it is both the matter as justification is the act of God imputing it the merit as justification is passively understood because for it wee are justified the matter I say of Gods justifying us the merit of our being justified And this may appeare by the contrary For justification as hath beene said and shall bee proved is opposed to condemnation As therefore sinne is not onely the matter of condemnation which is the imputation of sinne but also the merit both of the sentence and of the punishment by the sentence awarded so the righteousnesse of Christ is both the matter of justification as being that which God imputeth to us and also the merit both of the sentence of absolution and of eternall life unto which we are accepted § II. But of the matter and forme of justification whereof I am hereafter to treat at large of the matter in the whole fourth booke of the forme in the fifth I will here onely set downe briefly the orthodox doctrine of the reformed Churches and maintaine it against the private opinions of some protestant Divines who are not sound in these points The matter of justification is that righteousnesse wherein wee stand perfectly righteous before God This in many places is called the righteousnesse of God As Rom. 1. 17. 3. 21. 10. 3. 2 Cor. 5. 21. 2 Pet. 1. 1. And is therefore called the righteousnesse of God because it is the righteousnesse of that person who is God and therefore is not our righteousnesse but his not infused into us but inherent in his person and imputed to us being without us in him Heare then wee are to consider whether this righteousnesse of God be the righteousnesse of Christ as hee is God or as hee is mediator betwixt God and man the man Christ Iesus The righteousnesse of Christ as he is God is the essentiall righteousnesse of the Godhead By which dwelling in man Osiander supposed them to be justified But this being the essentiall and uncreated righteousnesse of God which is his essence and therefore himselfe cannot be the righteousnesse of any who is not God and therefore if we should be justified thereby we should also bee deified Againe the essentiall righteousnesse of God being the essence of God and the very Godhead cannot be communicated to any creature much lesse can it become the accidentall righteousnesse of a creature And farther it being the righteousnesse of the Godhead is the common righteousnesse of the whole Trinity the Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost And therefore if we should be justified thereby we should be justified by the righteousnesse of the Father and of the holy Ghost as well as by the righteousnesse oâ—… the Sonne § III. It is not therefore the righteousnesse of the Godhead Is it then the righteousnesse of the Manhood I answer it is the righteousnesse of Christ our Mediator who is both God and man which he in his humanity had and performed in the dayes of his flesh for us And this is to bee understood not of a part but of the whole righteousnesse of Christ which was either inherent in the man Christ or performed by him whether to fulfill the Commandements or to satisfie the Curse of the Law for
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
because the hebrew word which signifieth to justifie doth never signifie to make righteous by infusion of righteousnesse § I. HAving thus briefely set downe the true Doctrine of Iustification according to the Word of God we are now to confute the erroneous doctrine of of the Papists There are six maine and capitall errours which the Papists most obstinately hold and maintaine concerning justification and consequently so many principall heads of controversie betweene us whereunto divers other particular questions are to be reduced The first concerning the name whether justification and sanctification are to bee confounded The second concerning the moving cause which is the justifying and saving Grace of God which they call gratia gratum faciens The third concerning the matter of justification The fourth concerning the forme The fifth concerning the instrumentall cause which is Faith The sixth concerning the fruits of faith and consequents of justification which are good workes concerning which are two maine questions First whether they doe justifie a man before God Secondly whether they doe merit Eternall Life § II. The first capitall errour of the Papists is that they confound justification and sanctification and by confounding of them and of two benefits making but one they utterly abolish as shall be shewed the benefit of justification which notwithstanding is the principall benefit which we have by Christ in this life by which wee are freed from hell and entituled to the Kingdome of Heaven And this they doe in two respects for first they hold that to justifie in this question signifieth to make righteous by righteousnesse inherent or by infusion of righteousnesse that is to sanctifie Secondly they make remission of sinne not to be the pardoning and forgiving of sinne but the utter deletion or expulsion of sinne by infusion of righteousnèsse Thus they make justification wholly to consist in the parts of sanctification For whereas Sanctification is partly privative which is the taking away of sinne which we according to the Scriptures call mortification and partly positive which we call vivification and is partly inward or habituall consisting in the habits of Grace infused and partly actuall which is our new obedience and practice of good workes all these and onely these they make to concurre to justification which with them is partly privative which they call remission of sinne whereby they understand the utter deletion or extinction of sinne wrought by infusion of perfect righteousnesse which is an higher degree of mortification than we can attaine unto in this life and partly positive and that either habituall which they call their first justification wherein a man of a sinner is made righteous by infusion of the habits of Grace which is indeed regeneration and partly actuall which they call their second justification wherein a righteous man is made more just by the practice of good works whereby they merit not onely the increase of righteousnesse but also the Crowne of Eternall Life § III. Of this first controversie therefore are two questions First whether to justifie doth signifie to make righteous by infusion of righteousnesse which is to sanctifie Secondly whether remission of sinne be the utter deletion and abolition of sinne by infusion of righteousnesse In both the Papists hold the affirmative The former which is a most pernicious errour they ground upon the like notation of the Latine words to justifie and to sanctifie That as to sanctifie is to make holy by holinesse inherent so to justifie is to make just by infusion of righteousnesse But though the notation of the Latine words were to be respected yet no more could be inforced from thence but that to justifie is to make just And that is all which Bellarmine goeth about to prove Now God maketh men just two wayes by imputation as he justifieth by infusion as he sanctifieth them For if a man may bee made just not only inwardly by obtaining righteousnesse but also outwardly by declaration as Bellarmine himselfe saith then much more by imputation even as we were made sinners by Adams actuall transgression and as Christ was made sinne that is a sinner for us For even as by Adams disobedience wee were made sinners and guilty of damnation his transgression being imputed to us so are wee made just by the obedience of Christ imputed to us And as Christ who knew no sinne was made a sinner by imputation of our sinnes to him so we are made the righteousnesse of God in him that is righteous in him by the imputation of his righteousnesse who is God unto us But indeed the force of the Latine words is to be respected no further than as they are the true translation of the Hebrew word in the Old Testament and of the Greeke in the New § IV. The Hebrew root Tsadaq from whence those verbs do spring which signifie to justifie is by the Septuagint translated sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be just blamelesse or pure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be just as Iob 9. 2. 15. 20. 10. 15. 15. 14. 25. 4. 33. 12. 34. 5. 35. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be blamelesse as Iob 22. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be pure as Iob 4. 17. sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same sense to be just as being a translation not of a passive but of a Neuter as Gen. 38. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thamar is more just than I. So Psal. 19. 10. jâ—…dicia Dei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal. 51. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so Rom. 3. 4. Psal. 143. 2. Esai 43. 9. cum 41. 26. Ezek. 16. 52. In Ecclus. 18. 1. Deus solus justificabitur the Greeke is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be reputed just as Iob 11. 2. 13. 18. 40. 3. Sometimes to be justified and absolved from sinne to bee pronounced and accepted as righteous as Esai 43. â—…6 Let us plead together declare thou 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first thine iniquities that thou maist bee justified Esai 45. 25. in the Lord all the seed of Israel shall be justified The passive is onely once used Dan. 8. 14. where it is said that the sanctuary after 2300. dayes shall bee justified that is expiated or purged In the second conjugation it signifieth to justifie but not as the word is used in the doctrine of justification but as it signifieth either to arrogate righteousnesse to a mans selfe as Iob 32. 2. or to attribute or ascribe it to others as Iobâ—…3 â—…3 32. or to shew himselfe or others righteous as Ier. 3. 11. Ezek. 16. 51 52. In the third conjugation it signifieth to justifie in that sense that the question of justification And it is verbum forense a judiciall word used in Courts of judgement which usually is opposed to condemning And it signifieth to absolve and to acquit from guilt and accepting a man as righteous to pronounce him just
condemnation and justification some where signifie the action of the Iudge as in the place cited Rom. 5. 16. yet notwithstanding when God doth justifie a sinner by dâ—…claring him just he doth also make him just because the judgement of God is according to the truth And therefore Christ whether he justifieth us by his obedience or by his judgement he alwayes maketh just And thus Augustine saith he understood this place Reply That God maketh just whom he pronounceth just we freely confesse but the question still is of the manner for in justification when he pronounceth a man just he maketh him just and that perfectly just not by infusion of inherent righteousnesse but by imputation of Christs righteousnesse And whom hee justifieth that is maketh just by imputation of righteousnesse them hee also sanctifieth that is maketh just in some measure by infusion of grace For to use Bellarmines owne words when God doth justifie a sinner by declaring him righteous it is plaine that in himselfe hee is a sinner who by God is declared to bee just and therefore that hee is not justified by inherent justice for in himselfe he is a sinner as wee all are How then shall the judgement of God bee according to the truth when hee declareth a sinner to bee just To a sinner beleeving in Christ the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended by faith is imputed for righteousnesse Rom. 4. 5. and this we shall hereafter shew to be an argument unanswerable None remaining sinners in themselves can truely bee declared or pronounced just in respect of righteousnesse inherent All mortall men even the most righteous of them meraine sinners in themselves 1 Ioh. 1. 8. Ecclus 7. 20. Therefore No mortall man can truly be declared or pronounced just in respect of inherent righteousnesse and consequently none are or can bee justified by righteousnesse inherent § IIII. The testimony of Augustine is falsified For disputing against the errour of the Pelagians who imagined that originall sinne was not propagated from Adam but that imitation onely maketh sinners by Adam hee inferreth that then by the same reason onely imitation maketh just by Christ. As though either Adam had done no more against us or Christ for us than that they had been prime examples and precedents the one of sinne the other of righteousnesse But Augustine sheweth out of Rom. 5. that as those who are regenerated by the Spirit of Christ obtaine remission of sinnes and inward grace so those who come from Adam by naturall generation are made guilty of his sinne unto condemnation and also receive corruption from him by propagation all which we teach But that Augustine pleadeth not for justification by inherent justice appeareth by the antithesis which in that place hee maketh betwixt our condemnation by Adam and our justification by Christ. First that whereas to condemnation there concurres our owne voluntary transgression besides Adams sinne yet to our justification there doth not concurre any righteoufnesse besides Christ. Secondly which difference Saint Paul also noteth Rom. 5. 15 16 because in the carnall generation originall sinne onely is contracted but in the spirituall regeneration there is remission not onely of originall but also of voluntary sinnes § V. The second reason of Calvin and Chemnitius which Bellarmine taketh upon him to confute is this because the Apostle writing of justification did no doubt imitate the Hebrew phrase though he wrote in Greeke But the Hebrew word signifying to justifie hath the judiciall signification The argument may thus be propounded Such as is the signification of the Hebrew hitsdiq in the old Testament the same is the signification of the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both in the edition of the Septuagints as being the translation thereof and in the new Testament which in this point retaineth the translation of the Septuagints But the Hebrew hitsdiq is meerely a judiciall word opposed to condemnation as I have proved heretofore by induction of examples as Deut. 25. 1. 1 King 32. 8. Prov. 17. 15. Esai 5. 23. and never signifieth to make righteous by infusion or to endue with righteousnesse inherent Therefore the Greeke word also hath the same signification To the assumption Bellarmine answereth that the Hebrew word properly signifieth to make just but because a man may bee made just both inwardly by obtaining of justice and outwardly by declaration hence it is that the word admitteth these divers significations Reply In this answer we are to take his confession of the truth both that we may be made just outwardly by declaration and also that the Verbe sometimes doth signifie so much In vaine therefore doe the Papists urge against us the signification of the Latine word justificare as signifying justum facere seeing by our exposition it signifieth justum facere also not onely by declaration as Bellarmine heere speaketh but much more by imputation But though he confesseth the signification of the Verbe urged by us yet wee may not acknowledge the signification so much urged by the Papists yea wee confidently deny that the Hebrew hitsdiq doth any where in the Scriptures signifie to endùe with righteousnesse inherent § VI. This therefore hee endevoureth to prove by induction of examples and first out of Dan. 12. 3. Qui adjustitiam erudiunt multos who instruct many to righteousnesse The Hebrew word is matsdiqim where the Prophet speaking of the great glory which shall bee of Teachers who justifie many the vulgar Latine which is the onely authentique Text among the Papists doth not translate the word making righteous by infusion or enduing with righteousnesse inherent which is the worke of God alone and not of the Teacher but instructing unto righteousnesse or as Bellarmine himselfe expoundeth by teaching to bring men to righteousnesse which is done by bringing them to beleeve and therefore this allegation proveth not the Popish signification of the word Yea but it disproveth saith Bellarmine the judiciall signification so much urged by you For Teachers doe not justifie after the maner of â—…udges howbeit the Popish Priests dot in their absolutions as themselves doe teach Reply But this is nothing but a cavill For where wee say that to justifie in this doctrine of justification is verbum forense a word taken from Courts having a judiciall signification as namely to absolve from sinne or to give sentence with a man after the maner of a Iudge our meaning is that this word being attributed to God as it is God alone that justifieth and so wee consider justification as an action of God it alwaies hath this judiciall signification and never signifieth to endue with righteousnesse inherent But wee doe not say that it being attributed to any other as it is to divers others both perâ—…ons and things it is to bee expounded as the act of the Iudge though otherwise the justice implyed in the signification of the word bee after the judiciall sense not inherent but imputative Thus as I
a propitiation for our sinnes 1 Ioh. 2. 2. and that Christ who was just and knew no sinne was made sinne for us that wee might bee the righteousnesse of God in him as the Apostle speaketh 2 Cor. 5. 21. and Esai 53. 5 6 6. § X. The third word is my servant which signifieth that Christ did serve his Father in the worke of justification and consequently did justifie men not by judging but by ministring as himselfe saith Matth. 20. 28. and is therefore called the Minister of Circumcision that is of the Iewes The fourth word and he shall beare their iniquities which signifieth the manner how Christ by ministring doth justifie that is by bearing the burden of our sinnes upon his shoulders that is by suffering the punishment due for our sinnes Answ. The thing which hee indevoureth to prove viz. that Christ as he performed the office of Mediation in the dayes of his flesh did not justifie us aâ—…ter the manner of a Iudge is true But his reasons are not sufficient Not the former for he might bee Gods Minister or servant as all Kings or Iudges are and yet our Iudge Not the second for although he were our Priest to offer himselfe for us and by his obedience and sufferings to justifie us yet is he also our King and our Iudge who by his sentence will justifie us at the last day But although Christ did not justifie us after the manner of a Iudge yet it followeth not either that the word doth signifie infusion of justice to which purpose Andradius alleaged this place or that it is not a judiciall word For it is a judicial word as it is attributed not only to Iudges but also to sureties and advocates Christ as our Advocate justifieth by pleading for us as asurety by bearing the punishment judicially imposed upon us And whereas Bellarmine would prove out of 1 Pet. 2. 24. that inherent righteousnesse is an effect of Christs satisfaction or bearing our iniquities he proveth nothing but what we teach viz. that the fruits and end of our justification and redemption by Christ is our sanctification Luk. 1. 74 75. Rom. 6. 22. Tit. 2. 14. And consequently that our sanctification or inherent righteousnesse being the fruit and effect of our justification cannot bee the cause thereof no more than it is the cause of redemption For By what righteousnesse wee are redeemed by the same wee are justified for redemption and justification in substance differ not Rom. 4. 6. 7. 3. 24. 25. Col. 1. 14. Eph. 1. 7. By the righteousnesse of Christ wee are redeemed which is out of us in him and not by righteousnesse inherent Therefore By that righteousnesse of Christ which is out of us in him wee are justified and not by righteousnesse inherent His third place is Apoc. 22. 11. which I have fully answered before and is here impertinently recited to prove the signification of the Hebrew word being not sufficient to cleare the Greeke Seeing their owne best editions in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as I have shewed before § II. The third and fourth reason which Bellarmine alleageth out of Calvin and Chemnitius and answereth them together are concerning the signification and composition of the Latine word justificare which indeed are not used as arguments to prove the true signification of the word in this controversie but as just exceptions against the arguments of the Papists who rely too much upon the signification and composition of the Latine word wherein they were justly reprooved by Chemnitius first because the controversie being what is the use and signification of the word in the Scriptures it is not materiall what the Latine word doth signifie in other authors but what is the signification of the Hebrew word in the Old Testament and of the Greeke in the New whereof the Latine is meerely a Translation And therefore the Latine if it be a right Translation must in this controversie bee understood to signifie the selfe same thing with the Hebrew and the Greeke the use and signification whereof in the Scriptures is judiciall and is neuer used in the Popish sense wherefore though the use of the word in other authors did favour the Popish conceipt yet would it not disadvantage us secondly though the Latine words do signific to make just which is all that can be enforced from the signification and composition thereof and be so expounded by Augustine whom Bellarmine to that purpose alleageth yet this maketh nothing against us Not onely because Bellarmine hath confessed men may be made just either inwardly by obtaining of righteousnesse inherent or outwardly after a judiciall manner but also because we freely professe that whom God doth justifie he maketh righteous by imputation of Christs righteousnesse It is true indeed that some of our Divines deny the word to signifie making righteous but their deniall is to be understood according to the meaning of the Papists viz. by infusion thirdly the Latine word justificare and so the English as in the translation of the Scriptures it hath alwayes the judiciall signification and never signifieth to endue with righteousnesse inherent no more than the Hebrew and the Greeke whereof it is a translation so oftentimes in the Fathers and many times in the Popish writers and alwayes almost in the common use of speech it signifieth to cleare from guilt to free from imputation of fault to approve to declare or pronounce just Or if at any time it be used in the sense of induing with righteousnesse inherent it is contrary to the use of the Scriptures which in the doctrine of justification is to be retained § XII Yea but the Fathers interpret justifying to be making righteous whom to refuse in an ecclesiasticall question and to appeale to the judgement of the Latine authors as Tully and Terence is a great importunity saith Bellarmine especially seeing the Apostle hath taught that to be justified is to be constituted or made just according to the composition of the word Answ. That which is said of the Authors of the Latine tongue is a meere calumniation for in them the word is not used at all The interpretation of the Fathers according to the doctrine of Saint Paul wee approve acknowledging that whom God doth justifie hee maketh them just by imputation of Christs righteousnesse Yea but say they the Fathers meane by inherent justice Answ. Though some of the Latine Fathers who were ignorant of the Hebrew and not skilfull in the Greeke sometimes under the terme of justification include the benefit also of sanctification being led thereunto by the notation of the Latine word yet sometimes they exclude it as first when they place justification in remission of sinnes as many times they doe secondly when according to the Scriptures they oppose it to condemnation thirdly and especially when with one consent they plainely teach that we are justified by faith alone as hereafter shall be shewed
formall causes of justification Bellarmine answereth thus the Councell of Trent in expresse termes said that there is but one onely formall cause of justification Yea but say wee the Councell seemeth to make two viz. remission of sinnes and renovation But saith he when the Councell maketh mention severally of remission of sin and of infusion of grace it did it not to signifie that there is a twofold formall cause of justification but to declare that there are two termes of that motion which is called justification or two effects of the same cause For there cannot bee that mutation or translation which the Councell noteth to bee in justification unlesse by remission of sinne a man cease to bee wicked and by infusion of justice begin to be godly But saith hee as the aire when it is enlightened of the Sunne by the same light which it receiveth ceaseth to bee darke and beginneth to be lightsome So a man by the same justice given and infused by the Sunne of righteousnesse ceaseth to bee unjust the light of grace expelling the darknesse of sinne and beginneth to bee just the light of grace succeeding the darkenesse of sinne And as in calefaction which similitude hee useth elsewhere the accesse of heat expelleth cold so in justification the infusion of justice expelleth sinne This then is the doctrine of the new Church of Rome that in this mutation called justification which they define to bee a passage from sinne to righteousnesse though there be as in all other motions duo termini viz. sinne which is terminus à quo and righteousnesse which is terminus ad quem yet there are not two distinct actions concurring viz. remission or expulsion of sinne and infusion of righteousnesse but one and the same action which is the infusion of justice expelling sinne even as in calefaction though there bee two termes cold and hot yet there are not two actions for the same action of fire which bringeth in heat expelleth cold and so in illumination there are two termes darkenesse and light but not two actions for one and the same act of the Sunne which bringeth light driveth away darkenesse Whereby it is evident that by remission of sinne the Papists doe not understand as all men from the beginning of the world have understood pardoning forgiving not imputing sinne but the utter deletion expulsion abolition of it which Bellarmine calleth veram remissionem true remission as if the pardoning of the offence and taking away the guilt were not true remission but this true remission they hold to bee such that in a man who is justified and hath remission of sinne there is no sinne remaining and hee onely is to bee held a just man in whom there is no sinne Thus then remission of sinne is by the Papists excluded from justification and that brought in the roome of it which belongeth to that perfection of sanctification whereunto none attaine in this life § III. Now that the Papists grossely erre in making remission of sinne to bee the utter abolition or expulsion of it by infusion of righteousnesse may appeare by these arguments First whereas in sinne there are two things to bee considered the guilt and the corruption or Anomy thereof it is evident that the guilt of sinnes past is taken away by remission wholly and at once the corruption is taken away by mortification thereof not wholly in this life and at once but by degrees we being day by day renewed in the inner man The latter is the worke of Gods Spirit within us The former is an action of God without us such as is that of the Creditor in remitting or forgiving a debt And so the Scriptures conceive of remission For our sinnes are debts in respect of the guilt binding us over to punishment which wee owe for them When as God therefore remitteth the debt releaseth this obligation forgiveth the punishment hee is said to remit our sinnes This our Saviour taught by the parables of the creditors and debtors Matth. 18. 23. Luk. 7. 41. And thus he hath taught us to pray Matth. 6. 12. Forgive us our debts as wee forgive our debtors How doe wee forgive By not revenging the offence but laying aside all desire and purpose of revenge by passing by it and as it were forgetting it by covering it with charity by not imputing it by being reconciled unto the party who hath offended us not by a reall taking away of the sinne from the offender but a wiping of it out of our remembrance not by expelling the offence out of the offender but out of our thoughts § IV. Thus in the Scriptures to remit sinne is not to abolish and extinguish the sinne it selfe but to absolve from the guilt of sinne to pardon and to forgive the debt and to remit the punishment to cover a mans sinne and not to impute it And this plainely appeareth by these manifold phrases which are used in the Scriptures to signifie remission of sinne all which import the taking away of the guilt but none the utter abolishing of the corruption As first the Hebrew Salach Exod. 34. 9. Numb 14. 19 20. 30. 6. Deut. 29. 19. Psal. 103. 3. Esay 55. 7. Ier. 31. 34. Dan. 9. 20. signifieth parcere remittere ignoscere condonare propitium esse Kasah to hide to spare to forgive Nehem. 4. 5. Psal. 32. 1. 85. 2. Ioel 2. 17. Deut. 13. 8. Kaphar also is to cover to pardon to be propitious Deut. 21. 8. Psal. 65. 4. 78. 38. 79. 9. Esay 22. 14. Nasa to spare to forgive to take away the guilt Gen. 18. 24 26. 50. 17. Exod. 32. 32. Numb 14. 19. Psalm 32. 1. cum Rom. 4. 7. Esay 33. 24. Psalm 25. 18. Habar to passe by an offence Mic. 7. 18. and Hehebir to cause it to passe 2 Sam. 12. 13. 24. 10. Zech. 3. 4. Machah to wipe or to blot out of remembrance the sinnes of men as it were out of a booke to blot them out from before his face Nehem. 4. 5. Psalm 51. 9. Ier. 18. 23. Hesir to remove Esay 27. 9. Lo chashab not to impute Psal. 32. 2. In like manner the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to remit or forgive Mat. 6. 12 14 15. 18. 27 32. whence is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 remission that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 forgivenesse as Hesychiiâ—…s expoundeth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condonare to forgive Luk. 7. 42. 2 Cor. 2. 10. Ephes. 4. 33. Col. 2. 13. 3. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to impute Rom. 4. 8. 2 Cor. 5. 19. So the Latine remittere dimittere ignoscere condonare donare veniam dare parcere propitium esse and the English to remit to pardon to forgive § V. For the farther clearing of this point let us consider these three things first what that is which is remitted Secondly where it remaineth untill it bee remitted Thirdly by what act of God it is remitted The thing remitted is our
were an utter deletion or abolition of sinne then in those that are justified there is no sinne But there is no mortall man though justified in whom there is no sinne Therefore in justification there is not a Totall deletion of sinne § XI Sixthly if remission of sin be an utter deletion of the corruption by infusion of righteousnesse and nothing else concurre to justification but infusion of righteousnesse expelling sin what then becommeth of the guilt of sinne and the punishment how is our debt satisfied The justice infused though it should utterly expell the corruption yet it neither doth nor can satisfie for the punishment as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth Neither is there any other satisfaction or propitiation for our sinnes whereby Gods justice may be satisfied our debt discharged our selves freed from hell and damnation but onely the satisfaction of Christ without imputation whereof there is no justification nor salvation but none of this is done by righteousnesse infused expelling sinne Wherefore the Papists if they will bee saved must acknowledge besides the benefit of the infusion of righteousnesse expelling the corruption of sinne which they call justification but is indeed sanctification another greater benefit whereby we are both freed from hell and entituled to heaven by imputation of Christs satisfaction called in the Scriptures justification which they by their Antichristian doctrine have utterly abolished § XII Seventhly that which worketh no reall change in the party doth not really take away and expell all sin from him by infusion of righteousnesse for that cannot bee done without a reall yea and a great change in the party True remission of sinne doth not worke a reall change in the party Therefore the true remission of sinne doth not really take away and expell all sinne by infusion of righteousnesse The assumption is thus proved first the forgiving of a debt worketh no reall change in the debtor but relative The true remission of sinne is the forgiving of our debt therefore the true remission doth not worke a reall change in the party Secondly that which is imputative doth not worke a reall change in the party but is an act wrought without the party True remission of sinne is imputative as the Apostle teacheth Rom. 4. 6 7 8. consisting in the not imputing of sinne presupposing the imputing of righteousnesse without workes therefore it worketh not a reall change § XIII My eighth argument is from theabsurdities which follow upon this Popish Doctrine First Necessity of despairing not onely to the tender conscience labouring under the burden of sinne but also to all not cauterized consciences which have any sense of their owne estate For if remission of sinne bee the utter deletion of sinne then have not they neither can they have remission of sinne in whom any sinne remaineth and those that neither have nor can have remission of sinne in this life because sinne doth ever remaine in them what remaineth to them but despaire Secondly that there is no necessity of the imputation of Christs righteousnesse for justification because there is in them both a totall deletion of sinne and an infusion of perfect righteousnesse whereby sinne is wholly expelled And these as you shall heare hereafter are two of Bellarmines principall Arguments to prove the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to bee needlesse both because when our sinnes are remitted they are utterly abolished so that whosoever is justified is no longer a sinner in himselfe nor hath any sinne remaining in him and also because in justification there is an infusion of perfect righteousnesse The third that to remission of sinne there needeth no favour or indulgence for pardon or forgivenesse for if remission of sinne be a totall deletion of sinne by infusion of perfect righteousnesse then without any accession of favour the one contrary is necessarily expelled by the other And this doth Vasques professe in expresse termes Mihi semper necessarium visum fuit asserere maculam peccati ipsa justitia inherente tanquam forma contraria nullo accedente favore condo natione deleri § XIV These absurdities doe necessarily follow upon their Antichristian doctrine of justification by inherent righteousnesse For if a man be justified before God by inherent righteousnesse then is he not a sinner in himselfe and consequently hath no sinne in him And if by infusion of righteousnesse there be a totall deletion of sinne then must that righteousnesse which is infused be perfect For that which is unperfect cannot wholly expell sinne the imperfection being of it selfe a sinne and if upon infusion of perfect righteousnesse there doth necessarily and of its owne accord follow a totall deletion of sinne then to remission of sinne favour and condonation is needlesse And yet we have not done with their absurdities For to dreame that men who are but infants in Christianity yea infants in age before they have the use of reason or are capable of habits are endued and that ordinarily with perfect righteousnesse in their first imaginary justification which is inciptentium of such as be but incipients whereunto the best proficients doe not in this life attaine is a monstrous absurdity CAP. VIII Bellarmines dispute that remission of sinne is the utter deletion of it confuted § I. BVT how absurd soever their assertion is Bellarmine will maintaine it and set a good face upon it telling us first that wee may not deny it unlesse wee will deny the Scriptures For the Scripture saith he useth all manner of words to expresse the true remission of sinne so that if a man would of purpose seeke words to signifie the utter abolition of sinne hee could not devise any which the Scripture hath not already used And to this purpose citeth eighteene Testimonies nine out of the Old Testament viz. 1 Chron. 21. 8. Esai 44. 22. Ezek. 36. 25. Psalm 51. 7. Prov. 15. 27. alias 16. 6. Psalm 103. 12. Mic. 7. 19. Psalm 10. 15. Cant. 4. 7. And nine out of the New Ioh. 1. 29. Act. 3. 19. 1 Ioh. 1. 7. Act. 22. 16. Heb. 1. 3. 9. 28. 1 Cor. 6. 11. Ephes. 5. 8. and 27. § II. Answ. These places are to be distinguished for either they are alleaged to prove the abolition of sinne or perfection of righteousnesse the former mention either the taking away of sinne or the wiping or blotting of it out or the purging of it or the not being of it For the taking away of sinne these are brought 1 Chron. 21. 8. Psalm 103. 12. Mic. 7. 19 Ioh. 1. 29. Heb. 9. 28. In 1 Chron. 21. 8. the word is Hahaber transire fac cause it to passe that is remove it out of thy sight not that it bee not at all but that it bee not punished or which is all one take away the guilt and so the word seemeth to be expounded 2 Sam. 12. 13. where Nathan saith to David the Lord hath taken away thy sinne thou shalt not
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
observation of the Law written And hee proveth against the Pelagians that the righteousnesse which they seemed to have in lege or ex lege in or by the Law did not fulfill justitiam legis the righteousnesse of the Law unto which wee may adde against the Papists that all the righteousnesse even of the faithfull also and regenerate though endevouring to live according to the Law and according to the Commandements which they have in or by the Law doth not fulfill the righteousnesse of the Law which Paul calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Christ onely fulfilled for us by whose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hee being but one we are justified Rom. 5. 18. For as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or guilt by the fall of one man came upon all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to condemnation so by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the righteousnesse of one whereby hee fulfilled the Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the grace of absolution and of Gods acceptation redounded upon all unto justification of life And thus this distinction maketh against the Papists For justitia legis the justice of the Law considered in the abstract as it is described in the booke of the Law being most perfect is never fulfilled by that righteousnesse of the concrete in or by the Law which men not onely carnall but spirituall also attaine unto by their observation of the Law being alwayes unperfect in this life and stained with the flesh For even as it may bee said of all other graces which being considered in the abstract are perfect and are so defined but considered in the concrete as they be in men who have received but the first fruits of the Spirit according to the measure of the donation of Christ they are unperfect So the righteousnesse of the Law as it is taught in the Law and as it was performed by Christ is perfect but as it is in all mortall men it is unperfect Therefore righteousnesse inherent in us is not that righteousnesse of God by which we are justified § V. Our second argument That doctrine which confoundeth the righteousnesse of the Law and of the Gospell and by confounding them maketh void the Covenant of grace is false and Antichristian The Popish doctrine of justification by inherent righteousnesse confoundeth the righteousnesse of the Law and of the Gospell and maketh void the covenant of grace Therefore it is false and Antichristian The assumption is thus proved whosoever maketh the condition of justification to be the perfect fulfilling of the Law in our owne persons confoundeth the Gospell with the Law For the righteousnesse of the Law is the man that doth these things which are prescribed in the Law shall live by them but the true condition of the Gospell is beleeve in Christ and thou shalt be saved He also maketh void the Covenant of grace For if justification be promised upon condition of perfect obedience or righteousnesse which condition is impossible by reason of the flesh then is the promise void and of none effect But the Papists make the condition of justification to bee the perfect fulfilling of the Law in our owne persons or perfect righteousnesse inherent Againe whosoever are made debtours to the whole Law to them not onely the covenant of grace is void but Christ himselfe is of none effect as the Apostle teacheth Gal. 5. 2 3. But they who must bee justified by inherent righteousnesse are made debrours to the whole Law which they must perfectly fulfill else they cannot bee justified But of this more hereafter § VI. Our third argument That doctrine which depriveth Christians of the chiefe part of that Christian liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free is false and Antichristian The popish doctrine of justification by inherent righteousnesse depriveth Christians of the chiefe part of that Christian liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free the chiefe part of our liberty is that which we have by justification wherein wee are freed from hell and intitled to heaven And that is a freedome from a double yoke of most grievous bondage wherein all are held that are under the Law the former in respect of the curse under which all are who in the least degree at any time transgresse the Law Gal. 3. 10. which all do both oft and grievously the other in respect of the rigour of the Law excluding all men from justification and salvation who doe not perfectly fulfill it which by reason of the flesh is unpossible But by the popish doctrine the benefit of justification it selfe is taken away as I have shewed and with it the liberty which we have by it For if we cannot be justified but by perfect inherent righâ—…eousnes then are we subject to the curse then are we excluded from all possibility of justification and salvation as being sinners in our selves wherefore all those who will stand fast in that liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free must abhorre the doctrine of justification by inherent righteousnesse which intangleth the imbracers of it with this double yoke of bondage whereby they are subjected to the curse and damnation and are excluded from heaven and salvation § VII Our fourth Argument No sinners whiles they remaine sinners are justified by righteousnesse inherent All men whatsoever Christ alwayes excepted are sinners as I proved before and so remaine whiles they remaine in the flesh Therefore no man whatsoever is justified by righteousnesse inherent This seemeth to be the Apostle argument in the three first Chapters of the Epistle to the Romans whosoever are sinners they are not justified by the works of the Law that is to say by no righteousnesse inherent in themselves or performed by themselves All mortall men whatsoever both Iewes and Gentiles are sinners which hee proveth at large Therefore no mortall man whatsoever is justified by the works of the Law that is by righteousnesse inherent § VIII Our fifth argument None that are accursed by the Law are justified by their obedience to the Law for to bee justified is to bee blessed Rom. 4. 6. All mortall men without exception are accursed by the Law as the Apostle proveth Gal. 3. 10. because all without exception have broken the Law Therefore none are justified by their obedience to the Law and therefore not by inherent righteousnesse § IX Our sixth argument whosoever is justified by inherent righteousnesse fulfilleth the Law But no mortall man doth fulfill the Law as I have elsewhere defended and proved at large And thus Chrysostome argueth No man can be justified by the Law unlesse he fulfill the whole Law but this is not possible for any man therefore that righteousnesse is fallen to the ground To this argument adde a seventh as being a Consectary thereof whosoever is justified by inherent righteousnesse and namely by charity he is justified by his owne fulfilling of the Law For charity is the fulfilling of the Law but no man is or can
remission of sinnes vouchsafing unto you righteousnesse and he made you holy and delivered from the tyranny of the Devill All these foure benefits are the fruits of Christs office of mediation as he is our Prophet our Priest and our King For as our Prophet in whom are all the treasures of wisedome and knowledge he calleth us by the Gospell his doctrine being our wisedome and making us wise unto salvation as our holy Priest hee justifieth us his sacrifice and his obedience being our righteousnesse as our gracious and glorious King being ascended on high to prepare a place for us he giveth the graces of his holy Spirit to his members whereby they being sanctified are fitted and prepared for his kingdome and being gone to prepare a place for us and us for it hee will come againe to bring us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the redemption of possession or our full redemption which is also called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Thes. 5. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2 Thes. 2. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 10. 39. the obtaining of salvation the obtaining of glory and the saving of the Soule and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the redemption of the body Rom. 8. 23. Christ therefore is of God made unto us wisedome righteousnesse sanctification and redemption or salvation because his wisedome is communicated unto us by instruction in our vocation his righteousnes is communicated unto us by imputation in our justification his sanctifying graces by infusion in our sanctification his glory by possession or fruition in our glorification § VI. In rendring the second cause he confesseth the truth whereof I desire the Reader to take speciall notice That Christ is called our righteousnesse because he satisfied his Father for us which his satisfaction he doth so give and communicate unto us when he doth justifie us that it may bee called our satisfaction and our righteousnesse For although by justice inherent in us we bee truly called and are righteous notwithstanding we doe not by it satisfie God for our faults and for eternall punishment And thus saith he it were not absurd to say that Christs righteousnesse and merits are imputed unto us when they are given and applied as if we our selves had satisfied God And to that purpose he citeth Bernard who saith that Christ died for all ut viz. satisfactio unius omnibus imputetur that the satisfaction of one may be imputed to all but addeth this needlesse caution modo non negetur saith Bellarmine esse in nobis preterea justitium inherentem â—…ámque veram so it be not denied that there is in us besides a justice inherent and that true which if Bellarmine would stay there we would yeeld unto For we doe not deny that there is a righteousnesse inherent in those that are justified and that also a true though not a pure a perfect and absolute righteousnesse onely wee deny that we are thereby justified Wee are indeed just but by Christs righteousnesse as Bernard saith in the same place justum me dixerim sed illius justitiâ § VII This confession of Bellarmine dissolveth the very frame of his owne doctrine of justification whereunto he hath taught that nothing concurreth but deletion of sinne and infusion of righteousnesse And these not as two acts but as one act viz. the infusion of righteousnesse expelling sinne As for imputation of Christs righteousnesse hee and his fellowes deride and scorne it But here hee confesseth which needs must be confessed that in justification the satisfaction of Christ is imputed unto us and accepted of God in our behalfe as if we our selves had satisfied God and that for that cause hee is truly called our righteousnesse And this imputation he acknowledgeth to be necessary because by righteousnesse inherent we doe not satisfie for our sinnes and eternall punishment We say the same onely wee adde that this satisfaction made by Christ in our behalfe is not onely his death and sufferings whereby he satisfied the penalty of the Law and delivered us from the curse himselfe being made a curse for us but also the holinesse of his person and the obedience of his life whereby he perfectly satisfied the justice of God infulfilling the commandements Now Gods acceptation of Christs satisfaction in our behalfe whereby he absolveth us from the guilt of sin and damnation by imputation of Christs sufferings and his acceptation of us as righteous in Christ by imputation of his most perfect righteousnesse and obedience is that very thing which wee according to the Scriptures doe call justification which distinct benefit of Christ not to be confounded with sanctification the Papists must learne to acknowledge if they would bee saved § VIII To these I adde other as plaine testimonies where it is said that wee are justified by the bloud of Christ and his obedience From whence I argue thus If we be justifiâ—…d by the bloud and obedience of Christ that is by his passive and active righteousnesse then are we justified by the personall righteousnesse of Christ which being proper to his person is out of us in him But we are justified by the bloud and by the obedience of Christ Rom. 5. 9. 19. therefore by his personall righteousnesse § IX Our fifth argument By what righteousnesse our sinnes are covered as with a garment and by which we being indued therewith appeare righteous before God that is the matter of our justification For he is justified whose sinnes are covered Psal. 32. 1. By the righteousnesse of Christ as a most pretious robe of righteousnesse and as our wedding garment our sinnes are covered For as Iustin Martyr truly saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for what other thing was able to cover our sinnes but his righteousnesse and wee being clothed therewith appeare righteous before God Therefore by the righteousnesse of Christ we are justified Bellarmine having as it were in our name objected to himselfe Eph. 4. 22. 24. which none of us that I know of doe object for wee acknowledge the place to be understood of sanctification which consisteâ—…h in the putting off the old man and putting on the new hee saith that wee argue from the similitude of a garment as more fitly resembling imputed justice than inherent and that we confirme it by the example of Iacob who being clothed with the rayment of his elder brother obtained the blessing § X. To this Bellarmine shapeth two answers First that the similitude of a garment may fitly agree to inherent righteousnesse which I wil not deny for in the Scriptures theterme of clothing or putting on is of a large extent so that he will confesse that the Hebrew Labash and the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifying to cloth or to put on apparrell which is not inherent in the body but adherent is more fitly by a metaphore applyed to signifie outward than inward
we 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
and by imputation of his obedience properly wee are entituled to the kingdome of heaven as I have shewed heretofore But in the popish justification there is neither remission of sinnes properly to free them from hell nor donation of such juâ—…tice as may entitle them to heaven For neither the abolition or extinction of sinne present by infusion of righteousnesse though it were compleate as it is not can satisfie for their former sinnes nor can their righteousnesse being unperfect give them right to heaven But it is the onely satisfaction of Christ by his righteousnesse and obedience both Passive and Active which being communicated unto beleevers by imputation doth both free them from hell and giveth them a Title and Right to the Heavenly Kingdome His proofe taken from the courts of men I admit as good against them who holding that wee are justified onely by the Passive righteousnesse of Christ doe make justification to bee nothing else but remission of sinnes For they whom being guilty in themselves as we all aâ—…e before God a judge doth justifie are freed indeed from punishment but they doe not thereby obtaine new rewards Howbeit there is a great dissimilitude betweene Gods justification of men and that of humane Iudges For a judge by his absolution though he doth free the guilty and indeed faulty parson from punishment and from the guilt binding him over to punishment and thereby perhaps bewrayeth his owne unjustice yet he doth not free him from the fault nor doth he make him righteous and much lesse doth hee indow him with new priviledges But when God doth justifie a beleeving sinner hee doth not onely free him from hell and from the guilt binding him over to condemnation by imputation of Christ sufferings but also by imputation of Christ obedience he maketh him righteous and an heire of eternall life And in thus justifying a beleeving sinner he is just because Christ by his sufferings hath fully satisfied for his sinnes and by his obedience hath merited for him eternall life § XIII His third reason justification of enemies maketh us Gods friends children beloved Citizens of Heaven the Domesticks of God heires of his kingdome as the Scriptures every where speake therefore it doth not stand onely in remission of sinnes Thus farre we agree with him But as it is a good argument against those who hold justification to bee nothing else but remission of sinne so it maketh not for him who holdeth justification by infusion of righteousnesse but against him For whereas the Scriptures testifie that God when he justifieth men hee doth of enemies make them his beloved friends and his children c. It is to be confessed that here is a very great change but is it reall or relative by infusion or by imputation Surely when God reconcileth men unto himselfe and of enemies maketh them his favourites when he adopteth men and of the children of the devill maketh them his owne children when justifying men hee doth of foes make them his beloved friends of bondslaves not onely freemen but also Citizens of heaven of alients his Domesticks of men obnoxious to damnation heires of his Kingdome hee doth not these things by infusion of any reall or positive qualities into them but these are externall favours which God vouchsafeth unto them when forgiving their sinnes and imputing unto them the righteousnesse of his Sonne hee doth in him accept them for such yea and in respect of his relation unto them maketh them such as before they were not And when he hath made men such by imputation he also maketh them such by infusion of such qualities and dispositions as are answerable to that which they are called as I shewed in the beginning whom God receiveth into his grace and favour them hee endueth with grace whom hee redeemeth from the servitude of sinne and Satan hee maketh them his faithfull servants they who are the sonnes of God by adoption are also his sonnes by regeneration and finally those whom God doth justifie them also he doth sanctifie § XIV And this is all which Bellarmine hath brought for the proofes of justification by inherent and infused righteousnesse either from the Scriptures or from naturall reason Afterwards indeed in his eighth Chapter hee produceth the testimonies of Augustine and some others which he calleh the tradition of the ancient Fathers as if they did agree with the doctrine of the present Church of Rome which they doe not For first though some of the Latine Fathers led by the notation of the Latine word which was not to be respected it being bnt the translation of the Hebrew and Greeke did under the name of justification include the benefit of sanctification whereof there is no example in the Scriptures yet they did not exclude that which the Scriptures call justification as â—…the Papists doe For they acknowledged that justification containeth remission of sinnes and that it standeth chiefly in remission of sinnes that being our happinesse and therefore implying besides the not imputing of sinne acceptation unto life The Papists also talke of remission but their remission is not that which the Scriptures and Fathers speake of for the Scriptures and Fathers and all ancient Writers whatsoever by remission understand veniam pardon condonation forgiving not imputing of sinne absolving from it which is a distinct action of God from infusion of righteousnesse that being a worke of God without us working no reall or positive change within us and herein wee have the consent of all antiquity The Papists by remission of sinne understand the expulsion or extinction the utter deletion or abolition of sinne which is not a distinct action as they teach from infusion of righteousnesse but one and the same action which is the infusion of righteousnesse expelling sinne And is an action of God not without us as the other but within us working in us a reall and possitive change And therefore remission of sinne in the Popish sense belongeth not to justification but to perfect sanctification as being a totall mortification of sinne which none attaine unto in this life but of this point I have already treated in the second question of the first controversie Secondly the fathers oftentimes use the word justification in the same sense that wee doe according to the Scriptures as implying the forgivenesse of sinnes and acceptation unto life by the satisfaction and merits of Christ communicated unto us As namely when they teach as very oft they doe that we are justified by faith alone which they could not have taught if by justifying they had meant sanctifying for we are not sanctified by faith alone as all confesse Thirdly the Fathers did not looke to bee justified before God by any righteousnesse inherent in themselves or performed by them but renounced it as being unperfect and stained with the flesh And therefore where they speake of justification by inherent righteousnesse they meant sanctification and not justification before God whereof our question
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
the Colliars faith so much commended by Cardinall Hosius and others for he being examined by a learned man what he beleeved answered I beleeve that which the Church beleeveth and being asked what the Church beleiveth answered againe that which I beleeve and so in a round that he beleeved what the Church beleeved and that the Church beleeved as he beleeved but also that it is the safest for all even for those that are learned to rest in this faith Especially when they are assaulted by Satan with whom they say it is not safe to contend by Scriptures but rather to oppose that onely article against him As the said learned man who had opposed the Collyar found by experience For he being afterwards assaulted by Satan when he was deadly sicke and being not able to defend himselfe by Scriptures he was faine to bâ—…ake himselfe to the Colliars faith which no doubt is the readiest way for them who professe a faith not conformable to the Scriptures to put the Devil to silence who will rest well content with such an answer whereas if they should stand to the Scriptures the Devill would be able to confute them As he did Luther whiles hee was a Papist in the question concerning the private Masse which he did not to teach him the truth but by true accusations to bring him to despaire § IV. This doctrine of the Papists concerning implicite faith is both absurdly false and notoriously wicked False in diverse respects First in that they say justifying faith may be without knowledge when as first of all faith it selfe is a kind of knowledge yea a kind of certaine knowledge yea of all others the most certaine knowledge as I have already shewed proving that it is that knowledge which we have by Divine relation or report grounded on the authority of God speaking in his word Secondly because faith oftentimes in the scriptures is called knowledge or acknowledgment as Ioh. 17. 3. This is eternall life to know thee the onely true God and Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent Now we know God in the life to come by vision in this life by faith as their owne writers testifie Maldonat on that place what is the cause saith he that he seemeth to place eternall life in knowledge alone that is in faith onely And Ianseniâ—…s vita aeterna inchoativè imperfectè hic habetur cognoscendo Deum per fidem habetur autem in 〈◊〉 perfectè cognoscendo Deum per visionem Esai 53. 11. My righteous servant by his knowledge or acknowledgement that is by faith in him shall justifie many So 2 Pet. 1. 2 3. Eph. 1. 17. Col. 1. 10. 2. 2. 1 Tim. 2. 4. 2 Tim. 2. 25. 3. 7. Tit. 1. 1. where by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the knowledge or acknowledgement of Christ and his truth is meant nothing else but faith 1 Ioh. 2. 3 4. hereby we doe know that we doe know him that is beleeve in him if we doe keepe his Commandements he that saith he knoweth him namely by faith and keepeth not his Commandements is a lyar and the truth is not in him Heb. 11. 3. By faith we understand or know that the worlds were formed by the Word of God where the act of faith is expressed by this term of understanding that which we beleeve 2 Cor. 5. 1. we know that is we beleeve for otherwise it cannot be known but by faith that after the dissolution of our earthly tabemacle we have an eternall habitation in heaven Thirdly because in the Scriptures faith and knowledge are so linked together that what we acknowledg we beleeve what we beleeve we know Ioh. 6. 69. we beleeve and know that thou art that Christ Ioh. 10. 38. that you may know and beleeve that the Father is in me and I in him Ioh. 17. 8. they have knowen surely that I came out from thee saith Christ unto his Father and they have beleeved that thou didst send me Eph. 4. 13. till we all come into the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God 1 Tim. 4. 3. to bee received with thankesgiving of them which beleeve and know the truth 1 Ioh. 4. 16. we have knowne and beleeved the love that God hath to us Fourthly it is not possible that a man should beleeve acknowledge or assent firmely to that which he doth not know so much as by relation or hearesay how can they beleeve in him of whom they have not heard and by hearing knowen Rom. 10. 14. And who knoweth not that the assent of faith determineth the judgement to that particular which is beleeved As for example if I beleeve the resurrection my judgement actually assenteth to that particular But if I never have so much as heard or understood that God hath revealed such a thing that there shall be a resurrection how can I possibly beleeve it or actually assent unto it And therefore implicite faith is so farre from being a justifying faith that it is not so good as the bare historicall faith which not onely wicked men but the Devils themselves have For historicall faith hath in it an actuall assent and implyeth a knowledge at least by relation of that which is beleeved But implicite faith hath neither Fifthly to the implicite faith the definition offaith Heb. 11. 1. doth in no sort agree for as it is so farre from being the substance of things hoped for that it doth not so much as know what are the things hoped for so it is further from being an evidence of things not seene which implyeth a certaine knowledge of things by relation which are not seen or knowne by sence or reason Sixthly that which implyeth a contradiction is false and absurd but the profession of the implicite faith made by a simple man viz. that hee beleeveth whatsoever the Catholicke Church beleeveth implyeth a contradiction not onely because hee doth not beleeve every yea scarce any particular but also through his ignorance sometimes doth actually beleeve that which the Church doth not beleeve or doth deny credit to that which the Church beleeveth But here now is the speciall priviledge of implicite faith that although a man beleeve an errour as that God the Father is greater than the Sonne or ancienter than he or that the persons of the Trinity are divided by locall distance one from another it is no offence so long as he thinketh the Church beleeveth so and so saith Gabriel himselfe If any man doe beleeve thinking that the Church doth so beleeve though it bee erroneous he sinneth not so that hee doe not obstinately adhere to his errour as was said before notab 2. Yea saith hee that which is more this faith is meritorious for such an one should not onely not sinne but also by so beleeving that which is false hee should merit Thus not onely hee is said to beleeve who indeed doth not beleeve nor give assent to the truth but also he
with which many come to baptisme and to shew that faith which justifieth is commanded by the will to note the difference of forced faith such as is in Devils and was in those men who beleeved in Christ compelled by the miracles but Christ did not concredit himselfe to them for such a faith doth not justifie For as science is begotten by virtue of demonstrative reason so faith is not demonstrated but is undertaken by the virtue or power of the will captivating the understanding unto the obedience of Christ who doth infuse it wherefore Augustine tract 26. in Ioan. other things saith hee a man may doe against his will but none can beleeve but he that is willing § VI. Thus have I proved against Bellarmine that to beleeve is an act of the will as well as of the understanding and that the seat of faith is neither the understanding alone nor the will alone but the mind which comprehendeth both Howbeit I cannot altogether subscribe to the judgement of the Schoole-men and other learned men whether Protestants or Papists who teach that the understanding is commanded by the will to assent unto divine truthes and that it doth credere ex imperio voluntatis For I doe not conceive how the will which is intellectus extensus and followeth the judgement of the practike understanding in so much that it willeth nothing but what the understanding approveth and judgeth to be willed how it I say should command the understanding Neither doth their reason satisfie which is this that the understanding of man in matters pertaining to Science is determined to one thing by the evidence of the thing or necessity of reason not by the Will but the understanding of man in matters belonging to faith which sometimes surpasse the capacity of humane reason cannot be determined to any particular either by the evidence of the thing or by necessity of reason both which are wanting in the objects of faith which are things hoped for and things not seene And therefore say they there can no assent bee given unlesse the understanding be commanded by the will to assent But I answere as the ground of knowing things by Science is the evidence of the thing or necessity of reason so the ground of beleeving things is the authority of God speaking in his word which is infallible and in certainty surpasseth the grounds of Science and by it the understanding is determined to such particulars as it conceiveth to be revealed of God As therefore in things of science which the understanding doth judge to bee evident and of necessary truth the will doth readily embrace them following therin the judgment of the understanding and so the mind which containeth both faculties doth willingly and yet necessarily assent therto moved therunto by the evidence of necessary truth so in matters of faith which the understanding though it comprehends them not yet doth judge infallibly true moved thereto by the authority of God revealing those truthes the Will as I conceive being captivated by the understanding and submitting it selfe to the judgement thereof the mind doth willingly and yet necessarily assent to such truthes revealed by God moved thereunto by the infallible authority of God speaking in his Word Which in certainty of truth doth farre surmount all grounds of science and doth captivate the understanding and it the Will Why therefore the assent to divine truthes which are grounded upon a most certaine and inâ—…allible soundation which perswadeth the understanding should more proceed from the Will than the assent to humane sciences I cannot conceive or why the Will should command the understanding in them more than in matters of science CAP. VI. Of the object of justifying faith § I. SO much of the subject now wee come to the object of justifying â—…aith where the question ought not to be made coneeming the object of faith at large but of that object which is proper to faith as it justifieth For we doe freely confesâ—…e that the object of faith is all and every truth revealed unto us by God and that the word of God is objectum fidei adaquatum the even object of â—…aith that is we are bound to beleeve whatsoever is contained in the word but what is not contained in the word of God we are not to beleeve it as a matter of â—…aith And that therefore by the â—…ame faith by which we are justified we beleeve whatsoever is contained in the written word of God whether expressely or by necessary consequence So that Bellarmine might have saved a great deale of labour idlely spent in proving that which we confesse that by faith we beleeve the creation and all other truths revealed in the word yea we professe him to have no true justifying faith who denieth credit to any thing which hee findeth revealed by God Howbeit the Papiâ—… extend this object not onely to the Canoâ—…icall Scriptures but also to those which we according to all almost antiquitieâ—… call Apocryphall and not onely to the written word but also to their unwritten verities as they call the traditions of the Church of Rome that is such doctrines and ordinances as that Church doth teach and observe having no ground nor warrant in the Scriptures The which notwithstanding whiles they doe not onely match but also preferre them before the written word doe evidently prove the Pope who by their doctrine is above the Church and the Church above the Scriptures to bee Antichrist But this is another controversie whereinto I may not now make an excuâ—…sion Onely I desire the Reader to take notice of this marke among others of the Catholike Apostaâ—…ie of the Romane Church which hath not onely departed from the ancient doctrine and rule of faith which is the Scriptures but also have set up a new rule the last resolution of their faith being into the infallible judgement and irrefragable authority of the Bishop of Rome and to this purpose let him consider these two testimonies of Saint Bâ—…sil it is a manifest falling away from the faith and conviction of pride either to reject any of those things that are written or to bring in any of those things that are not written The other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All that is without the Scripture inspired of God being not of faith is sinne § II. But howsoever by that faith which justifieth wee beleeve all and every truth revealed by God yet the proper and formall Object of justifying faith quatâ—…nus justificat and by beleeving whereof it doth justifie is not every truth but that onely which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is called the Truth that is Christ with all his merits Ioh. 14. 6. or the Doctrine of Salvation by Christ or the Promises of the Gospell concerning justification and salvation by Christ which often times in the Scripture is called the Truth as Ioh. 1. 17. 5. 33. 8. 31 32. and as some thinke Ioh. 8. 44. and by Christâ—… owne
and by beleeving to receive and embrace Christ. The acts of faith in sanctifying and producing morall dueties are immediate acts or imperati which faith produceth by meanes of other virtues commanded by faith such are sperare confidere amare timere obedire pati c Of justification the man indued with faith is not the efficient but the subject and the patient who receiving by faith which is his onely act the righteousnesse of Christ is thereby justified God imputing to the beleever the righteousnesse of his Sonne and therefore though to beleeve bee his owne act yet hee is not said in the active to justifie himselfe by faith but in the passive to bee justified by faith Rom. 3. 24. 28. 5. 1. But in the duties of sanctification and in all morall duties the faithfull man is the efficient of them and his faith as it is said of arts other habits is the principium agendi the principle wherby he worketh and of them faith under God is the prime cause and as some call that which is principium agendi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Such actions are the most of those which Heb. 11. are so highly commended which though they were the fruits of justifying faith yet were the acts of faith not as it justifieth but as it sanctifieth fortifieth or otherwise qualifieth them who are endued with it and this efficiencie of faith in Greeke and Latine is oftner signified without the prepositions than with As Heb. 11. though the sence be the same Of justification therefore faith is but the instrumentall cause justifying relatively that is in respect of the object which it doth receive being the onely instrument to receive that object which alone doth justifie But of the dueties of sanctification and other morall actions such as for the most part are mentioned Heb. 11. whereof the faithfull man is the efficient justifying faith which purifieth the heart and worketh by love and other virtues as affiance c. is the prime cause working them not relatively by apprehending the object but effectually producing them as principium agendi wherby Bellarmines dispute out of Heb. 11. is confuted For there it is said saith hee that by faith the Saints overcame Kingdomes wrought righteousnesse obtained the promises stopped the mouths of Lyons c. Where the particle by doth not signifie apprehension but the true cause For faith was the cause of Abels religious offering of Noahs preparing the Arke of Abrahams obedience c. All this I confesse but that which he would inferre therupon that faith therefore doth not justifie relatively by way of apprehending the object I have already answered for that which hee spake before of apprehending relatively was idle and frivolus § VII The second part of his assumption was that saith is the beginning of justice and consequently the inchoated formall cause of justification So that now belike the seven dispositions shall be the inchoated formes of justification the entire forme being but one viz. charity and consequently the disposing faith and the disposing feare and so of the rest shall be inchoated charity which is ridiculous Bellarmine in this argument as allwayes by justification understandeth sanctification whereof and of all inherent righteousnesse wee acknowledge faith to bee the beginning and consequently the beginning of that righteousnesse by which we are formally just But of justification not the beginning only but the accomplishment and perfection is to be attributed unto faith because no sooner doe we by faith lay hold upon the righteousnesse of Christ which is most perfect but wee are perfectly justified thereby And therefore the Fathers as you heard before â—… acknowledge faith alone to suffice unto justification So Origen in Rom. 3. lib. 3. Hierome and Sedulius in Rom. 10. 10. in Gal. 3. 6. Chrysost. in Gal. 3. 6. in Tit. 1. 13. Augustin de tempore Serm. 68. Chrysâ—…log serâ—… 34. Primasius in Gal. 2. Oecumen in Col. 2. Theophylact in Gal. 3. Anselm in Rom. 4. If faith alone sufficeth unto justification then doth it not onely begin but also perfect and accomplish it For Rom. 5. 1. Being justified by faith wee have peace with God But Bellarmine endeavoureth to prove his assertion by authority of Scriptures and testimonies of Fathers His first testimony out of the Scriptures is Rom. 4. 5. to him that beleeveth in him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is counted for righteousnesse Where saith he faith it selfe is counted righteousnesse and consequently faith doth not apprehend the righteousnesse of Christ but faith in Christ is it selfe justice And if it be lively and perfected by Charity it shall be perfect justice if not it shall at the least be unperfect and inchoated justice Answ. If the question were concerning the approbation or justification of the act of faith or the habit I would acknowledge that the Lord doth accept the same though unperfect in it selfe as righteous As the zealous act of Phinehas was counted unto him for righteousnesse throughout all generations But the Apostle speaketh of the justification of the person who cannot by one habit and much lesse by one act of faith be formally just But forasmuch as by faith in Christ the beleever receiveth the perfect righteousnesse of Christ this faith in respect of the object doth fully justifie the beleever and is therefore counted to him for righteousnesse not that it selfe is his righteousnesse nor that he is righteous in himselfe who still in himselfe remaineth a sinner but in Christ. And such was the faith of Abraham and of all the faithfull that not in themselves but in the promised seed all that beleeve in him should be blessed that is justified The Greeke word used sometimes by the Septuagint as Gen. 18. 18. 28. 14. and retained by the Apostle Gal. 3. 8. is very significant viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie that not in themselves but in the promised seed they should be justified and blessed for so the Apostle Rom. 4. 5 6 7. useth these words promiscuously as also Gal. 3. 8. The Scripture foreseeing that God would justifie the heathen through faith preached before the Gospell unto Abraham saying in thee that is in thy seed shall all nations be blessed This blessednesse therefore this justification is obtained by faith and therefore is faith counted righteousnesse because it receiveth it As for faith it selfe absolutely considered without relation to its object we according to the Popish doctrine are justified by it neither in the act of justification nor before Not before for untill it be as they speake formed with Charity it cannot justifie nor in the act for charity alone is the formall cause of justification and then only are we formally justified when Charity is infused or else there are more formall causes of justification than one which Bellarmine according to the doctrine of the Councill of Trent doth utterly deny § VIII His second testimony 1 Corinthians 3. 11. another foundation can
of Christ through fâ—…ith then are we not justified by workes But the first I have demonstrated by many undeniable arguments therefore the second must be granted 4. If we be justified by imputative righteousnesse that is to say by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to them that beleeve the Lord imputing righteousnesse unto them without workes then it is evident that wee are not justified by workes but that is most true as hath plentifully beene proved therefore this 5. If we be justified by faith alone then not by workes But we are justified by faith alone as hath beene proved therefore not by workes The arguments reduced to these five heads which were very many and impregnable might satisfie any reasonable man who is not wilfully addicted to his owne erroneous conceits though I should adde no more but because wee have to deale with men unreasonable I will adde some § III. And first out of Rom. 4. 4 5 6. He that worketh not is not justified by workes he that beleeveth worketh not as the Apostle there sheweth And againe to whom faith is impured unto righteousnesse without workes they are not justified by workes to all the faithfull faith is imputed unto righteousnesse without workes therefore none of the faithfull are justified by workes The assumption is thus proved If to Abraham his faith was imputed for righteousnesse without works then are all the faithfull justified without workes for Abraham is by the Apostle propounded as a patterne therefore as he was justified so are we Rom. 4. 22 23. 24. But to Abraham his faith was imputed for righteousnesse as the Apo stle teacheth Rom. 4. 3 4 5. Therefore all the faithfull are justified without workes 2. The true doctrine of justification is taught in the Scriptures justification by workes is not taught in the Scriptures for the justification taught in the Scriptures is an action of God justifying a sinner but this by workes is neither an action of God neither is it the justification of a sinner but the action of the justitiary himselfe who by the exercise and practise of good workes increaseth his inherent justice or fanctification which hath no affinity with that justification which is taught in the Scriptures 3. None that are justified by faith are justified by workes all the faithfull are justified by faith therefore none of the faithfull are justified by workes The proposition is evidently proved by that opposition which the Apostle constantly maketh betweene faith and workes in the question of justification asfirming that men though abounding with works of grace are justified by faith without workes and saved by faith and not by workes Rom. 3. 28. 4. 3 4 5. Ephes. 2. 8 9. Tit. 3. 5. 4. If any be justified by workes then either the regenerate man or the unregenerate but neither the unregenerate as the Papists confesse nor the regenerate for they are justified already Neither doe the Scriptures acknowledge any sorts or degrees of justification before God § IV. 5. All that are justified by workes are justified by that obedience which they performe to the Law But none are justified by the obedience which they performe to the Law therefore none are justified by workes The proposition is manifest Because the Law being a perfect rule of all inherent righteousnes there neither are nor can be any good works which are not prescribed in the Law Yea whatsoever worke is not conmable to the Law is sinne The assumpâ—…ion may bee proved by many undeniable arguments First by all those places which plainely testifie that by the workes of the Law that is by obedience done to the Law no man living shall be justified Rom. 3. 20 28. Gal. 2. 16. For by the workes of the Law wee understand all duties prescibed and all that obedience which is required in the Law 2. Those that are accursed by the Law are not justified by their obedience of it For to bee justified is to bee blessed Rom. 4. 6. and therefore to be justified and to be accursed are things repugnant But all men whatsoever even those which seeke to bee justified by their obedience to the Law are by the Law accursed Therefore no man is justified by his obedience performed to the Law And this is the Apostles argument Gal. 3. 10. as I have shewed before All transgressours of the Law are by the Law accursed All men since the fall are transgressours of the Law Christ onely 〈◊〉 excepted this assumption the Apostle omitteth because hee taketh it for granted as being a truth received among the faithfull in those times though in these dayes denied by the justitiaries of Rome but elsewhere it is by the Apostle expressed as Rom. 3. 23. all have sinned Wherefore as God hath concluded all under sinne Rom. 11. 32. Gal. 3. 22. so the Law hath concluded them under the curse 3. All that are justified by their obedience to the Law doe perfectly fulfill it by a totall perfect and perpetuall obedience for he that doth not so fulfill it by doing the things commanded though he did nothing that is forbidden by doing all though he did the most by continuing in doing all and in that measure and degree which the Law requireth though he sinned but once in all his life and that either by omission or comming short of his duety is a transgressour of the Law and therefore subject to the curse of the Law because hee hath not continued in all things which are written in the booke of the Law to doe them And he that offendeth in one is guilty of all Iam. 2. 10. To whom the perfect fulfilling of the Law is impossible by reason of the flesh they cannot be justified by their obedience performed to it To all even the most regenerate the perfect fulfilling of the Law is impossible by reason of the flesh Rom. 8. 3. Gal. 5. 17. as elsewhere I prove at large Therefore none though regenerate can bee justified by their obedience performed to the Law § V. Sixthly That Doctrine which is repugnant to the Scriptures is false The Doctrine of justification by workes is repugnant to the Scriptures Therefore it is false The assumption is thus proved because the Scriptures in all places where they treat of justification before God doe from the act of justification exclude workes The places of Scripture which we produce to this end Bellarmine reciteth at least some of them with purpose to answere them Rom. 3. 27. Where is boasting then It is excluded By what Law Of workes No but by the Law of faith Verse 28. Therefore wee conclude that a man is justified by faith without the workes of the Law to which hee might have added verse 20. Therefore by the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified Rom. 4. 2. If Abraham were justified by workes he hath whereof to glory but not before God To which he might have added vers 5. 6. To him that worketh not but
to forbeare swearing in ordinary talke not to give a mans goods to the poore and to follow Christ when hee is thereunto required Mat. 19. 23. Mar. 10. 23. These things are so manifest that Bellarmine in the end of the next Chapter doth confesse them viz that our Saviour doth not say except your righteousnesse exceed the righteousnesse of the Law and the Prophets but of the Scribes and Pharisees to signisie that his meaning was not so much he should say not at all to adde to the burden of the precepts as to take away the corruptions of the Scribes Pharisees And again those things which seem to be most heavie in the new Law are to be found in the old as the loving of our enemyes the restrayning of concupiscence such like For proofe wherof he quotes Augustine lib. contr Adimant cap. 3. lib. 19. contr Faustum c. 28. In the former place Augustine saith Nulla in Evangelica atque Apostolica disciplina reperiuntur quamvis ardua divina precepta promissa quae illis etiam libris veterib desint In the latter Vel omnia vel penè omnia quia monuit sâ—…u praecepit Christus ubi adjungebat Ego a. dici vobis inveniuntur in illis veterib libris And so much of the first difference § XXI The second difference is that the Law commeth alone but the Gospell is accompanied with grace Which is not a difference of the doctrine and letter of the Gospell from the Law but of the covenant of grace from the covenant of works For in the covenant of grace as justification is promised to them that being called doe beleeve so sanctification to them that are justifyed Which as it proveth the concurrence of Good workes with faith in the party justified as consequents thereof so it excludeth them from being any causes of justification But as touching this second difference two popish errours are to bee avoided First in respect of the covenant of workes For though that covenant doth not promise nor afford the grace of sanctification wherby a man should be enabled to performe the covenant which grace is promised in the covenant of grace and given to them that beleeve yet wee are not so to conceive that they who lived in the time of the law were void of grace nor all that live under the Gospell are endued with grace For the covenant of grace hath alwayes bene in force from the beginning so that to the faithfull who beleeved in the Messias which was to come the grace of sanctification was given according to the covenant of grace so that in the old Testament even under the Law there were as excellent examples of holynesse as have bene in the time of the new under the Gospell So also the Law hath its use even among those that live under the Gospell insomuch that untill men doe beleeve they are under the Law and not under grace Secondly in respect of the grace of the new Testament that it is not promised in such perfection in this life where wee receive but the first fruits of the Spirit as that wee may expect to be justified by it or saved for it § XXII From these two difference the rest as hee saith arise viz. from the first arise the third the fourth and the fifth The third is this that the Law of Moses was given to one Nation the Law of Christ to all Nations The fourth that the Law of Moses for the most part contayned shadowes and figures of things to come the Gospell exhibiteth the body and truth The fifth that the Law of Moses because it was not perfect was to be changed by the Law of Christ but the Law of Christ was not to be changed by any succeeding Law These three differences of the Law doe not agree to the Law Morall which belongeth to all nations which did not consist of shadowes and figures which was not to be changed no not by addition because it was and is a perfect immutable and perpetuall rule of righteousnesse The other three viz. the sixth seventh and eigth arise as hee saith from the second The sixth that the Law of Moses had no power to justifie neither was it given that it might justifie but that it might shew the disease and stirre up men to seeke the physitian But the Law of Christ that is the Gospell hath power to justifie and was given to that end For as hee alleageth out of Rom. 1. 16. it is the power of God to salvation to every one that beleeveth he doth not say that worketh For therein is revealed the righteousnesse of God from faith to faith as it is written the just man shall live by faith This is a true difference of the Law of faith from the Law of workes but agreeth not to Bellarmines new Law which is a Law of workes as well as the old conteyning the very same morall precepts with the morall Law in the observation whereof not our justification but our sanctification consisteth prescribing also the same righteousnesse viz Charity which is the summe of the Law The seventh that the Law of Moses is a Law of fearefullnesse and bondage but the Gospell the Law of love and of liberty which is true For the obedience of men who are under the Law is forced by the terrour and coaction of the Law working servile feare in them But the obedience of men who are under grace that is of men justified is voluntary and cheerfull proceeding from faith and from some measure of assurance of Gods love and favour to them in Christ. Therfore this voluntary obedience is no cause but a consequent of justification not onely before God but also in the court of our owne conscience that is not onely of justification it selfe but also of the assurance thereof in some measure Of the eigth which confuteth the first I have already spoken § XXIII So much of the first thing which Bellarmine undertooke to demonstrate for the proofe of the necessity of good workes which we hold as well and urge as much as he Now followeth the second which is to prove that the justare not free from the observation of the Law of God For hee saith that we place Christian liberty in this that we are not subject in our conscience and before God to any Law and that the decalogue it selfe doth not belong unto us Which is a most devillish slander We professe that we so many as truly beleeve are by Christ freed from the curse of the Law from the rigour and exaction of the Law requiring perfect righteousnesse in us unto justification from the terrour and coaction of the Law from the irritation of the Law as I have shewed in my treatise of Christian liberty but not from the obedience of it For freedome from obedience is the servitude of sinne But wee being freed from sinne become the servants of righteousnesse And we doe
curse Thirdly Whatsoever is not agreeable or conformable to the Law is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a sinne But that which is besides the Law is not conformable unto it therefore it is a sinne and a transgression of the Law which whosoever committeth hee doth not fulfill the Law Fourthly Things forbidden in the Law are against the Law Those which they call veniall sinnes are forbidden in the Law For either they are forbidden or commanded or neither forbidden nor commanded If they be commanded then are they duetyes and not sinners if neither commanded nor forbidden then are they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things indifferent it remayneth therefore that they are forbidden § XXIV Now because the proofe of this point that the fulfilling of the Law is not possible unto us is a matter of great consequence for thereby the popish doctrine of justification by inherent righteousnesse in generall and by workes in particular is evidently confuted I will to those arguments heretofore used adde the testimonies of antiquity in requitall of Bellarmines allegations out of the Fathers First Therefore Iustin Martyr saith that never any man did accurately performe all the things that are commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly Eusebius Caesariensis demonstrates that things required in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to all men impossible Thirdly Ambrose Tanta mandata sunt ut impossibile sit servari ea so great things are commanded that it is impossible they should be kept whence Peter in the Acts of the Apostles saith why doe you impose a yoke upon the brethren which neither our fathers nor we were able to beare Fourthly Chrysostome what did the Law intend to make a man just but it was not able 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for no man did fulfill it 2. No man could be justified by the Law unlesse hee fulfilled all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But this was not possible to any man therfore that righteousnesse it self is quashit 3. That the Apostle by Testimony cited out of Deut. proveth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that no man hath fulfilled the Law Hierome and Augustine in this point deliver the same things against the Pelagians which wee doe against the Papists Fifthly Quoniam a. saith Hierome nemo potest implere legem that no man can fulfill the Law and doe all things that are commanded the Apostle testifieth also elsewhere For that which was impossible of the Law in that it was weake through the flesh Rom. 8. 3. c. 2. This is the onely perfection of men if they know themselves to be unperfect And you saith hee when you have done all say wee are unprofitable servants wee have done what was our duety to doe If hee be unprofitable who hath done all what is to be said of him who was not able to fulfill 3. And againe thou saist the Commandements of God are easie tamen nullum proferre potes qui universa compleverit and yet canst bring forth none that hath fulfilled them all 4. God saith the Pelagian hath given possible Commandements and who denyeth this but how this sentence is to bee understood the vessell of election most plainely teacheth that which was impossible of the Law in that it was weak through the flesh c that is that the Law is not simply impossible but by reason of the flesh that which was possible before the fall is since the fall impossible by reason of mans coruption 5. When the Pelagians said that although no man bee without sinne yet he might be without sinne what kinde of arguing saith he is this posse esse quod nunquam fuerit that that may be which never was posse fieri quod nullum fecisse testeris that that may be done which your selfe testifie never any man did and to attribute that I know not to whom which you can never prove to have beene in the Patriarches or Prophets or Apostles 6. That which our Saviour Christ saith if thou wilt be perfect is said to him who could not yea would not and therefore could not 7. Then are we just when we confesse our selves to be sinners and our righteousnesse consisteth not of our owne merit but of Gods mercie 8. If wee doe not that which we would but worke that which wee would not how say ye that a man may be without sinne if he will Behold the Apostle and all beleevers are not able to accomplish what they would 9. Having cited many testimonies to prove that no man is justified by the workes of the Law all these saith he I runne through ut ostendam a nullo legem esse imâ—…letam that I might shew that the Law is fulfilled of none meaning by the Law all the Commandements which are contained in the Law 10. If you can shew the man who hath fulfilled all then may you shew a man who needeth not Gods mercie 11. The Law is made weake quoniam nemo potest iâ—…plere eam nisi Dominus because none but our Lord can fulfill it VI. Augustine saith that to that immortall life appertaineth that precept thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart with all thy soule and with all thy might but to this life let not sinne reigne in your mortall bodies to obey the lusts thereof to that life thou shalt not lust to this thou shalt not goe after thy lusts 2. God doth so worke righteousnesse in his Saints labouring under the temptation of this life that notwithstanding there remaineth both what he may largely adde to them when they aske and also what he may mercifully forgive when they confesse 3. In the same chapter hee had said that the two Commandements of loving God with all our heart and our neighbours as our selves wee shall fulfill when we shall see face to face But saith he the same is now commanded us ut admoneremur quid fide exposcere quò spem praemittere ut oblivisâ—…endo quaeretro sunt in quae anteriâ—…ra nos extendere debeamus that wee might be admonished what by faith to desire whether to send before our hope unto what things which are before we should preasse forward forgetting what is behind 4. That the virtue which now is in a just man is so farre to be called perfect that to the perfection thereof there belongeth the acknowledgment of its imperfection in verity and the confession thereof in humility for then this petite justice is according to its small measure infirmely perfect when it understandeth what is wanting to it selfe And therefore the Apostle saith both that he is unperfect and that hee is perfect unperfect considering how much he wanted unto justice the fulnesse whereof he did as yet hunger after and thirst perfect both because he is not ashaâ—…ed to confesse his imperfections and goeth forward well that he may attaine unto it 5. Surely hee that is renewed from day to day which is the cause
mainetaine the contradictory of our assertion and maketh the question to be this whether by good workes men are justified that is to say made more just viz. in respect of righteousnesse inherent But we deny that there are any degrees of justification or that a man may be more justified or that justification doth ever signifie increase of righteousnesse wee reject their new found distinction of justification into the first and second and acknowledge no other justification but that which in the Scriptures and Fathers is called the justification of a sinner and thereby wee understand a continued act of God who as when we being sinners did first beleeve did justifie us so remaining sinners in our selves he doth still justifie us by imputation of Christs righteousnesse acquitting us from our sinnes and accepting of us as righteous in Christ. And this justification which is onely acknowledged by the Scriptures and Fathers is every where ascribed to faith Whereas the first justification of the Papists is ascribed to charity as the onely forme the second to workes as to the merit thereof But all this ariseth from their erroneous and wilfull confounding of justification and sanctification For their first justification is that which the Scriptures call regeneration and is the first act of Sanctification by which we are habitually sanctified for they make it to be nothing else but the infusion of the habits of grace Their second justification is their actuall fanctification or exercise of good workes whereby their inherent righteousnesse or sanctification is increased But the question is not of sanctification but of justification which the Papists by their wicked doctrine confounding it with sanctification have wholly abolished it being the maine benefit of the Messias by which we are both freed from hell and entitled to heaven Neither is the question understood of justification before men but before God For before men we doe confessâ—… that by good workes men are justified that is declared and knownâ—… to be just as by the fruits effects consequents and signes of justification by faith but before God we are not justified that is made or constituted just by workâ—…s as any cause thereof for good workes goe not before justification but follow after which is a plaine evidence that they are no cause of it § II. But let us examine his proofes the first and principall is out of Iames 2. which being the onely place of Scripture whereupon with any shew of probability they ground their doctrine of justification by workes I will not content my selfe to answere Bellarmines cavils alone but I will endevour to stop the mouthes of all the Papists who use to vaunt of this place especially of the 24. verse where they bragge that their assertion is expressed and ours confuted in plaine termes yee see then that a man is justified by workes and not by saith onely Which words are a consectary or conclusion deduced from the example of Abraham who though he were justified by faith without works as Saint Paul teacheth yet was hee also justified by workes and not by faith onely as Saint Iames affirmeth A conclusion therefore in shew of words contradictory to that of the Apostle Paul Rom. 3. 28. wee conclude that a man is justified by faith without the workes of the Law and Gal. 2. 16. we know that a man is not justified by the workes of the Law 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is but onely by faith which no doubt was the Apostles meaning For as I have shewed heretofore if this be a good disjunction that we are justified either by faith or by works that is either by the righteousnes of Christ which is out of us in him apprehended by faith or by the works of the Law that is by righteousnes inherent in our selves all which is prescribed in the Law as undoubtedly it is for a third thing cannot be named whereby we might be justified and by both we cannot for if by faith then of grace and if of grace then not of works and contrary wise Rom. 4. 4 5. 11. 6. then it followeth necessarily that if we are not justified by workes we are justified by faith alone Hence ariseth this great controversie between the true Catholiks and the Papists we affirming that we are justified by faith without works or by faith alone The Papists contending that wee are justified by workes and not by faith only we alleaging the authority of Saint Paul in his Epistles to the â—…omanes Galatians Ephesians the Papists this Testimony of Saint Iames. § III. The way to determine this weighty Controversie is to reconcile the seeming difference betweene the two Apostles Some a when they were not able to untye this Gordian knot have sought with Alexander to cut it by questioning without just cause the authority of that Epistle of Saint Iames. But the Papists and wee are thus farre agreed First as they doe not deny those Epistles of S. Paul which were never questioned so we acknowledge this of Saint Iames though it hath beene questioned to bee canonicall Secondly that the two Apostles acted by the same Spirit of truth in penning their Epistles could not possibly deliver contrary assertions and consequently that they onely are to bee esteemed to hold the truth who fitly reconciling the seeming variance betweene the two Apostles doe teach that doctrine which is agreeable to both Here then I am to demonstrate both against the Papists and for our selves against the Papists three things First that the doctrine which they ground upon this place of Saint Iames is contrary to that of Saint Paul Secondly that their exposition of Saint Iames they make him contradict the Apostle Paul Thirdly that their doctrine cannot be grounded upon this Text. For our selves two things First that by our exposition the two Apostles are easily reconciled Secondly that the assertion of the two Apostles according to our doctrine not onely may well stand together but also of necessity must goe together For the first wee have the same controversie with the Papists as I have noted before which the Apostle maintayned against the justiciaryes of his time And their opposite doctrine to Saint Paul which they would gladly father upon Saint Iames standeth in those six maine errours which I have plainely and fully confuted in this treatise And namely in this particular they affirming that men are justified by workes which the Apostle every were constantly denyeth To the second whiles they understand the two Apostles to speake in the same sense of faith of workes of justifying as namely that both speake of a true justifying faith of workes as causes of justification of justifying as making just by righteousnesse inherent they make the one directly to contradict the other For if Paul affirme that men are justified by a true faith without workes and Iames deny it If Paul deny that we are justified by workes as the causes of justification and Iames affirme it If Paul deny that wee
degree 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.
3. 15. h Matth. 5. 17. i Rom. 8. 4. Ioh. 6. 63. Our fifth reason that there are two parts of justification Rom. 5. 9. 19. Object Then there be two formall causes of justification That justificati on doth not consist onâ—…ly in remission of sinnes Rom. 4 6 7. Their chiese argument because remission is as well of sinnes of omission as of commission m Psal. â—…43 2. Gal. 2. 16. Object By remission we are made innocent and therefore just Three arguments of I. P. 1 2 3 k De justis l. 2. c. 6 l De justis l. 2. c. 1 m Lib. 3. c. 11. sect 2. n Sect. 3. o De justif l. 2. c. 1. 6. The arguments of J. F. p Gal. 4. 4 5. q Gen. 35. 2. Zâ—…ch 3. 4. r Mat. 22. 11 12. s Exod. 28. 43. t Exod. 28. 36. 38 u Iâ—…r 23. 6. * Athanâ—…s tom 2 advers eos qui negant Christum â—…x natura noâ—…ra sâ—…mpsisse primitias Whether the passive obedience of Christ onely be represented in the Sacraments * Rom. 4. 11. x Gal. 3. 27. y Eph. 5. 30. Private opinions concerning the forme of justification * Disp. deâ—… Câ—…r 〈◊〉 4 part c. 4. Christi justitiam nobis imputari est mâ—…rum commentum Their depraving of our Doctrine Bellarm. de just l. 2. c. 7. §. quart * A. W. pag. 180. n. 4. b Centur. 1. li. 2. c. 4. col 240. lin 3 c Ib. col 241. lin 41. Scharp de justif controv 8. arg 2. controv 9. Their owne errors which besides the principall are six The two first of the sixe d Lib. 1. c. 3. §. 7. c. * Lib. 1. c. 4. §. 16. c. 6. §. e Rom. 5. 9. f Rom. 5. 19. Rom. 4. 6. 8. The third error g 1 Job 1. 7. The fourth error The fift error Rom. 10. 4. Obiect 1. h Rom. 5. 14. i 1 Cor. 15. 22. k Rom. 5. 19. l Rom. 5. 17 18. m Epist. 190. See infr lib. 5. chap. 4. Object 2. n 2 Pet. 1 4. o Epist. 190. Object 3. p Apoc. 13. 8. q Their afflictions were the reproch of Christ. Heb. 11. 26. viz. in his members r Act. 15. 11. s 1 Cor. 10. 3. 4. Obiect 4 t Rom. 3. 24. 15. The sixth error u Lib. 6. c. 4. sect 6. * Covenant of Grace cap. 8. page 94. n. 5. A Caveat for young Divines The necessity of imputation of Christs righteousnesse Object Act. 26. 18. The end Supreame Psal. 145. 17. a Rom. 3. 24. b Ephes. 1. 6. c Rom. 3. 25 26. d Psal. 119. 1. e Ephes. 2. 9. Rom. 4. 2. f 1 Cor. 1. 30 31. The subordinate end 1 Salvation g Mat. 6. 9 10 11. h Mat. 6. 33. i Rom. 14. 17. k 1 Thes. 4. 3. l Rom. 6. 22. m 1 Pet. 1. 9. n Rom. 8. 24. o Tit. 3. 7. p Rom. 8. 30. q Act 26. 18. 2. Certainety of Salvation r Rom. 5. 1 2. Rom. 4. 13 16. Sanctification s Eph. 2. 8 9 10. The parts of justification t Rom. 10. 4. Redemption reconciliation adoption comprised under Iustification u Ep 17. Col. 1. 14 * 2 Cor. 5. 19. x 1 〈◊〉 2. 7. Heb. 9. 22. y Col. 1. 14. 1 Pet. 1 19. z Rom. â—… 10. Col. 1. 20. a Eph. 1. 5 6. b Rom. 5. 19. c Gal. â—… 4 5. The fruits and consequents oâ—… Iustification The heads of Controversie The Papists confound justification and sanctification The Papists ground their â—…rrour upon the like notation of the Latine words a De justif lib. 2. cap. 9. b De iustif l. 2. c. 3. sâ—…ct Ad secundum Potest aliquis sieri iustus tum in tâ—…insecè per adoptionem iustitiae tum extrinsecè per declarationem c Rom. 5. 19. d 2 Cor. 5. 21. The Hebrew verbe in the first conjugation or in Cal. In Niphal Nitsdaq In Piel Tsiddeq In Hiphil Hitsdiq Deut. 25. 1. Prov. 17. 15. To justifie is a judiciall word translated from Courts of judgement Esai 50. 8. Rom. 8 33. Esai 53. 11. Dan. 12. 3. In Hithpael Hitstaddeq The Hebrew word never signifieth to make just by righteousnesse inherent e Prov. 17. 15. The like use in other words f Levit. 13. 3. 6. c. g Luk. 1. 46. h 1 Ioh. 5. 10. i 2 Thes. 2. 11. k Luk. 23. 1â—… l Luk. 7. 29. m Rom. 4. 6. The Greeke words first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luk. 7. 29. Luk. 10 29. Luk. 16. 15. Ecclus. 10. 32. 13. 26. Rom. 3. 26. 24 28. 30. Rom. 4. 5 6. Rom. 8. 30 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecclus. 7. 5. Rom. 3 4. Apoc. 22. 11. a Matth. 11. 19. Luk. 7. 37. Luk. 7. 29. 1 Tim. 3. 16. Matth. 12. 37 Jam. 2. 21 23. 24 25. Eccles. 1. 28 31. 5. 23. 14. Eccles 26. verâ—… uit Act. 13. 38 39. Rom. 6. 7. Luk 18. 14. 1 Cor. 6. 11. Rom 3 20. Rom. 4 2. 1 Cor. 4. 4. Gâ—…l â—… 4. Râ—…m 5. 9. Gal 3. 24. Tit. 3. 7. Rom. 3 24 28. Gal. 2. 16. 17. 3. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 4. 25. 5. 18. 1 Cor. 15. 17. Rom. 5. 18. c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the purall number Psalm 119. 8. 12. Rom. 2. 26. d Luk 1. 6. e Gen. 26. 5. Zaâ—…h 3. 7. f â—…eut 5 3â—… 6. 1. Deut 8. 11. 11. 1. 1 King 2. 3. 8. 58. Nehem. 1. 7. Gen. 26. 5. Deut. 4. 8. Rom. 9. 4 Heb. 9. 1. 10. Apoc. 15. 4. Apoc. 19. 8. Matth. 22. 11 12. Gal 5. 27. Apoc. 3. 18. Apoc. 3. 4. 6. 11. 7. 9. Matth. 5. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the singular number Psâ—… 19. 10. Rom. 1. 32. Rom. 5. 18. Rom. 8. 4. Rom. 5. 16. The first reason that the benefit of iustification is expressed in such terms as doe not imply insusion of iustice but imputation Rom. 4. 6 7 8. Rom. 5. 9 10. 2 Cor. 5. 19 21. Act. 26. 18. Ioh. 3. 18. Act. 13. 39. Rom. 3. 21 22. Act. 10. 43. The whole processe of justification is judiciall Rom. 8. 33 34. g Rom. 3. 19. h Act. 16. 14. i Rom. 8. 34. 1 Ioh. 2. 2. Heb. 7. 25. 9. 24. Rom. 2. 13. Bellarmine relateth foure significations of the word justification a De justif l. 1. cap. 1. First that it signifieth the Law Psal 119. 8. 12. b Discovery of translations cap. 1. § 50. and cap. 8. c In Luk. 1. 6. and in Apoc. 19. 8. d Cap. 2. sect 5. Luk. 1. 6. e Rom 3. 28. Gal. 2. 16. 3 11. Their Argument retorted f Rom. 5. 18. Apoc. 19. 8. g Rom. 1. 32. h Rom. 3. â—…1 * Rom. 5. 18. Apoc. 19. 8. fortè The second and third signification Lib. 1. Cap. 1. The second signification proved by three testimonies The first 1 Cor. 6. 11. Act 2. 38. Mark 1. 4. Rom. 6. 3 4. Tit. 3. 5. Bellarmines second testimony Rom. 8 30. verse 33. His third Testimonie Rom. 4. 5. His
The fifth absurditie n 2 Cor. 12. 9. The sixth absurdity o 2 Cor. 5. 21. p 1 Pet. 2. 5. The fourth argument we are iustified only by that righteousnesse which fully satisfieth the Law of God The righteousnesse of Christ hath fully satisfied the Law for us 1 Iâ—…hn 3. 16. a Pâ—…il 2. 6 7 8. b Ioâ—…n 1. 14. c 1 Iohn 5. 20. d Tit. 2 13. e Rom. 9 5. Our righteousnesse cannot satisfie the Law neither in respect of the penaltie f 1 Tim. 2. 6. g Marcus Eremit de â—…is quid ex operibus se justificari putanâ—…es sent 42. Si quo 〈◊〉 que bona natura 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quotiaie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quid reliqum pro an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dâ—…oretrionemus sent 43. quantum virâ—…utis augmentum bodie fecerimus 〈◊〉 negligentia argumentum est non conpensatio h Psal. 51. 5. i Rom. 3. 26. Nor in respect of the precept Bellarmines allegation that the Law may be fulfilled i De iustif l. 4. c. 11 c. k Lib. 7. cap. 6. 7. l Lib. 7. cap. 6. 7. Sixe reasons that men are not able to fulfill the Law First because all are trans gressours m Lib. 4. cap. 2. §. 6. n De persect iustitiae o Concupiscentia non 〈◊〉 sed omnino esse non debet De Nupt. concup l. 1. c. 29. Multum bâ—…ni facit qui facit quod scâ—…iptum est post concupi scentias tuas non eas sed non proficit quia non implet quod scriptum est non concupisces p Gal. 5. 3. q Gal. 5. 2. r Act. 15. â—… 5. s Act. 15. 7 8 9. t Lib. 7. c. 6. The fifth containing foure branches which are so many arguments doubled The first branch by what righteousnesse we are justified by that we are absolved c. a Lib. 2. Act. 13. 38 39. b Act. 13. 16. 26. Calvins allegation of Act. 13. 38 39 defâ—…nded against 〈◊〉 cavils De justis l. 2 c. 12. inâ—…titut 3. c. 11. §. 3. First per hunc by this man Secondly is preached c Tom. 2. in indice vocâ—… predicatio Per predicationem verbi Dei excitari fidem sic remittâ—… peccata figmentum est baereticoâ—…um nostri tâ—…m peris Rom. 10. 17. 1 Cor. 3. 5. The similitude 〈◊〉 the Physi. 〈◊〉 d 〈◊〉 3. 14 15. Thirdly remission of sinnes e 〈◊〉 6. câ—…p 7. f De iustif l. 2. cap. 10. §. Deinde Fourthly iustification from sinnâ—… Fifthly by the Law g Lib. 7. c. 7. §. 7. The foure branches of the proposition proved h Tit. 3. 7. i Act. 26. 18. The assumption proved in all the foure branches k Mat. 26. 28. Esai 5. 3. 510 11. 1 Ioh. 1. 7. Ephes. 1. 7. Heb. 9. 14. Apoc. 1. 5. Rom. 3. 25. 1 Joh. 2. 2. l Ephes. 1. 7. m 1 Tim. 2. 5. n 2 Tim. 2. 26. o Mat. 12. 29. p Gen. 6. 5. q Ephes. 2. 8 9. r Tit. 3. 5. Arg. 6. by faith and not by workes a Rom. 3. 20. 28. 4. 6. Gal 2. 16. Eph. 2. 8. 9. Tit. 3. 5. 7. Arg 7. righteousnesse of iustisication not prescribed in the Law b Ro. 1. 17. 3. 21. c Phil 3. 8 9. d Gal. 1. 8 9. c Gal. 3. 17. Arg. 8 the righteousnesse of iustification satisfieth Gods iustice f Exod 34. 7. g De iustif l. 2. c. 5. §. 4 quarta ratio h Ibid. §. at longe Mat. 3. 17. 17. 5. i Col. 1. 20 1 Ioh. 2. 2. Rom. 3. 25. Ephes. 5. 2. k Deiustif l. 2. â—… 10. §. Deinde l De iustif l. 2. â—… 5. sine Arg. 9. no man iustified without remission of sinne The true doctrine of iustification is comfortable m In libello de Miseria hominis Argument eleven from experience o Questiones authore Anselmo morientibus proponisolit ae per universum christianum or bem D. Vssher de succiss pag. 194 respons ad Iesuit pag. 513. Chemnit exam part 1. pag. 143. Card. Hosii confess Petricovi ens c. 73. fol. 143. b. f. p Or do baptizandi cum modo visit andi impress venetâ—… an 1575. fol. 34. q Impress Madriti apud Alphons Gemos. annâ—… 1584. The disproofe of the Negative The first argument because inherent righteousnesse is prescribed in the Law Bellarmines distinction De iustif l. 1 c. 19. betweene the iustice of the Law and in the Law a In Rom. 10. disput 2. Answere refelling this distinction of â—…llarmine b Photius apud Occum in Ro. 10. c Primas in Rom. 10 3. d In Rom. 10. â—…om 17. Bellarmines obiect that this distinction is found in Augustin advers 2. epistolas Pelag. liv 3. c. 7. e De iustif 41. c. 1. f Rom. 8. 23. g Ephes. 4. 7. Arg. 2. the popish doctrine confoundeth the Law and the Gospell h Lib. 7 c. 3. Thirdly it depriveth men of the chiefe part of Christian liberty i Gal. 5. 1. Fourthly because all men are sinners k Supr c. 2. §. 9. Fifthly because all men by the Law are accursed Sixthly because none fulfill the Law l Supr c. 5. §. 3. Lib. 7. c. 6 7. m 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hom 17 in Rom. 10. 5. Eigthly Not by faith and by workes Ninthly because it is imputative n Sess 6 Sess. 7. Tenthly iustification taketh away boasting o Ambr. de Iacob vitabeata l. 1. c. 6. Sed illud mihi prodest quod non iustificamur ex operibus legis Non babeo igitur unde gloriari in operibus meis possim non habeo unde me jactem Et idco gloriaboâ—… in Christo. Non gloriabor quia iustus sum sed gloriabor quia redemptus sum gloriabor non quia vacuus pâ—…cati sum sed quia mihi remissa sunt peccata Non gloriabor quia profui nec quia profuit mibi quisquam sed quia pro me advocatus apud Patrem Christus est sed quia pro me Christi sanguis effusus est Twelfthly because remission of sinne is a necessary part of iustification Thirteenthly from the example of Abrahaâ—… Of David p 1 King 3 6. q Psal. 143. 2. r De tempore serm 49. Of Paul s Act. 24. 16. t Phil. 3. 8 9. Of Iob Esay and Daniel 14 because it is not the righteousnesse of one Arg. 1. because God accepteâ—…h Christs righteousnesse in our behalfe a De iâ—…stif l. 2 c. 5. §. quartaratiâ—… b De iustif l. 2. c. 5. §. quòd vero Arg. 2. God acceptâ—…th it alone as being of insinitâ—… valâ—… c Lib. â—… c. 7. §. 3. d Dâ—… 〈◊〉 l. 2. c. 10. Râ—…ply to Bellarâ—…nesâ—…st â—…st answere that Christ is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bâ—…cause 〈◊〉 is the authour of it Righteousnesse here to be distinguished from Sanctification f Ephes. 1. 14. 4. 30. Rom. 8. 23. Luk. 21. 28. g 1 Cor. 1. 31. h In â—…ocum i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 k Col. 2. 3. l 2 Thes. 2. 14. m Deut. 4 9. 1 Cor. 2. 6 7. n 2 Tim. 3. 15. o Rom.
5 9 19. p Joâ—… 14. 2. q Ephes. 4. 8. r Ioh. 14 3. s Ephes. 1. 14. Luk. 21. 28. Bellâ—…rmines second cause why Christ is said to be our righteousnesse because he satisfied for us t Epist. 190. Bellarmines confession overthroweth the popish doctrine of iustification Arg. 4. because we are iustified by the bloud of Christ and by his obedience Arg. 5. because by Christs righteouinesse out sinnes are covered u ad Diognâ—…m * De iustif l. 2. cap. 11. Bellarmines first answere His second answere Reply to Bellarmines answere Conclusion a De iustif lib. 2. cap. 3. Bellarmines first allegation out of Rom. 5. 17. 18 19. b Lib. 2. c. 5. §. 1. c Ibid. §. â—… 3 c d Non in iustitia Adaminobis imputata e In locum Whether Adams sinne bee imputed e Controv. a. de orig peâ—…cat f In Râ—…m 5. in opuse de lapsu â—…ominis orig peccat c. 6. g De amiss gratiae stat pec l. 5. c. 16. h 2 Senâ—… dist 30. i De amiss gratiae 〈◊〉 peccaâ—… l. 5. c. 17. k Ibid. §. itaque l Ibid. c. 18. Reatus cum sit relatio consequens actionem qua ratione fieri potest ut existat in eo qui non est particeps actionis 〈◊〉 sio babitualis nisi precesserit actualiâ—… ne inâ—…elligi quâ—…dem potest m De amissi gratiae sâ—…atu peccat l. 4. c. 10. n Serm. de Dominica 1. poâ—…t octavas Epiphaâ—…iae o De 〈◊〉 st at pecl 4. c. 12. § est alia â—…x Anselm de conceptu c. 7. Virg. 10. ex â—…h in 1. 2. q. 81. art 1. ex Scotâ—… Durando c. in 2. sent dist 51. p Ibid. §. porro vere Whether originall corruptâ—…on be traduced from Adam q De amiss gra statu pec l. 5. c. 17. 〈◊〉 the transgrâ—…ssion be after the same mannâ—…r communicated r De iustif l. 2. c 9 §. Quartum Comparison betwixt thâ—… first and second Adam s Heb. 2. 13. This place alleaged by Bellarmine maketh not for him but most strongly against him Lib. â—… c. 2. § 1. Testimome 2. Rom. 3. 24. t Lib. 2. c. 3. §. 3. Testimonie 3. 1 Cor. 6. 11. Testimony 4. Tit. 3. 5 6 7. u Esfici mereamur * 1 Pet. 3. 21. x Rom. 4. 11. y Rom. 6. 4. 6. z Ephes. 2. 10. a Heb. 12. 14. b Act. 26. 18. Testimonie 5. Heb. 11. c. where some men have been absolutely called iust c Heb. 11. 6. d Act. 15. 9. e Gal. 5. 6. f Iaâ—… 2. 18. Bellarmines obiect that some men have been perfect g 2 Chron. 19. 7. 10. 1â—… h Luk. 1. 20. 62. Bellarmine proveth that they who are said to have been iust were endued with inherent righteousnesse i 1 Iob. 3. 7. k 1 King 3. 6. l Psal. 143. 2. m Rom. 7. 14. 23 Testim 6. Rom. 8. 29. 1 Cor. 15. 49 from whence three reasons are collected The first reason Answ. 1. to the proofe of the proposition n 1 Cor. 15. 49 Answer to the proposition it selfe o 1 Cor. 11. 32. p Deut. 8. 16. q Phil. 1. 29. r 2 Sam. 12. 14. s 2 Cor. 5 17. We doe not bearâ—…the image of Christ in râ—…spect of the righteousnesse of iustification His second reason t Rom. 16. 15. 1 Cor. 1. 2. 2 Cor. 1. 1. Phil. 1. 1. 4. 22. 1 Tim. 5. 10. His third reason Bellarmines seventh allegation Rom. 6. 4. 6. u Lib. 2. * Lib. 2. c. 2. §. â—… Bellarmines eighth allegation Such as is our adoption â—… sâ—…ch is our iustification x Lib. 3. c. 5. §. 5. 6. Bellarmines two adoptions As adoption is imputative so iustification y Lib. â—… c. 1. and lib. 2. c. 6. De iustif l. 2. c. 4. Bellarmines arguments proving iudirectly iustification by inherent iustice a Luther onely saith that faith that is Christ apprehended by faith is our righteousnesse â—…nd in the same sence 〈◊〉 that faith is inâ—…puted unto righteousnesse Bellarmines allegation of Gal. 5. 5 6. answered b Iam. 2. 14 â—… His wilfull depraving of Gal. 5. 6. c De iustif l 2. c. 5 Bellarmines corrupt interpretation refuted d Rom. 7. 5. 2 Cor. 1. 6 4. 12. Gal. 5 6. Eph 3. 20. Col 1. 29. 1 Thess. 2. 13. 2 Thess. â—… 7. Iam. â—… â—…6 e Prov. 3. 21. f Summi 1. q. 48. art 5. g â—…â—…im 1. 5. 2 Tim. 1. 5. Rom. 21. 9. Iam. 3 17. h Th ibid. Charity not the forme of faith Of the distinction of faith into 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 In the popish sence it is to be reiected for three reasons i Tit. 1. 16. k 1 Iohn 1. 4 l Iam. 2 14. The second Reason The third Reason De iustif lib. c. 6. Iustificationem nostram non constare sola remissione peccatâ—…rum a â—…ib 2. c. 1. §. Ioan Calvin Transitus à peccaâ—…o ad iustitiam c Bellarm. de iustif l. 2. c. 7. §. quar to c. 10. Deinde c. 5. §. quar to §. quòd verâ—… Bellarmines proofe that iustification con sisteth in renovation The first Rom. 4. 25. He proveth his assumption * This is denied by Cardinall Tolet in Rom. 4. annot 25 Christ. non est traditus propter deâ—…icta tanquam examplar sed tanquam vera satisfactio igitur nec resurrexisse proâ—… ter iustifi cationem dicitur tanquam exemplar sed propter ipsum iustificationem quem non essâ—…mus consecaâ—… nisi surrexisset d Rom. 5. 9. 19. e Rom. 1. 4. f Psal. 2. 7. Heb. 1. 5. Act. 13. 33. g Act. 5. 3. 31. h Rom. 5. 10. i Rom. 8 33 34. Whether renâ—…ssion and renovation be two distinct actions k Phil. 3. 9. Testimonie 2. Rom. 5. 21. l Mat. 6. 33. Testim 3. Rom. 6. 13 Testim 4. Rom. 8. 10. Testim 5. Gal. 3. 21. m Rom. 8 3 4. Testim 6. Eph. 4. 23 24. The testimony of Augustine n Lib. 6. cap. 9. o See to this purpose divers testimonies of Augustine citedby Gratian. Dist. 9. Bellarmines reasons The first His second reason p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 q Rom. 8. 30. r in Psal. 100. s Degratiam lib. arb u Rom. 5. 26. His third reason Testimonies of Fathers * Lib. 2. c. 6. 8 x Lib. 4. cap. 3 §. 5. 16. x Lib. 6. c. 9. z Lib. 7. c. 6 De paritate justitiâ—… Bellarm. de iustif l. 3. c. 16. The calumniation of the Papists All the faithfull equall in righteousnesse iâ—…puted a 2 Pet. 1. 1. b Ambr. lib. 7. in Luc. c. 15. nam undecima conducis bora eqnalem dignaris mercedem solvere â—…qualem mercedem vita groriâ—… c Adv. Jovin lib. 2. d Moral l. 4. c. 42. quia una cunctis erit beatitudo laetitiae quamvis non una sit omnibus sublimitas vitâ—… Bellarmines proofe impertinent The state of the controversie The three first proofes The first a Lib. 1. c. 3. §. 7
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
betweene God and their owne free will Secondly in respect of their justification for the first they ascribe after a sort to grace the second which is increase of justice to their owne merit Thirdly in respect of gooâ—… workes which as they bee wholly Gods so be they wholly their owne as Bellarmine here saith § VI. His fourth Evasion That though wee be saved by our owne merits yet wee are no lesse beholden unto Christ than if wee were saved without them but rather more Because wee are not onely saved by his grace but are also by it saved after a most noble and â—…onourable maner that is to say by our owne merits which he hath merited for us that we by them might merit eternall life As if hee should say Christ hath saved us that is hath merited grace and good workes for us that wee by them may become our owne Saviours This soundeth well for mans praise who would faine have a share in his owne salvation But it becommeth uâ—… to say Not unto us O Lord not unto us but to thy name give the praise For what glory we arrogate to our selves we derogate from God who will not give his glory to another If God is to have all the glory then are wee to have none If wee take any part to our selves we doe not ascribe it wholly to God It is very true that we are beholden and bound to Christ not onely for salvation it selfe but also for those graces and good workes unto which eternall life is rendred as a free reward But the more gifts and graces wee receive from Christ the more we owe unto him the lesse we can merit of him If we call his graces our merits and his gift and free reward our deserved hire as the Papists doe then doe we challenge unto our selves the praise both of the one and of the other But if Christ in his owne person and by himselfe hath merited for us both eternall life it selfe and those things also unto which it is promised as a free reward With what face can wee ascribe it to our owne merits Or if we doe ascribe it to our owne merits though but in part how doe we not part stakes with God § VII And whereas hee saith it is a most honourable way to be saved by our owne merits I aske whether more honourable to God or to us If to us the Scripture teacheth us to strippe our selves of all honour in the matter of our salvation and to ascribe all honour and glory to God It were indeed more honourable for man to need no Saviour than being utterly lost in himselfe to be saved by another It were more honourable for man to be free from all sinne and to bee indued with most perfect righteousnesse and if it were possible to merit his owne salvation than being by sinne fallen into the state of damnation to need a Saviour But now man having by his apostasie from God lost that honourable estate wherein hee was created and fallen into a state of misery his glory wherein hee is now to rejoyce is that God who gave no Redeemer to the Angels that fell gave his onely begotten Sonne to redeeme him his merit as Gods mercy his honour that of a child of Satan and of a firebrand of hell hee is by Christ made the Sonne of God and heire of eternall life And for Gods glory it is not to bee doubted but that it was most honourable to God for the illustration of the glory both of his mercy and also of his justice that man being fallen should bee saved by the merits of Christ that being redeemed and justified he should still bee subject both to inward infirmities and corruptions and also to outward temptations that in our weakenesse his strength might appeare that we should not trust to our owne merits or boast in our owne worthinesse but should rely wholly on the mercies of God and merits of Christ ascribing the whole glory of our salvation thereunto and not to our owne merits who can deserve â—…othing but punishment at the hands of God if hee should enter into judgement with us And these were Bellarmines Evasions § VIII Others say that their doctrine of merits nothing derogateth from the merits of Christ there being no great difference as they conceive betweâ—…ne our doctrine who teach that Christ our Saviour did himselfe and in his owne person both pay our debt and purchase heaven for us and theirs who hold that Christ indeed paid our debt but to purchase heaven hee himselfe did not lay downe the price but did as it were put money into our purses whereby wee might purchase and merit the same for our selves But as the paiment of our debt requireth a ransome of infinite value so the purchase of heaven is not to be procured at a lesse price Christ therefore gave himselfe to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a full price of Redemption for us not only by himselfe purging our sinnes and paying our debt by satisfying the penalty of the Law but also by giving a sâ—…fficient price which is his merit to purchase the heavenly inheritance for us The benefit of this his merit Christ applyeth and communicateth to all that truly beleeve in him but the power of meriting is not communicable to the members who are meere creatures but is peculiar to our head who is both perfect man and perfect God also And therefore no obedience whether active or passive of any but of his person onely is meritorious § IX The more impudent is the recrimination of our English Iesuits who are not ashamed to affirme that wee who use justly to censure them for derogating from the merits of Christ that we I say extenuate the merit of Christ in denying that hee mâ—…rited for our good workes that they should condignely merit eternall life and that therein wee erre fundamentally The impudency whereof is much the greater because they are not able to alleage any Text of Scripture or testimony of any of the ancient Fathers testifying that Christ did merit for us the power of meriting For it was not the purpose of our Saviour to communicate that power to his members which is a peculiar prerogative of the Head neither was it his meaning to save us to that end that we should be our owne Saviours Neither is it credible that hee would give us money as it were to enable us in our owne persons either to pay our debt or to purchase our iâ—…heritance seeing himselfe in his owne person hath paid the full price of our redemption and by his owne personall merits hath fully and al sufficiently purchased â—…he heavenly inheritance for us For to what end should he give us wherewith to merit when he himselfe hath more than sufficiently merited for us so that no oâ—…her merit needeth But if other merits are required besides how his is merit acknowledged al-sufficient Againe if it had beene Christs