Adams disobedience or transgâ—…ession Therefore wee are justified that is not onely absolved from the guilt of sinne but also accepted as righteous by imputation of Christs obedience As touching the proposition that the word sinners doth in this place signifie guilty of sinne and obnoxious to condemnation it is testified by Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what then is the word sinners in this place it seemeth to mee that it is to be subject or obnoxious to punishment and condemned to death by Oecumenius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by Theophylact likewise sinners that is obnoxious to punishments and guilty of death which exposition is plainely confirmed by the verses going before where the same opposition betweene the first and second Adam being made the â—…ormer part is expressed in these words that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or guilt of Adams transgression came upon his posterity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto condemnation especially vers 16. and 18. § II. The assumption though gaine-said by Bellarmine in this place yet is taught not only by other Papists who fully contradict Bellarmines Assumption but elsewhere also by Bellarmine himselfe For Durandus Pighius Catharinus doe hold originall sinne to be nothing else but the guilt of Adams fall or the disobedience of Adam imputed unto us which opinion also Occam professeth that he would hold if he were not hindered by the authority of the Fathers Yea saith Bellarmine it seemeth to have beene the opinion of some of the ancient as Peter Lombard reporteth Iâ—… refuting this opinion Bellarmine justly findeth fault with them that they held originall sinne to be nothing else but the guilt of Adams disobedience imputed it being also the depravation of our nature following thereupon But in that they say originall sinne is the disobedience of Adam imputed unto us that he doth approve For Adam alone did indâ—…ed commit that sinne by actuall will but to us it is communicated by generation eo modo quo communicari potest id quod transiit nimirum per imputationem after that manner whereby that may be communicated which is transcient and gone to wit by imputation Omnibus enim imputatur c. for it is imputed to all who are borne of Adam because wee all being then in the loynes of Adam when hee sinned in him and by him wee sinned Yea and farther hee rightly disputeth that if Adams sinne were not ours by imputation neither the guilt of it nor the corruption following upon it had belonged to us This assertion of Bellarmine confirmeth our assumption and contradicteth his own alleaging that wee are made sinners through the disobedience of Adam by injustice inherent and not imputed which also he contradicteth in other places For he granteth the sinne of Adam so to be imputed to all his posterity as if they all had committed that sinne and to the same purpose citeth Bernard Ours is Adams fault because though in another yet we sinned and to us it was imputed by the just though secret judgement of God And againe taking upon him to prove that the propagation of sinne may bee defended without maintaining the propagation or traduction of the soule he saith that nothing else is required to the traduction of sinne but that a man be descended from Adam by true and ordinary generation For generation not being of a part but of the person or whole man for homo generat hominem therefore the person descending from Adam though his soule be from God was in the loynes of Adam and being in him originally as in the roote in him and with him hee sinned the actuall sinne of Adam being communicated unto him by imputatioâ—… For as Augustine saith definita est seutentia c. it is a resolved case by the Apostle that in Adam we all sinned § III. But what shall wee say to the inherent corruption which Adam by his transgression contracted By this assertion it seemeth not to be traducted otherwise than as the fruit and consequent of the actuall disobedience which was the opinion of Pighius and Catharinus For as Adam by his first transgression which was the sinne of mankind contracted not onely the guilt of death but also the corruption of his nature being both a privation of originall righteousnesse and also an evill disposition and pronenesse to all manner of sinne which is that macula peccati remaining in the sinner after the act is gone so wee having sinned in Adam are not onely made guilty of death and void of originall righteousnesse but also are defiled with that habituall disposition and pronenesse to all manner of sinne So that according to this assertion it may be defended that nothing in our generation is communicated unto us with the humane nature but the disobedience of Adam which is communicated by imputation As for the guilt of death and the inherent coruption they are not derived from Adam but contracted by our sinning in him And hereunto we may apply Bellarmines distinction of sinne so properly called that it is either a voluntary transgression or that blemish which remaineth in the soule caused and contracted by the transgression being of the same nature with it diffeâ—…ing no otherwise from it than as heat from the act of heating For in the former sense originall sinne is the voluntary trangression of Adam imputed unto us and is one and the same in all men in Adam actuall and personall in us originall For onely he by actuall will committed it but to us it is communicated after that manner by which that which is past and gone may bee communicated to wit by imputation In the latter sense it is the corruption inherent contracted and caused as in Adam by his personall sinne so in us by our sinning originally in him which though it bee alike and equall in all yet it is every mans owne § IV. But supposing originall sinne according to the received opinion to be wholly communicated unto us from Adam in our generation yet we must distinguish betwixt Adams first transgression or actuall disobedience which we call his â—…all and the corruption or depravation of his nature which thereupon followed For though we be partakers of both yet not after the same manner Of the transgression we can be no otherwise partakers than by imputation For Adams transgression being an action and actions continuing or having a being no longer than they are in doing cannot bee traducted or transmitted from Adam to his posterity But the corruption being habituall is derivable by propagation Now the Apostle Rom. 5. speaketh of Adams actuall disobedience once committed by him by which he saith we are made sinners that sinne of his being communicated unto us by imputation and not of the corruption thereupon following So by the like reason we are made just by the obedience of Christ which hee performed for us in the daies of his flesh which can
§ 4. That by â—…ustifying grace is meant the gracious favour of God in Christ. lib. 3. cap. 2. Our proofes I. from the use of the word in the Scriptures lib. 3. cap. 2 § 1. II. Because it is Gratia gratum saciens § 2. By it the faithfull are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and chasidim § 3. III. By the gracious favour of God in Christ wee were elected called c. § 4. Obiect 1. The grace of election is eternall the rest temporary § 5. Obiect 2. By inherent grace wâ—… 〈◊〉 sanctified § 6. Obiect 3. Faith a grace inherent § 7. IV. Gratia gratum faciens expressed in the Scriptures by other words which betoken savour § 8. V. Because grace is opposed to works § 9. VI. Charity is not the iâ—…stifying Grace § 10. VII Plaine testimonies of Scripture that grace signifieth favour § 11. Confessiâ—…n of Papists § 12. Bellarmines first allegation of Rom. 3. 24. for inherent grace proved to makâ—… against it lib. 3. cap. 3. His prâ—…ofes from thence disproved l. 3. cap. 4. I. From the word Gratis lib. 3. cap. 4. § 2. II. From the praposition per. § 3. III. Because the favour of God is not in vaine § 4. IV. From the Attributes given to grace As first that it is a gift § 5. Secondly a gift which wee receive § 6. Thirdly a gift given by Christ. â—… 7. yâ—…a made by Christ. § 8. Fourthly that it is given by measure from Christ. § 9. Fifthly it is compared to essence § 10. Sixthly It is compared to light â—… 11. His second allegation out of Rom. 5. 5. answered lib. 3. cap. 5. How the word Grace is used in the Fathers and how in the latter writers lib. 3. cap. 6. H Hebrew The Hebrew word hitsdiq which is to iustifie never signifieth to iustifie by inherent righteousnesse lib. 2. cap. 1. § 4. c. Hope Bellarmines third disposition to justification lib. 6. cap. 11. § 6. Hope whether perfect lib. 5. cap. 6. § 7. I Image of Christ. How borne by the faithfull and whether in respect of iâ—…ification l. 4. cap. 10. § 13 14 15 16. Implicite Faith Confuted and condemned lib. 6. cap. 1. § 3. c. ad finem capitis Imputation of Christs righteousnesse The formall cause of iâ—…stification l. 1. cap. 3. § 7. Impâ—…tation of Christs satisfaction confessed by Papists § 8. Imputation of Christs righteeusnesse denyed by some others bâ—…sides Papists § 9. Their reason that then we are Redeemers ibid. Imputation of Christs righteousnesse proved obiter by two reasons § 10. The private opinion of some concerning imputation lib. 1. cap. 5. That Christs righteoâ—…snesse it selse is imputed lib. 1. cap. 5. § 7. Whether we fulfilled the Law in Christ. § 8 9 10 11. The necessity of imputation lib. 1. c. 5. § 13 14. The full discourse concerning imputation of Christs righteousnesse lib. 5. per totum That wee are justified by imputation of Christs righteousnesse proved by five arguments lib. 5. cap. 1. Proved by eight arguments cap. 2. By two other arguments cap. 3. By testimonies of writers both old and new lib. 5. cap. 4. The objections of the Papists against imputation lib. 5. cap. 5. I. Against the name that it is new § 1. II. That it is putatitia § 2. III. That it is no whore to be found § 3. IV. That it it is needlesse § 4. Both because remission is an utter deletion of sinne § 5. and also because the righteousnesse 〈◊〉 is perfect lib. 5. cap. 6. 7. V. That wee are not formally iust by it lib. 5. cap. 8. § 1. Bellarmines confession that if wee did not hold that wee are formally iustified by it our doctrine were true § 2. VI. That we should be as righteous as Christ. § 3. VII That we did not loose in Adam imputed righteousnesse § 4. that if by imputation we are iust then Christ a sinner § 5. but as Christ notwithstanding the imputation of our sinne was iust so wee sinners § 6. That after iustification wee are called iust and how § 7. IX The Spouse of Christ beautifull in her selfe § 8 9. X. Because the heart must bee pure before we can see God and because Christ redeemed 〈◊〉 that wee might be sanctified § 10. Instrumentali causes of iustification l. 1. c. 2. § 5. Justice The iustice of God a moving cause of iustification l. 1. c. 2. § 3. The iustice of God distinguished l. 8. c. 5. § 19. Justifie To iustifie what it is lib. 1. cap. 1. § 2. To iustifie is not to make righteous by righteousnesse inherent Lib. 2. cap. 1. § 3. The signification of the Hebrew word § 4. c. cap. 5. § 5. Of the Gre 〈◊〉 l. 2. â—… 2. The same provâ—…d first by other termes § 7. Secondly because the whole processe of justification is iudiciall § 8. Iustifying oppâ—…sed to condemning l. 2. c. 5. § 2. cap. 6. § 1. Justification The excellency of this argument l. 1. c. 1. § 1. The definition of iustification lib. 1. c. 1. § 2. The signification of the word ibid. Iustification considered as an action of God § 3. As an action of God without us § 4. But accompanied with those that are wrought within us § 5. It is an act continued § 6. Whether it bâ—…e wrought but once and at once § 7. The Papists confuted who deny it either to be an action of God or without us or continued § 8. The causes of iustification the efficients l. 1. c. 2. The essentiall causes viz. the matter and forme lib. 1. c. 3. the matter Christs righteousnesse § 2 3 4 5. Private opinions concerning the matter l. 1. c. 4. vid. Materiall The forme the imputation of Christs righteousnesse c. 3. § 6. c. Private opinions concerning the forme cap. 5. The end l. 1. c. 6. § 1 2 3 4. The parts absolution from sinne and acceptation as righteous in Christ. â—…ib 1. cap. 6. § 5. Redemption reconciliation and adoption comprised under iustification § 6. The consequents and sruits of iustification § 7. The heads of the controversie concerning iustification l. 2. c. 1. § 1. The first concerning the name whether iustification and sanctification are to bee confounded The Papists confounding them ground their errour upon the Latine word § 2 3. The Hebrew word signifying to instifie never importeth making righteous by infusion of righteousnesse lib. 2. cap. 1. § 4. c ad finem capitis The use of the Greeke words signifying to iustifie or iustification never importing righteousnesse inherent lib. 2. cap. 2. Foure significations of the word iustification alleaged by Bellarmine I. That it signifieth the Law lib. 2. cap. 3. § 1. 2. II. Acquisition of righteousnesse § 3. 4 5 6. III. Increase of iustice lib. 2. cap. 4. § 1. 2 3 4 5. IV. Declaration of iustice l. 2. c. 4. § 6. Bellarmines proofes that iustification signifieth making righteous by inherent righteonsnesse lib. 2. cap. 5. Foure
say they Christs righteousnesse and merits whereby hee redeemeth and saveth men should bee imputed unto us then should we thereby become Saviours and redeemers of others but this latter is false therefore the former Answere I deny the consequence of the proposition for first when we say that we are justified by imputation of Christs righteousnesse our meaning is this that the Lord accepteth for us and in our behalfe the obedience and mâ—…rits of Christ as if we had performed the same for our selves in our owne persons For as the merit of Christ is the common price of redemption sufficient for the salvation of all universally so it is the price for every particular and so is applyed to every particular not as the common price redeeming all but as the price of those soules in particular to whom it is particularly applyed Secondly the efficacie or effect of imputation dependeth upon the will of the imputer and therefore the force of it cannot be extended further than he extendeth it which is the justification of the parties to whom it is imputed but no further Thirdly the consequence of the proposition doth no more follow than if I should argue thus If by imputation of Adams transgression others are made guilty of sinne and damnation then they to whom Adams transgression is imputed are made the cause and fountaine of sinne and damnation in all others but of the first and second Adam we should conceive not as of private men but the first Adam is to be considered as the root of mankind in whom when he fell all sinned The second as the head of all that shall be saâ—…ed in whom as the head communicating his merits to his members all the faithfull have as his members fulfilled the Law and satisfied the justice of God for themselves The head and the body saith Thomas Aquinas are as it were one mysticall person and therefore the satisfaction of Christ belongeth to all the faithfull as to his members the Lord accepting in their behalfe the obedience and Merits of Christ as if they had performed the same in their owne persons not for others but for themselves And therefore by imputation of Christs righteousnesse they are not redeemers but redeemed For though Christ who is the Saviour of his body communicate to his members his obedience yet not his Headship nor his Mediatorship in respect whereof hee was and is both God and man Man to doe and suffer God to give infinite value and worth to that which his Person did or suffered for the justification and salvation of all those to whom his righteousnesse should bee communicated and imputed but not to make them redeemers and Saviours of others The righteousnesse of the head is of sufficient vertue to justifie and redeeme all the members to whom it is imputed but being imputed the merit thereof extendeth no further than to what end it is imputed that is to save the member not to make it a Saviour nor to confound the members with the head nor to take away the proportion that is and ought bee betweene the head and the members Fourthly to the Papists who confesse Christs satisfaction to be imputed unto us I returne the like argument If Christs satisfaction whereby he redeemed mankind bee imputed unto us then are we also redeemers of mankind But they will not not cannot inferre that therefore we are redeemers but that wee among others are redeemed § X. But that we are justified onely by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse I shall by the helpe of God fully prove hereafter in my whole fifth booke Here onely for a tast I will but point at two argumenss the former out of Rom. 4. 5. 6. 11. the basis or ground whereof is this that whom the Lord justifieth to them he imputeth righteousnesse Now this righteousnesse is either the parties owne or of another Not their owne for they are sinners and being sinners they cannot bee justified by righteousnesse inherent but righteousnesse is imputed to them without workes that is without respect of any obedience performed by themselves Therefore it is the righteousnesse of another That other is no other nor can be any other but Christ onely therefore by imputation of his righteousnesse we are justified The second shall bee out of 2 Cor. 5. 21. As Christ was made sinne for us so are wee made the righteousnesse of God in him By imputation of our sinne to him Christ who knew no sinne was made sinne and a sinner for us therefore by imputation of his righteousnesse which here is called the righteousnesse of God we who are sinners in our selves are made righteous not in our selves but in him CAP. IV. Whether wee are justified by the passive righteousnesse of Christ only § I. NOw I come to the private opinions of some of our Divines concerning the matter and some of our justification For some as touching the matter doe hold that we are justified by the passive righteousnesse of Christ onely Of these men some doe not hold the matter of justification to bee the passive righteousnesse of Christ it selfe but a righteousnesse morte Christi partuÌ„ purchased by the death of Christ as the meritorious cause thereof viz. remission of sinnes which they not without absurdity say is imputed to us For what is remission of sinne but the not imputing of it If therefore wee bee justified by imputation of the remission of sinne then are we justified by the imputation of the not imputing of sinne Againe the authors of this opinion confound justice with justification for they say that remission of sinne is our justice and that justification is nothing also but remission when indeed neither the one nor the other is justice but an action of God imputing righteousnesse and not imputing sinne unto us Others hold that by the passive righteousnesse of Christ it selfe meaning thereby his death and passion we are justified as by the onely matter of justification imputed to us But that wee are not justified by the passive righteousnesse of Christ alone it may appeare by these reasons § II. By what alone the Law is fully satisfied by that we are justified and by what alone the Law is not fully satisfied by that alone wee are not justified By the whole righteousnesse of Christ that is to say the righteousnesse of his person that is his holinesse or habituall righteousnesse the righteousnesse of his life which was his obedience or actuall righteousnesse the righteousnesse of his death and passion which is obedientia crucis or his passive righteousnesse the Law was fully satisfied or fulfilled but by the passive obedience alone of Christ the Law was not fulfilled therefore by the whole righteousnesse of Christ and not by the passive onely we are justified The proposition is thus proved there is no justification before God without perfect and compleat righteousnesse for without that no man can stand in judgement before God and to imagine that
imputed as a full satisfaction for sinne the other by imputation of Christs perfect obedience as a sufficient merit of eternall life by the former we are freed from hell by the latter we are entituled to the kingdome of heaven Of them both the Apostle speaketh Rom. 5. that we are justified that is absolved from our sinne by the bloud of Christ. v. 9. and that wee are justified that is constituted just by his obedience vers 19. To this argument they answere by denying the antecedent saying that there are no parts of justification but that it wholly consisteth in remission of sinnes Indeed if it were the onely matter of justification as some of them teach and the entire formall cause of justification as others avouch of whom we shall speake in the next Chapter I say if both these opinions were true then I would confesse that the whole nature of justification doth consist in forgivenesse of sinne but whiles it is either but the matter as some say or but the forme as others or neither of both as I avouch it is a manifest errour to say that justification consisteth wholly in remission of sinnes Againe in every mutation though it be but relative we must of necessity acknowledge two termes tâ—…rminum à quo terminum ad quem the denomination being taken commonly from the terminus ad quem As in justification there is a motion or mutation from sinne to justice from which terme justification hath its name from a state of death and damnation to a state of life and Salvation But if justification be nothing else but bare remission of sinne then is there in it onely a not imputing of sinne but no acceptation as righteous a freedome from hell but no title to heaven To this they answere that to whom sinne is not imputed righteousnesse is imputed and they who are freed from hell are admitted to heaven I doe grant that these things doe alwayes concurre but yet they are not to bee confounded for they differ in themselves and in their causes and in their effects in themselves for it is one thing to bee acquitted from the guilt of sinne another thing to be made righteous as wee see daily in the pardons of malefactors in their causes for remission of sinne is to be attributed to Christs satisfactory sufferings the acceptation as righteous unto life to Christs meritorious obedience In their effects for by remission of sinne wee are freed from hell and by imputation of Christs obedience we have right unto heaven § XVII If unto justification there be required besides remission of sinne Imputation of righteousnesse then there are two formall causes of justification Answ. It followeth not for although there bee two tâ—…rmini in this mutation yet there is but one action and this one action is the onely forme of justification viz. imputation of Christs righteousnesse of which are two effects which also be the two parts of justification remission of sinne and acceptation as righteous as I said in the definition that justification is an action of God wherein hee imputing the righteousnesse of Christ to a beleeving sinner doth not onely absolve him from his sinnes but also accepteth of him as righteous and as an heire of eternall life § XVIII Notwithstanding this so evident truth some of the Divines of whom we spake when they would prove justification by the passive righteousnesse of Christ onely take this position for granted that justification is nothing but remission of sinne and hereupon inferre that seeing wee have remission of sinne onely by the bloud of Christ we are justified by his bloud onely And to this purpose they alleage many testimonies of Scriptures affirming that by the bloud of Christ and by his death and passion wee have remission of sinne to all which we readily subscribe But if there be any other places that seeme to ascribe unto the sufferings of Christ more than remission of sinnes as entrance into heaven and salvation c. such places are to be understood by a Synecdoche putting the chieâ—…e and most eminent part of his obedience for the whole Others labour to prove this assertion that justification is nothing but remission of sinne by testimonies and by reasons and to this purpose collect a multitude of testimonies of Protestant Divines who against the Papists have maintained that justification confisteth in remission of sinnes onely But this assertion as hereafter I shall shew is to be understood as spoken in opposition to the Papists who unto justification besides remission of sinnes require inward renovation or sanctification and therefore their meaning was to exclude from justification not imputation of righteousnesse which alwayes concurreth in the same act with remission of sinne and without which there can be no remission for by the same act of imputation of Christs whole and entire righteousnesse we have both remission of sinnes and acceptation unto life but to exclude renovation à ratione justificationis from the proper nature of justification as if they had said wee are not justified both by remission and renovation as the Papists teach but by remission without renovation that is in their meaning by remission onely and this is acknowledged by Bellarmine himselfe as hereafter shall bee shewed And forasmuch as by remission of sinne wee have an imputative righteousnesse for to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne to him he imputeth righteousnesse without workes as the Apostle proveth Rom. 4. 6 7. therefore when it is said that we are justified by remission onely and not by renovation it is all one as if wee said that wee are justified by imputation onely and not by infusion of righteousnesse § XIX Their chiefe argument to prove their assertion is this Remission is as well of the sinnes of omission as of commission As therefore he whose sinnes of commission are remitted is reputed as if hee had done nothing forbidden so whose sinnes of omission are remitted is reputed as if hee had left undone nothing that is commanded Now hee that is reputed as if hee had neither done any thing forbidden nor left undone any thing that is commanded hee is reputed as if hee had fulfilled the whole Law I answer by distinction if they consider remission of sinnes barely without imputation of righteousnesse as they must if they will make good their assertion then hee that hath onely remission of the sins both of commission and omission is freed from the guilt of both but not from the fault For notwithstanding such remission of his sinnes he is a sinner as having both committed what is forbidden and also omitted what is commanded Yet by remission or not imputation of sinne hee is freed from the punishment and a râ—…atu poenae from the guilt binding over to punishment as if hee had neither committed any thing forbidden nor omitted any thing commanded Hee therefore that hâ—…th remission is reputed as having neither committed any evill nor omitted any good not simply
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
that righteousnesse which is not in us but out of us in Christ which is absurd for as themselves expound the phrase Formall justice consisteth either in the qualities of the soule or in good actions that is it is either habituall or actuall so that it cannot stand in imputation by which wee can no more be just formally than wife rich alive by imputation of wisedome riches and life Wherefore I marvell how they could be so absurd as to conceive so absurdly of us But wee teach that Christs righteousnesse both habituall and actuall by which he was formally just is the matter and the imputation thereof is the forme of justification And so those very Authors upon whom they would father this assertion in expresse termes doe teach affirming that Christs obedience or fulfilling of the Law is the materiall cause of justification and the application or imputation thereof is the formall cause of justification We say then that the righteousnesse of Christ it selfe is not the formall cause of justification or that by which we are formally just but the imputation of it it selfe being the matter of justification that is to say that thing which unto justification is imputed Wherefore I shall not need to answere in defence of our assertion the arguments either of those Veteratores the Papists or these Novatores who both agree in this calumniation against us all tending to prove that wee are not formally juâ—… by that righteousnesse of Christ which is out of us in him which we doe not hold For the righteousnesse whereby a man is formaâ—…ly just is inherent in himselfe for what is more intrinsecall than the forme But Christs righteousnesse is not inherent in us no more than our sinne was inherent in him And yet as he was made sinne or a sinner by our sinnes not formally God forbid but by imputation so wee are made righteous by his righteousnesse not formally as we are justified or in our selves but in him viz. by imputation And againe as by Adams actuall transgrâ—…ssion which was transient and now hath no being we are made sinners that is guilty of sinne and damnation by imputation of his disobedience so likewise by Christs obedience which hee performed in the daies of his flesh and was proper to his owne person we are justified that is not onely freed from the guilt of sinne and damnation but also constituted just and entituled to the Kingdome of Heaven And yet we deny not but that as they to whom the guilt of Adams transgression is imputed are also by sinne inherent transfused from him by carnall generation formally made sinners so they to whom the obedience of Christ is imputed unto justification are also made formally just by an inchoated righteousnesse received by influence from Christ and infused by his spirit in their spirituall regeneration § III. In their opinion it selfe denying the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to justification they erre more dangerously than the Papists who are forced to confesse the imputation of Christs satisfaction for the maintenance of this maine errour they hold sixe others First that remission of sinne is the entire forme or formall cause of justification Secondly that justification is nothing else but remission of sinne Thirdly that no other righteousnesse concurreth to justification besides the remission of sinne no not the righteousnesse of Christ otherwise than it doth merit remission of sinne Fourthly that the righteousnesse by which we are justified is not the righteousnesse of Christ it selfe but a righteousnesse purchased by the death of Christ viz. remission of sinne Fifthly that not the obedience of Christ it selfe is imputed whether active or passive but the merit therof Sixthly that not the righteousnesse of Christ but the act of faith is imputed for righteousnesse All which before I saw the booke wherein these errours are broached I had plainely and fully confuted in this Treatise § IV. For as touching the two first and the maine errour it selfe I have proved both in the third Chapter of this booke briefly and in the whole fifth booke at large that the forme of justification is the imputation of Christs righteousnesse by which we are both absolved from our sinnes and also are in Christ accepted and made righteous and consequently that these two are the essentiall parts of justification viz. the not imputing or remission of sinne which God doth grant by imputation of Christs sufferings in respect whereof wee are said to be justified by his blood that is freed from the guilt of sinne and damnation and the imputation of Christs obedience by which wee are made or constituted righteous and are entituled to the kingdome of Heaven So that remission of sinne is not the forme and much lesse the entire forme of justification considered as an action of God but an effect of the forme because by imputation of Christs righteousnesse we have remission of sinne Neither is it the whole benefit of justification but a part thereof For although many of our Divines as hath beene said have taught that unto justification remission of sinnes is onely required yet their assertion as hath also beene shewed is to be understood as Bellarmine himselfe understandeth Calvin as spoken in opposition to the Papists who say that to justification concurre not onely remission of sinnes but also inward renovation or sanctification To contradict them our Divines have said that wee are justified by remission onely or not imputing of sinne wherewith alwayes concurreth imputation of righteousnesse and not by renovation or sanctification Their meaning therefore by the exclusive particle onely was to exclude not imputation of righteousnesse which unseparably accompanieth the not imputing of sinne as Saint Paul proveth Rom. 4. 6. 8. and Bellarmine himselfe confesseth but infusion of righteousnesse or renovation § V. The third is the same in effect with that which I fully confuted Cap. 4. and contradicteth their owne assertion who teach with us that we are justified by the whole course of Christs obedience for remission of sin is properly ascribed to Christs sufferings or his blood which cleanseth us from all our sinnes and not to his active obedience And justification is nothing as they say but remission of sinne whereupon it would follow that we are justified onely by Chriâ—…ts passive obedience which I have already disproved § VI. The fourth denying the righteousnesse of Christ it selfe to be our righteousnesse I have fully confuted in the fourth booke besides that which hath already beene alledged in the third chapter of this book that which is added concerning a righteousnesse purchased by the death of Christ is the same with that which I confuted Chap. 4. § 1. for our righteousnesse is not remission of sinne but that by which wee have remission not justification it selfe but that by which wee are justified For remission of sinne as well as justification it selfe is an action of God not imputing sinne and imputing righteousnesse
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
say it doth The exclusive particle used by some of our Divines doth exclude infusion not imputation of righteousnesse as Bellarmine confesseth For wee doe hold though all perhaps have not so plainely expressed their meaning and some few have delivered their private opinions that remission of sinne is but a part of justification and that by imputation of Christs righteousnesse we are both absolved from our sinnes and also accepted as righteous in Christ and as heires of eternall life But Bellarmine howsoever he would seeme to acknowledge the concurrence of remission of sinne unto justification yet indeed excludeth it For by remission of sinne concurring to justification hee doth not understand the not imputing or forgiving of sinne but the extinction and abolition thereof wrought by the infusion of habituall righteousnesse which expelleth its contrary as heat doth cold and light darkenesse And howsoever there bee duo termini two termes in this motion or mutation as he conceiveth of justification as being a passage b or change from sinne to righteousnesse yet there be not two causes nor yet two distinct actions but the onely cause is justice infused and the action is but one and the same the infusion of righteousnesse expelling sinne Even as in creation which is transitâ—…s à non esse ad esse in illumination which is transitâ—…s à tenebris ad lâ—…cem in calefaction which is a passage from cold to heat But if this be all that is required in the Popish justification as undoubtedly it is the whole and onely forme thereof being infused of righteousnesse or as they love rather to speake righteousnesse infused their justification also not differing from that which the Scriptures call sanctification saving that they dreame of a totall mortification or deletion of sinne and of a perfect renovation then what is become of the absolving of â—…â—…tom the guilt of sinne by which wee are freed from hell and the acceptation of us as righteous in Christ by we are intitled to the kingdome of heaven Both which are wrought by imputation of Christs righteousnesse in which true justification doth consist For infused righteousnesse though it were perfect could not discharge us from our former debts and being unperfect as their owne consciences cannot but tell them it cannot entitle them to the kingdome of heaven Wherefore if they will be saved they must of necessity flee to the righteousnesse or satisfaction of Christ who hath fully satisfied the Law both in respect of the penalty by his sufferings and also in regard of the commandement by his obedience which obedience and sufferings being transient and gone so long since can no otherwise bee communicated unto them but by imputation Now if they can be content to acknowledge the imputation of Christs satisfaction which sometimes they doe and must doe if they will bee saved for there is no other meanes either to escape hell or to come to heaven then let them according to the Scriptures acknowledge this imputation of Christs satisfaction by which they are to bee acquitted and freed from the guilt of sinne and damnation and also accepted as righteous in Christ and heires of eternall life to be their justification As for the mortification of sinne and the renovation of us according to the image of God in true holinesse and righteousnesse both which are but in part and by degrees wrought in us by the Spirit of regeneration let them bee acknowledged to bee the two parts of our sanctification § II. But Bellarmine will needs have our renovation to be the righteousnesse of justification And this he indevoureth to prove by Testimonies of Scripture by the authority of Saint Augustine and by reason The texts of Scripture which he citeth are six The first Rom. 4. 25. who was delivered up for our sinâ—…es and rose for our justification From whence Bellarmine argueth thus to what the Apostle giveth the name of justification in that justification consisteth rather than in that unto which hee doth not give the name But to renovation in this place the Apostle doth give the name of justification and not to remission of sinne Therefore justification consisteth rather in renovation than in remission of sinne Before I answere I thinke good to advertise the reader againe that Bellarmine here by remission of sinne doth not understand the not imputing of sinne or as we in plaine English call it forgivenesse of sinne but the utter deletion the extinction the totall mortification of sinne And that hee doth foure times at the least signifie in this one passage Now I answer by denying his assumption because the Apostle in this place doth give the name of justification neither to remission nor yet to renovation which is not mentioned so much as once in all the Chapter Indeed in some other places the Apostle and his Disciple Saint Luke doe give the name to remission of sinnes that is to the not imputing of sinne or to the absolving and acquitting from sinne Rom. 4. 6 7 8. 〈◊〉 13. 38 39. but never to renovation § III. His assumption Bellarmine proveth because it cannot be doubtâ—…d but that the Apostles meaning was that Christ his death was a samplar or patterne of the death of sin that is saith he of remission or deletion of sins and that his resurrection was a samplar or patterne of our renovation and inward regeneration by which we walke in newnesse of life And is this the meaning of the Apostle Then be like wee are justified by imitation and not by imputation of Christs death and by imitation of his resurrection and then also by the same reason we are made sinners by imitation and not imputation of Adams transgression But indeed in this place the Apostle doth not propound by way of exhortation the death and resurrection of Christ as an example to bee followed in dying to sinne and rising to righteousnesse represented in Baptisme as hee doth in the sixth to the Romans where he exhorteth to sanctification as an inseparable consequent and companion of justification but by way of Doctrine hee speaketh of the death and resurrection of Christ as the cause of our justification of which he had spoken in the whole Chapter and even in the verses next going before that righteousnesse shall bee imputed to us as well as to Abraham if wee beleeve in him that raised up Iesus our Lord from the dead who was given by his father and by himselfe to us and for us that by the obedience of his life untill death but especially at his death he might satisfie for our sinnes and was raised from the dead that we might be justified and saved by his life which he liveth after his death Christ by his death and obedience did satisfie for our sinnes paying a full ransome for them and so did justifie us meritoriously and in that sense we are said to bee justified by his bloud and by his obedience both as the matter
justifications of the Saints then they justifie the Saints So may I say if the precepts of the Law be the justifications of the Lord then belike they justifie him but neither are fitly called justifications though the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may not unfitly be given both to the Law of God as the rule of justice and to the judgements of God as the acts of justice and to the good deeds of the Saints as workes of justice and also to the merits of Christ which notwithstanding doe not justifie him but us unlesse they meane that as by good workes the faithfull so by righteous commandements and just judgements God is declared and manifested to bee just And farther the law of Nature knowne to the Gentiles is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which notwithstanding doth not justifie either him or them and is by the Latine interpreter unfitly translated the justice of God And moreover Bellarmine himselfe as we have heard noteth that the Law is called justification because it teacheth righteousnesse and yet not that righteousnesse by which we are justified for that without the Law is manifested in the Gospell being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets even the righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Iesus Christ unto all and upon all that beleeve But to conclude Bellarmine had no reason to make this the first signification of the word in the Scriptures for the Hebrew word which the vulgar Latine translateth sometimes iustificationes and sometimes ceremonias in the same sense doth signifie no such matter and the Greeke which twice at the most in the Scriptures signifieth justification doth usually signifie the Law of God and his statutes and ordinances but more especially those of the ceremoniall Law which if they be any where called justifications it is to bee imputed to the corrupt translation and not to the originall truth § III. So much of the first signification The two next whereof there is no example in the Scriptures hee hath coined to fit their new-found distinction of justification it selfe which they distinguish into the first and the second The first when a man of a sinner is made just by infusion of habituall righteousnesse The second when a just man is made more just by practise of good workes Accordingly justification saith Bellarmine in the second place signifieth acquisition of righteousnesse viz. inherent which is their first justification and in the third place incrementum justitiae the encrease of justice which is their second justification which distinction if it were applied to sanctification were not to be rejected For that which they call their first justification is the first act of our sanctification which the Scriptures call â—…eration in which the holy Ghost doth ingenerate in the soule of the Elect the grace of faith and with it and by it other sanctifying graces wherein their justification which is habituall consisteth And that which they call their second justification being actuall is our new obedience by which our sanctification is continued and encreased But to justification it cannot truly be applyed for first justification is an action of God for it is God that doth justifie Their second justification is their owne act whereby they being just already make themselves more just Secondly justification as hath been said is an action of God without us not implying a reall mutation in us but relative such as is wrought by the sentence of a Iudge and is opposed to condemnation Thirdly because it is the righteousnesse of Christ by which wee are justified which is a perfect righteousnesse whereunto nothing can bee added Therefore of justification it selfe there are no degrees though of the assurance thereof there are degrees according to the measure of our faith § IV. But let us see how Bellarmine proveth his second signification To that purpose he alledgeth three testimonies of Scripture which prove nothing else but that the Papists have no sound proofe for their erronious conceit The first is taken out of 1 Cor. 6. 11. And such were you but ye are washed but ye are sanctified but ye are justified Where indeed the word is used but in a sense distinguished from sanctification The scope and intendment the Apostle is to exhort the Corinthians being now Christians to abstaine from those sinnes whereunto they were addicted whiles they lived in Gentilisme Such you were then saith the Apostle but now since you gave your names to Christ you were baptized into his Name and in your Baptisme were washed from those sinnes being sanctified from the corruption of them by the Spirit of God and iustified from the guilt of them in the Name of Iesus Christ that is by faith in his Name Thus therefore these three words are to bee distinguished The washing of the soule which is represented by the washing of the body is the generall word whereby the purging of the soule from sinne is generally signified Act. 22. 16. But as in sinne there are two things from which we had need to be purged that is the guilt of sinne and the corruption thereof so this ablution or washing of the soule hath two parts ablution from the guilt of sinne which is our justification ablution from the corruption of sinne which is our sanctification Both which are represented and sealed in the Sacrament of Baptisme wherein as the outward washing of the body doth represent the inward washing of the soule both from the guilt and corruption of sinne so the Element of water whereby the body is washed or sprinckled is a signe of the water and blood which issued out of Christs side whereby the soule is washed that is to say the blood of redemption and the water of sanctification for by the blood that is the merits of Christ wee are freed from the guilt of sinne and by the water that is the Spirit of sanctification wee are freed in some measure from the corruption And both these as I said are signified in Baptisme For wee are baptized into the remission of sinnes Act. 2. 38. Mar. 1. 4. Our soules being washed with the blood of Christ according to that in the Nicene Creed I beleeve one Baptisme for the remission of sinnes and wee are baptized unto the mortification of sinne and rising unto holinesse of life Rom. 6. 3 4. our soules being washed by the water of the holy Ghost For wee are baptized into the death of Christ and similitude of his resurrection that as Christ dyed and rose againe so wee that are baptized should dye unto sinne and rise to newnesse of life for which cause Baptisme also is called the Laver of regeneration Tit. 3. 5. This then is the summe and effect of the Apostles exhortation that seeing they having given their names unto Christ had been baptized into his Name and were therefore Sacramentally at the least washed and consequently both in their owne profession and opinion of others judging
according to charity sanctified from the corruption of sinne and justified from the guilt of the same therefore they should take heed lest they should againe bee polluted with those sinnes from which they were sanctified or made guilty of those crimes from which they were justified § V. His second testimony is Rom. 8. 30. Whom he hath called them hee hath justified Answ. The Context doth shew that the word in the 30. verse is used in the same sense as verse 33. For having shewed that whom the Lord calleth hee doth justifie and whom he doth justifie them also hee doth glorifie from thence hee inferreth this consolation who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect It is God that justifieth as was said verse 30. who shall condemne c. Where justifying most plainely is used as a judiciall word signifying by sentence to justifie as Chrysostome and Oâ—…cumenius on this place doe note as opposed to accusing and condemning and cannot with any shew of reason be drawne to signifie contrary to the perpetuall use of the word infusion of righteousnesse But heere it may bee objected that in this place where the Apostle setteth downe the degrees of salvation sanctification is either included in justification or left our Answ. It is left out for the Apostle setting downe the chaine of the causes of salvation in the degrees whereof every former being the cause of the latter left out sanctification as being no cause of salvation but the way unto it and the cognizance of them that are saved And these degrees are so set downe Act. 26. 18. where the end of the ministery is expressed first Vocation that men should bee called and thereby brought to beleeve secondly Iustification that by faith they may receive remission of sinnes thirdly Glorification that by faith they may receive the inheritance among them that are sanctified where sanctification is mentioned onely as the cognizance of them that are saved Againe sanctification is left out because it is included in respect of the beginning thereof which is our conversion or regeneration in vocation and in respect of the consummation in glorification for as sanctification is gloria inchoata so glorification is gratia consummata § VI. His third testimony is Rom. 4. 5. to him that beleeveth in him who justifieth the ungodly Ans. he should have done well to have made up the sentence his faith is imputed for righteousnesse which place is so farre srom favouring the Popish conceit that it plainely confutes it first it is called the justification of the ungodly that is of one who is a sinner in himselfe for he that is a sinner in himselfe by inherent sinne and so remaineth cannot be justified by righteousnesse inherent secondly because to him that beleeveth in Christ faith relatively understood that is the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended by faith is imputed for righteousnesse thirdly because in this place justification is expressed by these termes not imputing sinne remitting or covering of sinne imputing righteousnesse without workes imputing faith for righteousnesse to him that worketh not that is that seeketh not to bee justified by his owne righteousnesse but beleeveth in him that justifieth a sinner CAP. IIII. The third and fourth signification of the word justification assigned by Bellarmine § I. THirdly saith Bellarmine justification is taken for increase of justice for even as he is said to be heated not only who of cold is mà de hot but also who of hot is made hotter even so he is said to be justified who not onely of a sinner is made just but also of just is made more just Ans. In this comparison of like there is a great unlikenesse for calefaction implyeth a reall mutation and a positive change in the subject from cold to hot but in justification the change is not reall but relative as before hath beene shewed Bellarmine therefore must prove that to justifie doth signifie to make righteous formally by righteousnesse inherent before he can prove that it signifieth the increase of inherent justice But if the former cannot be proved much lesse the latter But yet he bringeth three proofes such as they be § II. The first Ecclus. 18. 21. Ne verearis usque ad mortem justificari quâ—…niam merces Domini manet in aeternum feare not to be justified untill death for the reward of the Lord adideth for ever Answ. To omit that the booke is Apocryphall which ought not to bee alleaged in controversies of faith the testimonie it selfe is vilely depraved The words in the Originall are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is stay not untill death to be justified or as their own interlinear translation readeth it ne expectes usque ad mortem justificari wait not untill death to be justified where it is evident that he speaketh of justification in our first conversion which he would not have differred untill the time of death and not of the continuance or increase of it for then the sentence would beare a contrary and indeed an ungodly sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 abide not or continue not to be justified or to be just untill thy death And the words untill death are not to be joyned with the last word justified but with the first stay not untill death And their translation of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether as Bellarmine here readeth ne verearis or as some editions have ne vetéris hath no affinity with the Originall But our interpretation as it agreeth with the words of the Text so it is confirmed by the context Vse Physike before thou bee sicke before judgement prepare thy selfe humble thy selfe before thou bee sicke and in the time of sinnes that is whiles thou mai'st yet sinne shew thy conversion let nothing hinder thee to pay thy vowes in due season and deferre not untill death to be justified or to become just § III. But this testimony Bellarmine urgeth againe in another place shewing that the place is to bee understood of continuing and proceeding in justice and the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are as much as cease not And this he would prove by that which goeth before be not hindred to pray alwayes where the wise man admonisheth us to increase our justice by continuall prayer and also by that which immediately followeth because the reward of the Lord endureth for ever for reward agreeth not to the first justification of the wicked but indulgence Answ. This interpretation of Bellarmine may then be admitted when it shal be proved first that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth to cease secondly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to pray thirdly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 alwaies fourthly that those words but the reward of the Lord endureth for ever are found in the Originall Text. But if Bellarmine knew that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth stay not or waite not and not cease not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to render the vow and not to pray 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉