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
writing in Greeke but also the holy Apostles and Evangelists have received the same And therefore these words are no otherwise to be understood than as the translations of the said Hebrew words signifying no other thing than what the Hebrew words import which as I have shewed doe never signifie to make or to be made righteous by inherent righteousnesse § II. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used by the Apostle and by the Evangelist Luke sometimes as the translation of Tsiddiq in Piel as Luk. 7. 29. the people and Publicans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 justified God The Lawyer Luk. 10. 29. willing to justifie himselfe The Pharisies Luk. 16. 15. justified themselves before men And so is the word used sometimes by the sonne of Sirach as Ecclus. 10. 29. who will justifie him that sinneth against his owne soule Cap. 13. 26. alias 22. A rich man speaketh things not to be spoken and yet men justifie him Sometimes the Apostle useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the translation of Hitsdiq as alwaies he doth in the question of justification and alwayes as the action of God as Rom. 3. 26. who justifieth him that beleeveth in Iesus how vers 24. gratis without any cause or desert of justification in the party without workes that is without respect of any righteousnesse inherent in him or performed by him vers 28. who justifieth the Circumcision and uncircumcision that is both Iewes and Gentiles not of workes or by inherent justice but by and through faith vers 30. who justifieth the ungodly that is the beleeving sinner that worketh not Rom. 4. 5. and therefore not by inherent righteousnesse how then by imputing righteousnesse without workes vers 6. who Rom. 8. 30. whom he calleth he justifieth namely by faith and whom he justifieth hee also glorifieth using the word in the same sense vers 33. who can lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect it is God that justifieth who shall condemne where most manifestly the word is used as a judiciall word opposed to accusing and condemning Neither can any colour of reason be alleaged why the word in these places should signifie contrary to the perpetuall use both of it selfe and of the Hâ—…brew word whereof it is a translation to make righteous by righteousnesse inherent § III. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used sometimes as the translation not of the passive verbe but as of the Neuter in Cal as I have shewed before out of the Greeke translation of the 〈◊〉 So Ecclus. 7. 5. bee not just before God not wise before the king or as it is usually translated doe not justifie thy selfe before God So also in the new Testament Rom. 3. 4. cited out of Psalm 51. 6. where the Hebrew word is not a passive but a neuter And so Apoc. 22. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him that is just be just still As the translation of the passive it is often used But as it never signifieth to be made just by inherent justice as I will shew when I come to answere the objections of the Papists so it alwayes signifieth either to be declared or pronounced just or to bee absolved and made jusâ—… by imputation In the former sense wisedome is said to bee justified of her Children Luk. 7. 37. who vers 29. justified God Christ who is God was manifested in the flesh justified in the Spirit 1 Tim. 3. 16. Thus by our words we shall bee justiâ—…ed not made just formally or by inherent righteousnesse but in the sense opposed to condemnation For as by thy words thou shalt bee justified so by thy words thou shalt be condemned Matth. 12. 37. Thus not the hearers alone but the doers of the Law shall bee justified that is pronounced just Rom. 2. 13. and in this sense the faithfull are justified by workes that is declared approved and knowne to bee just Iames 2. 21 23. 24 25. cum Genes 22. 12. â—…n the latter sense Ecclesiast 1. 28. alias 22. the famous man Chap. 31. 5. The lover of Gold Chap. 23. 14. alias 11. The rash swearer shall not bee justified that is as it is in the Commination of the third Commandement shall not bee held guitlesse but most plainely Chap. 26. the last verse the huckster shall not bee justified from sinne that is not absolved from sinne nor accepted as righteous So Act. 13. 38 39. where most plainely to be â—…ustified from sinne doth signifie to be absolved or freed from the guilt of sinne and is used promiscuously with remission of sinne And this sense oâ—… freedome from the guilt is â—…ometimes extended to signifie a totall freedome as Rom. 6. 7. He that is dead is justified that iâ—… as Chrysostome and Oâ—…umenius expound it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is freed from sinne As these places are plainely repugnant to the Popish sense so none of the rest where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used doth favour it For either they import remission of sinnes and acceptation as righteoâ—…s as Luk. 18. 14. The Publican who had humbled himselfe and craved pardon went home justified that is obtained pardon and was accepted as righteous rather than the Pharisee who had justified himselfe or distinguish betweene justification and sanctification as 1 Cor. 6. 11. or exclude justification by inherent righteousnesse as Rom. 3. 20. Rom. 4. 2. 1 Cor. 4. 4. Gal. 5. 4. Or imply imputation as where we are said to be justified either by his blood as Rom. 5. 9. Or by faith as Rom. 5. 1. Gal. 3. 24. Or by grace as Tiâ—… 3. 7 Or both exclude the one and imply the other as Rom. 3. 24. 28. Gal. 2. 16 17. 3. 11. § IV. There remaine these two words which I mentioned before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used onely in two placâ—…s Rom. 4. 25. 5. 18. In the former it is said that Christ was delivered to death for our sinnes and was raised againe for our justificâ—…tion to whom as it is in the precedent verse righteousnesse shall bee imputed if wee beleeve on him that raised up Iesus our Lord from the dead for as our Saviour by his death and obedience untâ—…ll death merited for us remission of sinnes and the right to eternall life so by the acts of Christ restored to life as namely by his resurrection his merits are effectually applied and imputed to our justification For if Christ had not risen againe wee had beene still in our sinnes 1 Cor. 15. 17. In the latter place justification is in direct termes opposed to condemnation For as by the offence or transgression of one viz. the first Adam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the guilt which is to be supplied out of the sixteenth verse came upon all men the offspring of the first Adam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto condemnation so by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
justification by inherent righteousnesse he affirmeth that to be justified by Christ in that place doth signifie to bee made just by obtaining righteousnesse 〈◊〉 And this hee would prove by two reasons first out of those words jâ—…sti constistuentur multi many shall be constituted or made just From whence he argueth thus To bee constituted just is to bee made just by inherent righteousnesse To bee justified is to bee constituted just Rom. 5. 19. Therefore to bee constituted just is to bee made just by righteousnesse inherent Answ. Wee confesse that whosoever is justified is constituted yea is made just but the question is concerning the manner whether by infusion of righteousnesse or by imputation The assumption therefore is granted by us But the proposition is false and hath no ground in the Scriptures Yea the contrary may bee proved out of the place alleaged where justification or making righteous is opposed not to the corruption of sinne but to guilt and condemnation vers 16. and 18. And therefore he is said in this place to be justified or constituted righteous who being absolved and acquitted from the guilt of sinne and from condemnation is accepted as righteous unto life for as in the former part of the 19. verse many are said to be constituted sinners that is as the Greeke interpreters doe expound it and as appeareth by the former verses guilty of sin and obnoxious to condemnation by the disobedience of Adaâ—… meaning that one offence of his which we cal his fal which cannot be otherwise understood but by imputation so in the latter part many are said to be constituted just by the obedience of the second Adam that is absolved from the guilt of sinne and condemnation and accepted as righteous in Christ his obedience being communicated to them which cannot be by any other meanes but by imputation Neither can any reason be given why 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to bee constituted just should not be a judiciall word as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be justified In all other places this verbe whether it bee used in the good sense or in the bad signifieth no such thing as Bellarmine inferreth upon it For as in the bad it signifieth to convince or condemne as Gal. 2. 18. Iam. 4. 4. so in the good to approve or commend as Rom. 5. 8. 2 Cor. 4. 2. 6. 4. 7. 11. And accordingly the meaning of this place may be this as by the disobedience of the first Adam many were convicted and condemned as sinners that is guilty of sinne and damnation so by the obedience of the second Adam many shall bee approved and accepted as righteous His reason is from the antithesis of Adam to Christ which as I shall hereafter in his due place prove maketh wholly against him for if by the actuall disobedience of Adam imputed unto us wee were made sinners then by the obedience of Christ imputed unto us we are made righteous but the former is true therefore the latter Of this antithesis I am hereafter to speake more at large in the meane time this may suffice to maintaine and justifie our exposition of the word against Bellarmines cavils § II. But here Bellarmine frameth to himselfe a fourefold Objection of Calvin and Chemnitius proving that to justifie is a judiciall word signifying to absolve and to pronounce just Their first reason is because the Apostle opposeth justifying to condemning as Rom. 5. 16. 18. 8. 33. Therefore as God is said to condemne when he doth not acquit a man but pronouncing him guilty deputeth him unto punishment so on the contrary he is said to justifie when hee acquitteth and absolveth a man from guilt and pronouncing him just accepteth of him in Christ as righteous unto eternall life To this Bellarmine shapeth two answeres first That justification is rightly opposed to condemnation but is not therefore alwayes a judiciall word for even condemnation it selfe sometimes is the act of a Iudge appointing him to punishment who in judgement was found guilty and sometimes it is the effect of a fault which hath deserved punishment And so Adam hath condemned us and God condemneth but Adam hath not condemned us by judging us after a judiciall manner but by imprinting in us Originall sinne After the same manner saith hee justification sometimes is the act of a Iudge sometimes the effect of grace And both wayes doth Christ justifie us first as the second Adam by deletion of sinne and infusion of grace secondly in the day of judgment by declaring them just whom before he had made just Reply Iustification in this question and in the places alleaged is considered as an action of God and being referred to God it signifieth not to make just by infusion of righteousnesse but by sentence after the manner of a Iudge to absolve from sinne and to pronounce and accept as righteous as being opposed to condemning which being referred to God signifieth not to make sinfull but by sentence after the manner of a Iudge to pronounce the offendour guilty and to award him punishment But what either justifying or condemning may signifie being referred to other either persons or things it is not materiall so that it be confessed which cannot be denied that justifying being ascribed to God signifieth not to make righteous by infusion no more than condemning being attributed to God signifieth to make wicked by infusion but both are to bee understood as the actions of a judge who either pronouncing a man just absolveth him from guilt or pronouncing him guilty appointeth him to punishment This therefore was an impertinent shift of a subtle sophister having nothing to say to the purpose for whereas he applyeth his distinction of condemning and justifying to the first and second Adam as pertinent to the places alleaged I answer first that neither is considered as the act of the first or second Adam but as Bellarmine confesseth in his second answer as the actions of God the Iudge secondly that although in some sense the first Adam may bee said to have condemned us as the second Adam is truely said Esai 53. 11. to justifie us yet both is to bee understood of the guilt of sinne brought upon us by the one and taken away by the other For as the first Adam by his transgression may be said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have condemned us because hee hath inwrapped us in the guilt of his sinne and so made us guilty of death and obnoxious to the â—…entence of condemnation that transgression of his being imputed us being in him as the root so the second Adam may truely be said to justifie us who are in him both as a surety in taking upon him our guilt and paying our debt for us Esai 53. 11. and also as our intercessour and advocate pleading for us that by imputation of his righteousnesse we may be absolved from our sinnes and accepted as righteous in him § III. His second answer is that although
have said before Christ justifieth not onely as hee is our Iudge but also as our Surety paying our debt and as our Advocate pleading for us The holy Ghost justifieth both as he is the Spirit of regeneration working in us the grace of faith and as the Spirit of adoption by applying unto us the merits of Christ assuring us of our justification and adoption The Ministers of the Gospell justifie as they are also said to forgive sinnes to beget men unto God and to save them ministerially as the Embassadours of Christ whose office it is to reconcile men unto God to preach and to pronounce remission of sinnes to them that beleeve and also instrumentally as the instruments of the holy Ghost to worke in them the grace of faith by which they are justified for faith commeth by hearing Rom. 10. 14 17. and Preachers are said to bee Ministers by whom you beleeve 1 Cor. 3. 5. Sacraments doe justifie as seales of that righteousnesse which is by faith Rom. 4. 11. And as the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments doe justifie ut manus dantis as the hand of God giving and applying Christ and his righteousnesse to the faithfull receiver so faith is manus accipieâ—…tis the hand of the beleever receiving Christ and his righteousnesse unto justification § VII But the second place is in his conceit more cleare viz. Esai 53. 11. where the Lord speaking by his Prophet concerning Christ saith My righteous servant shall by his knowledge justifie many and he shâ—…ll beare their sinnes where the verbe is in Hiphil Iatsdiq which signifieth shall make just Chemnitius indeed saith he goeth about to wrest this place also to the judiciall signification But in vaine for there are foure words which are manifestly repugnant to his interpretation But before wee speake of those foure words let us heare what Chemnitius saith Whereas Andradius saith he wresteth that sentence of Esay to prove that to justifie is to endue the minde with the quality of inherent justice it is great impudencie for there is presently added an exposition how that justification is to be understood because he shall saith Esay beare their iniquities where Chemnitius doth not so much as mention the judiciall signification of the word justifying after the manner of a Iudge but rather signifieth that Christ at his first comming did not justifie the Elect after the manner of a Iudge but as a surety in taking upon himselfe our debt and bearing our iniquities and as a Redeemer paying our ransome and so di charging us from our debt and from our bondage Neither doth it follow that it is not a judiciall word because in that place it signifieth not to justifie as a Iudge for besides the Iudge there are other parties also who doe justifie in a judiciall sense as namely sureties and advocates § VIII Now let us examine those foure words all which serve to prove that Christ in that place is not said to justifie after the manner of a Iudge which no man affirmeth and therefore Bellarmine fighteth with his owne shadow For we doubt not but that Christ may be said to justifie divers wayes first by his doctrine as our Prophet and Teacher in which sense Teachers are said to justifie Dan. 12. 3. secondly as our Priest both by his satisfaction and sacrifice propitiatory as Esai 53. 11. for so he saith and he shall beare their iniquities so Heb. 9. 26 28. and also by his intercession as our Advocate 1 Ioh. 2. 2. Rom. 8. 34. Heb. 9. 24. thirdly by his sentence as our king and judge at the last day Matth. 25. 34. The first word is by his knowledge that is as he expoundeth it out of Hierome by his doctrine Answ. Wee deny not but that Christ by his doctrine did justifie many working in them the grace of faith for even other Teachers who are but his Ministers doe also justifie others as Daniel speaketh not by infusion of righteousnesse but as the instruments of the holy Ghost to beget faith in the hearers or being as Saint Paul speaketh Ministers by whom they doe beleeve and beleeving are justified in the judiciall sense But Esay speaketh not of his doctrine but of his knowledge and that passively understood not for that knowledge whereby he knoweth all things but whereby hee is acknowledged to bee the Messias that is to say faith and so Pagnine Vatablus and Tremellius read scientia sui or agnitione sui that is by faith in him for so is faith often termed as 2 Pet. 1. 2 3. and 1 Tim. 2. 4. c. by which as it is said in this place of Esay hee doth justifie La rabbim that is as Paul speaketh Rom. 5. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the multitude of the Elect who beleeve in him how by bearing their iniquitiâ—…s that is the punishment due for their sinnes his sufferings being imputed to them if therefore justifying by faith doe prove justification by works or by inherent righteousnesse then this word proveth it § IX The second word is ipse justus by which word saith he is signified that Christ doth justifie not onely by teaching but also by just working and by imparting his righteousnesse unto us Answ. Christ his obedience or just working is proper to his person and inherent in him and therefore that righteousnesse which he performed in his owne person being both active and therefore transient and proper to his person and therefore without us cannot be imparted to us otherwise than by imputation To what purpose then doth he urge this word seeing Christ is just in justifying us as well by imputation as by infusion Forsooth to shew that Christ by his obedience and sufferings doth not justifie after the manner of a Iudge which no man affirmeth But what is his reason because it is not required to justifying after a judiciall manner that he who justifieth others should himselfe be just as if he should say it is not required that a Iudge should bee just contrary to that Gen. 18. 25. But God doth justifie us after the judiciall manner as a Iudge through the redemption that is in Christ Iesus and by forgivenesse of sinnes and that to this end to shew forth his justice that hee might bee just and the justifier of him who beleeveth in Iesus Rom. 3. 25 26. But this might better have beene objected against his owne exposition of the former word seeing he who is not just himselfe may by his doctrine justifie others Notwithstanding that which Bellarmine here áffirmeth concerning Christ is most true that it was necessary that he who should justifie others by his obedience should bee just himselfe howbeit he impertinently alleageth Rom. 3. 26. which speaketh of God justifying us not as a Mediator by his obedience but as a Iudge by his sentence But the true reason why the Prophet useth this word is in respect of the words following to signifie that Iesus Christ the righteous was made
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
able to fulfill the Law of God CAP. VI. Our fiftâ—… argument containing foure branches By that wâ—…e are justified by which we are absolved redeemed reconciled and for which wee shall be saved § I. THe fifth argument By what righteousnesse wee are justified by it wee are absolved from our sinnes redeemed from our iniquities reconciled unto God and for it we shall bee saved And againe by what righteousnesse wee are absolved redeemed reconciled and for which wee shall be saved by it we are justified By that righteousnesse which is inherent in our selves wee are not absolved from our sinnes nor redeemed from our iniquities nor reconciled unto God nor for it shall bee saved But by the righteousnesse of Christ which is out of us in him wee are absolved from our sinnes redeemed from our iniquities c. Therefore we are not justified by that righteousnesse which is inherent in our selves but by that righteousnesse which is out of us in Christ. The proposition in both the parts thereof containeth foure branches The first by what righteousnesse we are justified wee are by it absolved from our sinnes and a converso by what righteousnesse we are absolved from our sinnes by that we are justified This is proved from the signification of the word justifie as being a judiciall word opposed to condemnation which I have at large proved before For this doth invincibly demonstrate that by what wee are justified by that wee are acquitted and absolved and by what wee are absolved by that we are justified But more specially it may bee proved out of Act. 13. 38 39. where as I have shewed before not onely the word justification and remission of sinnes are promiscuously used but the phrase also of being justified from sinne signifieth plainely to be absolved from sinne where also the maine question itselfe is concluded Bee it knowne unto you saith S. Paul to his brethren the Iewes who feared God that through Iesus Christ is preached unto you forgivenesse of sinnes And by him all that beleeve are justified from all those things meaning sinnes from which yee could not be justified by the Law of Moses From our sinnes therefore we are justified or absolved by the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended by faith from which we could out be acquitted by any obedience which we could performe to the Law § II. But of this place we are further to speake in defence of Calvins allegation thereof against Bellarmines cavils Calvin prooving that God doth justifie us when hee absolveth us from our sinnes and accepteth of us in Christ alleageth this place Through this man that is Christ is preached unto you remission of sinnes and by him all that beleeve are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses You see saith Calvin that justification is here set after remission of sinnes by way of interpretation r you see plainely that it is taken for absolution you see that it is denied to the workes of the Law you see it is meerely the benefit of Christ you see that it is received by faith and finally you see that there is a satisfaction interposed where hee saith that through Christ wee are justified from our sinnes Bellarmine pretending to answere this argument relateth it thus as if Calvin had said First By this man that is by Christ we are justified and not by any vertues or qualities of ours Secondly is preached that signifyeth that the very preaching or declaring of the promise if it bee apprehended by faith doth justifie for so the Apostle presently expoundeth himselfe by him every one that beleeveth is justified Thirdly forgivenesse of sinnes that signifieth that justification consisteth in nothing else but in remission of sinnes wherefore tâ—…e inward renovation is not the other part of justication for that renovation is not so much justificaâ—…ion as an effect thereof And lastly these words from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses doe signifie that justification doth not consist in the observation of the Law but onely as hath beene said in remission of sinnes for or through the righteousnesse of Christ imputed Thus as you see hee maketh Calvin speake what hee pleaseth But because the things which he inforceth in Calvins name upon this place be for the most part our assertions it shall not bee amisse to weigh the answeres which he maketh to them And first where it is said per hunc by this man hee saith this doth not exclude our vertues or qualities infused of God For by Christ wee are justified as the efficient which is signified by the preposition per by vertues and qualities infused as the formall cause Now if Christ or his righteousnesse bee the efficient cause then it cannot be the formall cause for the forme is the effect of the efficient nor can the same thing be the cause and effect of the same thing Neither may they say as they are wont that this is a mystery of faith that reason cannot attaine unto For mysteries though they surmount reason yet are notrepugnant to reason Neither ought we to faine mysteries as the Papists use to doe where the Scriptures have an easie and perspicuous meaning Râ—…ply This were a good caveat to the papists As for us we faineno such mysteries neither doe we say that Christ or his righteousnesse is both the efficient and formall cause of our justification But this we say that the righteousnesse of Christ is both the matter of our justification and also the merit both of our justification and salvation and that Christ himselfe as he is Mediatour is the secondary efficient of our justification affording unto it both the matter thereof and the merit § IV. That word is preached doth not signifie saith hee that by the onely preaching of Scriptures apprehended by faith men are justified For then Peter would not have said Act. 2. 38. Doe peâ—…ance and bee every one of you baptized for remission of sinnes But it signifieth that remission of sinnes is preached to all that beleeve in Christ as they ought that is in doing whatsoever he commaâ—…deth to be done according to that Mat. 28. 20. teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you In this sence every one that bâ—…leeveth is justified that is whosoever beleeveth as he ought namely by fulfilling all things which faith doth declare ought to be fulfilled For not he that beleeveth a Physician though he be never so skilfull and one that infallibly curâ—…th is healed unlesse he receive such medicines as hee doth appoint Reply Wee doe not say that preaching alone apprehended by faith doth justifie but wee say that a true and a lively faith which is begotten by the preaching of the Word doth justifie a man before God and that wicked is that aphorisine collected out of Bellarmine that by the preaching of the Word of God faith is stirred up and so sinnes are forgiven is a
according to the perfection of it and as it is in it selfe considered in the abstract Otherwise we acknowledge degrees of assurance And if any of our Divines have held the speciall faith to be the onely justifying faith they are to be understood as speaking of justification in the court of conscience and as judging them onely to be justified and to have remission of sinnes who are in their owne consciences perswaded and in some measure assured thereof But besides and before the speciall faith whereby wee are justified in our owne conscience applying the promise of the Gospell to our selves a formall degree of faith is to bee acknowledged being the condition of the Evangelicall promises by which we aprehend receive and embrace Christ as hath been shewed and by which we are justified before God This degree of faith in order of nature goeth before repentance though in time repentance seemeth to goe before faith as being sooner discerned But in order of nature as well as of time repentance goeth before speciall faith Because no man can be assured of Gods favour in remitting his sinnes who hath not repented thereof CAP. XII Of foure other dispositions viz. love penitencie a purpose and desire to receive the Sacrament the purpose of a new life § I. HIs fourth disposition is Love for so soone as a man doth hope for a benefit from another as namely justificacation from God hee beginneth to love him from whom hee doth expect it In which words there is some shew that hope disposeth to love but that love doth dispose to justification not so much as a shew But that some love goeth before justification and disposeth thereto he endeavoureth to prove which if he could performe were to little purpose â—…or so long as this love doth not justifie his assertion doth not disprove justification by faith alone but indeed he proveth it not though to that purpose hee produceth besides foure testimonies of Scripture the authority of the Councell of Aurenge His first testimony is a supposititious senrence of an Apocryphall Booke For neither is the sentence in the originall Greeke nor the Booke canonicall neither is the sentence it selfe to the purpose Yee that feare the Lord love him and your hearts shall be he doth not say justified but enlightened that is as Iansenius expoundeth comforted For they that feare God and love him are already justified by faith from which both feare and love doe spring § II. His second testimony Luk. 7. 47. Many sinnes are forgiven her because she loved much therefore love is the cause of forgivenesse I answer by denying the consequence For here in the Papists are many times grossely mistaken who thinke that in every aetiologie the reason which is rendred is a cause so properly called when as indeed it may be any other argument or reason as well as the cause For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the cause in a large sense doth not onely fignifie that which causeth the effect which properly is called the cause of a thing or action but also any reason which proveth the thing propounded which is a cause 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not of the action or thing it selfe but of the reasoning or conclusion or as wee use to say consâ—…quentiae non consequentis of the consequence not of the consequent Thus it is called the fallacie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non causa pro causa when that is brought for any argument which it is not So the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is traÌ„slated redditio causae is the rendring of any reason from any argument whatsoever For in any syllogism that which is the medium though it bee the effect of the thing is the cause of the conclusion because it is the reason which proveth it and in this sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for which cause and wherefore is all one Thus the Papists prove Christs humiliation to have beene the cause of his exaltation as wee heard before because â—…he Apostle saith therefore God exalted him c thus they prove the workes of mercie to bee the cause of salvation because our Saiour saith for I was hungry c so here that love is the cause of forgivenesse because it is said for she loved much when indeed our Saviour argueth not from the cause to the effect but from the effect to the cause as is most evident First by the parable of a creditour who having two debtors whereof the one owed him five hundred pence the other fiftie and neither of them having any thing to pay he freely forgave them both their debt Our Saviour therâ—…fore demanding of the Pharisee who had invited him which of these debtours would love the creditour most the Pharisee truely answered I suppose he to whom he forgave most which answer approved by our Saviour plainely proveth that love was not the cause of forgivenesse but forgivenesse of love and the forgiveing of more the cause of greater love and the forgivenesse of lesse the cause of lesse love and consequently that the greater love was not the cause of greater forgivenesse but the effect of it This parable our Saviour applying to the Pharisee that invited him as the lesse debtour and to the woman which had been a notorious sinner as the greater debtor to both which he had forgiven their debts they having nothing to pay sheweth that her greaâ—…er love was an evidence of her greater debt forgiven Secondly by the antithesis in the same verse but to whom little is forgiven hee loveth but a little It is therefore plaine that the forgivenesse is the cause of love and the forgiving of more of more love and the forgiving of lesse of lesse love And as lesse love is a token of the lesse debt forgiven so greater love of more forgiven hee speaketh therefore of her love not as the cause going before but as the effect following after justification § III. And such is Bellarmines argument out of 1 Ioh. 3. 14. we are translated from death to life that is we are justified because we love the brethren therefore the love of the brethren is the cause of justification I deny the consequence the love of the brethren is not the cause but the fruit of our justification whereby it may be knowne And this appeareth manifestly out of these words which Bellarmine hath fraudulently omitted Nos scimus quia translati sumus c. wee know that wee are translated from death to life because wee love the brethren Our loue then is not the cause of justification but a manifest signe and evidence whereby it is knowne that we are already justified for so he saith speaking in the time past 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that we are already passed or translated from death to life And to the like effect our Saviour speaketh Luk. 7. 47. as if hee had said hereby it appeareth that many sinnes are forgiven her because shee loved much But that it was not her love
But saith he it is one thing to say according to workes whereby the quality onely is noted good or bad another for the workes themselves which noteth merit But the Scripture no where saith that God doth reward the godly prâ—…pter opera sua but thus it speaketh To thee Lord mercie for thou rewardest every man that is every good man according to his work you see then that the objeâ—…tion made against Gregories assertion or rather Davids is Bellarmines the answer which Gregory maketh is ours Yea but Hierome saith Bellarmine who was most skilfull in the three languages doth use to translate that which in the Hebrew and Greeke is according to workes by the word merit saying according to the merit of their workes Answ. If he did so that would not prove the use of the name merit in the Scriptures but indeed he doth â—…ot so for usually hee rendreth secundum opera according to their workes Indeed Latine interpreters of latter times in the Church of Rome being poisoned with the Popish doctrine of merits are very forward as might be shewed at large to â—…oist in the word merit into their translations where the originall which they translate hath no such thing an instance whereof I will hereafter give in the translatour of Ignatius The vulgar Latine is more sparing howsoever Gen. 4. 13. it rendreth the words of Caines complaint thus Major est iniquitas mea quam â—…t veniam merear My sinne is greater than I can merit that is according to the ordinary use among the Latines obtaine pardon for it cannot without great absurdity bee understood of merit properly Howbeit the words are rather thus to bee rendred my punishment is greater than I am able to beare which interpretation is proved by those reasons which Cain useth in that place to aggravate not his sinne but his punishment Besides that place the verbe mereri is used but eight times in the Latine Bible and alwaies in sense the worse viz. deserving punishment and that is the proper sense for sinnes are properly merits of punishment and therefore to merit punishment is properly attributed to them The Nowne merit is used but thrice and that onely in the Booke of Ecclesiasticus that is to say besides this place in two others where it signifieth not merit of reward but worth or dignity as namely of the soule chap. 10 31. Of the men chap. 38. 18. So that the name merit taken in the popish sense for a good worke deserving the reward of eternall life hath no warrant at all not so much as in the Latine vulgar translation and much lesse in the originall Scriptures themselves § II. His second testimony is Heb. 13. 16. to doe good and to communicate forget not talibus enim hostâ—…is promeretur Deus for with such hosts say our Rhemists God is promerited The Greeke word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unaptly and barbarously translated promeretur when as it properly signifieth is well pleased and the meaning is that such sacrifices are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 well pleasing or acceptable unto God Oecumenius expoundeth it by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is pleased But not all â—…hings that please God doe merit of him Servants must bee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 well pleasing to their Masters Tit. 2. 6 and doe that which is pleasing in their sight who notwithstanding cannot merit any thing at their hands So all our obedience in doâ—…ing that will of God which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acceptable is pleasing to God and wee our selves in so doing are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acceptable to God but when wee have done all things that wee can wee cannot merit so much as thankes but must confesse our selves to bee unprofitable servants in doing but that which was our duety to doe Luk. 17. 10. Here therefore nothing but a barbarous translation is alleaged to prove that which is not in the originall â—…text Bellarmine though hee cannot deny it to bee barbarous yet he saith it is a very fit translation for most properly we say in Latine that one man doth merit of another and oblige him to him to himselfe whâ—… doth any thing whereby another is pleased or delighted I answere first that who so doth merit of another doth also please him but not whosoever doth that which is pleasing unto another doth also merit of him as I said before of servants Secondly there is great disparity between God and man One man may merit of another or oblige or make him beholding unto him It is therefore a strange conceit of Bellarmine because one man may merit of another by doing him a pleasure that therfore a man may mâ—…rit of God or oblige him unto him By doing good we profit our selves and others but we cannot profit God our goodnes reacheth not to him Psal. 16. 2. Can a man bee profitable unto God saith Eliphaz is it any pleasure to the Almighty that thou art righteous or is it gaine to him that thou makest thy way perfect Iob. 22. 2 3. and so Elihu Iob. 35. 7 8. This translation therefore as it is barbarous so it is impious in making God beholden unto us Yea but saith Bellarmine this word being joyned with that of sacrifices doth not onely signifie that God is delighted with good workes but that his favour is procured and hee induced to reward them that doe well Answer The Apostle doth not say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God is made propitious or as Bellarmine alleaging out of Latine Chrysostome placatur where the Greeke is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in the text of the Apostle For the sacrifice of Christ alone by it selfe is propitiatory the sacrifices of the Law onely as they were types of it As for the spirituall sacrifices whereof the Apostle speaketh they are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 propitiatory but onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 acceptable and well pleasing in Christ as being perfumed with the odours of his sacrifice This therefore was but a poore and indeed a base shift which Bellarmine was put to who finding no releefe in the originall text of the Scripture is faine to flee unto corrupt translations as he doth not only in these two places already alleaged but also in that allegation of Chrysostome for placatur and as afterwards wee shall see in citing Ignatius and other Greeke Fathers § III. And this is all the footing that the name merit hath in the Scriptures For though Bellarmine adde two other arguments yet they belong not to the name but to the thing So that here Bellarmine might have begun his third Chapter with this transition sed ut ad rem ipsam veniamus Having spoken of the name let us come to the thing For his other two arguments the one from the word Dignity the other from the name reward used in the Scriptures doe not prove the use of the of the name merit in the holy Scriptures but serve in his conceit to prove the thing and