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
in everlasting righteousnesse Dan. 9. 24. § VII Inst. III. If we bee justified by Christ his fulfilling of the Law then wee are justified by a legall righteousnesse but wee are not justified by a legall justice but by such a righteousnesse as without the Law is revealed in the Gospell Answ. The same righteousnesse by which we are justified is both legall and Evangelicall in divers respects Legall in respect of Christ who being made under the Law that hee might redeeme us who were under the Law perfectly fulfilled the Law for us Evangelicall in respect of us unto whom his fulfilling of the Law is imputed And herein standeth the maine both agreement and difference betweene the Law and the Gospell The agreement that both unto justification require the perfect fulfilling of the Law the difference that the Law requireth to justification perfect obedience to be performed in our owne persons The Gospell propoundeth to justification the righteousnesse of God that is the perfect righteousnesse of Christ who is God performed for us and accepted in the behalfe of them that beleeve as if it had been performed in their own persons § VIII Our second reason As by the disobedience of the first Adam by which he transgressed the Law men were made sinners his disobedience being imputed to them so by the obedience of the second Adam whereby hee fulfilled the Law men are made righteous his obedience being imputed to them In answer to this argument two novelties are broached the former that as wee were made sinners by one act of disobedience committed by one man and that but once so we are justified by one act of obedience performed by one and that but once which was that oblation of Christ whereby hee but once offered himselfe Whereunto I reply first that betweene sinne whereby the Law is broken and obedience whereby the Law is fulfilled there is great ods The Law is broken by any one act of sinne for hee that offendeth in any one is guilty of all But the Law is not fulfilled by any one act of obedience but by a totall perfect and perpetuall observation of the Law for by the sentence of the Law hee is accursed whosoever doth not continue in all the things which are written in the booke of the Law to doe them But in no one act of obedience there neither is nor can bee a continuance in doing all the things that are commanded Secondly that although the obedience by which we are justified was but of one man yet it was not one act but as the Apostle calleth it in the verse going before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all that the Law requireth to justification The second Novelty is that neither Adam in sinning transgressed the Law nor our Saviour in his obedience to death obeyed the Law For neitheâ—… the commandement given to the first Adam concerning the forbidden fruit nor the commandement given to the second Adam concerning his suffering of death for us was any commandement of the Law no more than the commandement given to Abraham for the sacrificing of his sonne or to the Israelites for the spoiling of the Aegyptians but a speciall commandement Whereto I reply that although every thing which God commandeth in particular be not expressed in the Law yet wee have a generall commandement expressed in the Law that whatsoever God commandeth we must doe and if we doe it not we sinne and every sinne is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a transgression of the Law § IX Our third reason If Christ by his conformity to the Law fulfilled the Law for us then his obedience in fulfilling of the Law is accepted of God in our behalfe as if wee had fulfilled it in our owne persons but Christ by his conformity to the Law fulfilled the Law for us therefore his obedience in fulfilling of the Law is accepted of God in our behalfe as if wee had fulfilled it in our owne persons that is to say both his habituall and actuall righteousnesse is imputed to us The consequence of the proposition is necessary for if hee performed obedience for us and in our behalfe he performed it in vaine if it be not accepted for us and in our behalfe The assumption also is of necessary truth for first that Christ did fulfill the Law it is evident for himselfe professeth that he came to fulfill the Law Matth. 5. 17. that it became him to fulfill all righteousnesse Matth. 3. 15. that he did alwayes those things which please God Ioh. 8. 29. and the Scripture testifieth that not for himselfe but for us hee fulfilled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whatsoever the Law requireth to justification that his whole life was a perpetuall course of obedience 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even untill his death which he performed not for himselfe for as hee was incarnate not for himselfe but for us men and for our salvation for it was the exinanition of himselfe so being incarnate he sanctificed himselfe for us and was made under the Law not for himselfe for that was a farther degree of humiliation that being man hee humbled himselfe to bee obedient even untill his death and therein also humbled himselfe to undergoe the death of the crosse The Apostle Rom. 10. 4. teacheth that Christ is thâ—… end that is the perfection 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Greeke Fathers speake that is complement of the Law to all that beleeve unto righteousnesse that is that hee hath fulfilled the Law for all beleevers in so much that all who truely beleeve have in Christ fulfilled the Law Upon which place Remigius writing saith Christus finâ—…â—…gis in completio legis Christ the end of the Law that is the fulfilling of the Law Theodoret. He that beleeveth in our Lord Christ hee hath fulfilled the scope of the Law and what that is Chrysostome sheweth For saith hee What did the Law intend To make a man just but it was not able for never any fulfilled it but this end our Saviour Christ hath more amply accomplished through faith if therefore thou beleevest in Christ thâ—… hast not onely fulfilled the Law but much more than it commanded for thou hast received a farre greater righteousnesse and what can that be but the righteousnesse of Christ And Photias whosoever therefore saith the Apostle beleeveth in Christ hee fulfilleth the Law Sedulius likewise hee hath the perfection of the Law who beleeveth in Christ. This therefore doth plainely prove that Christs obedience in fulfilling the Law is imputed to all that beleeve unto righteousnesse as if themselves had fulfilled it And this is the conceived doctrine of the Church of England that Christ satisfied the justice of God and redeemed us not onely by the oblation of his body and shedding of his blood but also by the full and perfect fulfilling of the
2 3. â—… ad 8. As bee was justified so are we lib. 5. cap. 2. § 6. Adam Whether his sinne bee imputed lib. 4. cap. 10. § 1 2. Whether originall sinne bee traduced from â—…im l. 4. c. 10. § 3. Whether the transgression and the corruption bee communicated after the same manner ibid. § 4. The comparison betweene the first and the second Adam ibid. § 5. Adoption That it is true lib. 4. cap. 10. § 18. Such as is our adoption such is our justification ibid. § 19. Adoption according to Bellarmiâ—…es 〈◊〉 is twofold of the soulâ—… and of the body ibid. § 20. No reall change in adoption but it is relative and imputative ibid. § 21. Affiance Whether it be faith lib. 6. cap. 4. § 9. 11. Assent It being firâ—…e lively and effectuall is faith l. 6. c. 1. 2. § c. 4. § 10. B Bellarmine His contradictions l. 3. c. 4. § 3. â—… 3. l. 4. c. 2. § 5. ad literam o l. 4. c. 9. § 7. l. 4. c. 10. § 1 2. l 5. c. 6. § 7. l. 5 c. 8. § 2. in fine l. 6. c. 3. § 7. â—… 6. c. 8. § 7. â—… 4. l. 6. c 9. sub finem ad literam * l. 6. c. 10. § 11 l. 6. c. 15. § 10. l. 8. c. 2. § 11. l. 8. c. 9. § 3. â—… 2. § 4. C Causall particles Not alwayes nor for the most part notes of causes l. 8. c. 5. § 14. 16. 17. Cause The Causes of iustification l. 1. c. 2. The Causes efficient principall God l. 1. c. 2. § 1. The Father § 4. the Sonne the holy Ghost ibid. The moving Causes l. 1. c. 2. § 2. The instrumentall Causes lib. 1. c. 2. § 5. c. The essentiall Causes l. 1. c. 3. The matter lib. 1. cap. 3. 1 c. ad 7. l. 4. The forme lib. 1. cap. 3. § 7 c. l. 5. The finall cause lib. 1. cap. 6. § 1 2 3 4. Charity That it doth not justifie as well as faith l. 4. c. 11. § 2 c. That it is not the forme of â—…aith lib. 4. cap. 11. § 5. Whether perfect in this life l. 5. cap. 7. CHRIST The mericorious cause of justification l. 1. â—… 2. § 4. Whether hee obeyed the Law for himselfe or for us l. 1. c. 4. § 10. Whether he merited for himselfe lib. 1. c. 4. § 11. Christs exaltation Phil. 2. 9. was his declaration to be the Sonne of God lib. 1. c. 4. § 11. 12. How many wayes hee is said to justifie us lib. 2. c 5. § 8. The righteousnesse of Christ is Gods righteousnesse l. 4. c. 2 § 2 3 4. Christs rightâ—…ousnesse the materiâ—…ll cause of justification l. 1. c. 3 4. vide Materiall and Matter Christs righteousnesse both the matter and merit of our iustification lib. 1. cap. 3. § 1. Concupiscence In the regenerate a sinne lib. 2. cap. 8. § 7 8. 9. lib. 4. cap. 4. § 12. lib. 7. cap. 6. § 14. Concupiscence going before consent a finnenne lib. 2. c. 8 9. Counsells The Counsell of voluntary poverty l. 7. c. 7. § 4. The counsell of single life lib. 7. cap. 7. § 5 6. D David Not iustified by inherent righteousnesse lib. 4. c. 8. § 15. Definition Of Iustification lib. 1. cap. 1. § 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 2. cap. 2. § 1 2. The signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 3. The signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 4. The signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 5. The signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 6. Dispositions Seven alleaged by Bellarmine to disprove justification by faith alone lib. 6. cap. 10 11 12. Whether any dispositioâ—…s bee indeed required by the Papists lib. 6. c. 10. § 4. Whether faith hope love as they bee dispositions bee graces lib. 6. cap. 12. § 6 7. E Efficient The efficient principall of justification God lib. 1. c. 2. § 1. The motives grace and iustice ib. § 2. The actions of the Father the Sonne the holy Ghost distinguâ—…shed ibid. § 4. End The end or fiâ—…ll cause of iustification both supreme the glory of God lib. 1. c. 6. § 1. and also subordinate viz. salvation § 2. certainety of salvation § 2. sanctification § 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How to be understood Gal. 5. 6. l. 4. c. 11. § 3. 4. F Faith The instrument on oâ—…r 〈◊〉 of iustification lib. 1. cap. 2. § 7. Concerning it seven things considered 1. Thâ—… it iustifieth not as it is an habit or act in us but as the hand to receive Christs righteousnesse ibid. lib. 1. cap. 5. § 12. 2. It must therefore be such a faith as doth specially apprehend Christ. lib. 1. cap. 2. § 8. 3. It doth not prepare onely and dispose to iustification but it doth actually iustifie § 9. l. 6. c. 7. § 1 2. 4. It doth not iustifiâ—… absolutely in respect of its ownâ—… worth but relatively in respect of the object § 10. 5. The meaning of the question whether we be justified by faith or by workes § 11. 6. How faith is said to iustifie alone § 12. 7. That faith doth not sanctifie alone § 12. Whether the act of faith properly be imputed â—…torighteousnesse l. 1. cap. 2. § 7. cap. 5. § 12. That charity is not the formâ—… of faith l. 4. cap. 11. § 5. Of the distinction of saith that it is either formata or informis § 6. That faith is perfect Bellarmine produceth sixe reasons which are answered l. 5. c. 6. The full discourse of faith l. 6. The Popish 〈◊〉 concerning faith l. 6. c. 1. § 1. What faith is cap. 1. § 2. That it is not without knowledge § 3. against implicite faith lib. 6. cap. 1. § 3. c. The doctrine of implicit faith both falsâ—… for many reasons § 4. and absurd in that they say it may better bee defined by ignorance than by knowledge § 5. Bellarm. allegations out of the Scriptures for implicite faith § 6 of Fathers § 7. Testimonies of Fathers against it § 13. Bellarmines reason § 14. The doctrine of implicite faith wicked as being an egregious coozâ—…nage § 15 16 17. and pernicious to the people § 18. True justifying â—…aith cannot be severed from charity lib. 6. cap. 2. Our reasons I. Because hee that hath true faith is regenerate § 1. II. Because hee hath the Spirit of Christ dwelling in him § 2. III. Because hee is sanctified â—… 3. IV. Because hee is the true Disciple of Christ. § 4. V. Because true faith worketh by charity ibid. VI. Because true faith is formata ibid. VII Because if it be without charity it doth not iustifie VIII Because they who love not know not God ibid. 7. Other arguments out of Iames 2. § 5. 6. Other arguments defended against Bellarmine § 6. c. Testimonies of Fathers lib. 6. cap. 2. § 12. Bellarmines proofes that
a man is justified without justice is as absurd as to conceive that a man is cloathed without apparell For they that are justified are clothed with righteousnesse as having put on Christ whose righteousnesse is their wedding garment signified by that white and shining linnen which are the justifications of the Saints But there is no perfect righteousnesse but that which fulfilleth the Law and is fully conformable unto it it being the perfect perpetuall and immutable rule of righteousnesse Matth. 5. 18. therefore without the fulfilling of the Law either by our selves or by another for us there is no justification Now to the full satisfying and fulfilling of the Law since the fall of Adam two things are required not onely a perfect and perpetuall conformity to the Law to satisfie the commandement and to fulfill the condition of the legall promise Doe this and live but also a full satisfaction to the sentence of the Law by bearing the penalty therein denounced in regard of sinnes already committed Againe faith or the true doctrine of justification by faith doth not abrogate the Law but establish it But if it should teach justification without Christs fulfilling of the Law for us it should abrogate the Law and not establish it § III. Of the assumption there are two parts the former affirmative that by the whole righteousnesse of Christ the Law is fully satisfied and fulfilled for by his sufferings the penalty of the Law is fully satisfied for us to free us from hell and by his righteousnes both habâ—…tuall and actuall the commandements were fulfilled for us to entitle us unto heaven Neither of which we were able to performe for our selves for neither could wee satisfie the penalty but by everlasting punishment neither could wee fulfill the commandement but by a totall perfect and perpetuall obedience which to us by reason of the flesh is unpossible And this was the miserable estate wherein the Law did hold us both to bee accursed if but once and that in the least degree wee did breake it which the best of us often doe and sometimes in an high degree and to be excluded from justification and salvation if wee did not fully and perfectly fulfill it which since the fall hath beene impossible Wherefore as without imputation of Christs sufferings we could not bee freed from hell so without his obedience and perfect conformity to the Law imputed unto us wee cannot be justified or saved By the former our blessed Saviour hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law himselfe being made a curse for us by the latter hee maketh us partakers of the promised blessednesse by performing for us that righteousnesse which was the condition of the promise Doe this and live The negative part is that by the onely passive righteousnesse of Christ the Law is not fulfilled The Law indeed is thereby fully satisfied in our behalfe for the avoiding of the penalty therein threatned but not fulfilled in respect of the commandement for the obtaining of the blessednesse therein promised For the righteousnesse which is of the Law is thus described that the man which doth those things which are commanded shall live therein § IIII. Against this assumption divers exceptions are taken First that the Law is satisfied either by doing that which is commanded or by bearing the punishment which is threatned Answ. It is true in respect of the penall statutes of men but not in respect of Gods commandements in which there is not onely a penalty threatned but blessednesse also promised If man had continued in his integrity the Law might have beene satisfied by obedience onely but being fallen into a state of disobedience two things are necessarily required to the fulfilling of the Law the bearing of the penalty in respect of sinne already committed to escape hell and the perfect performing of the commandements which is the condition of the covenant Doe this and live to attaine to the life promised but neither alone will suffice to justification For neither will our obedience satisfie for the punishment as Bellarmine confesseth nor the bearing of the punishment performe the condition of the promise But both must concurre § V. Inst. I. But it will be said that whosoever are freed from hell are also admitted into heaven Answ. The reason thereof is because our Saviour who did beare the punishment to free them from hell did also fulfill the commandements to bring them to heaven But howsoever these two benefits of Christ doe alwayes concurre in the party justified as the causes thereof concurre in Christ who not onely did both obey and suffer but in obeying suffered and in suffering obeyed yet both the causes betweene themselves and the effects are to be distinguished For as it is one thing to obey the commandement another to suffer the punishment so it is one thing to be freed from hell by Christ his suffering the penalty another to be entituled to heaven by his fulfilling the commandements § VI. Inst. II. Yea but God is a most free Agent and therefore may if he will justifie men by the passive righteousnesse of Christ onely without fulfilling of the Law Answ. What God may doe if hee will I will not dispute but â—…ure I am that he justifieth men according to his will revealed in his word Wherein it is revealed first that God hath taken that course for the justifying and saving of sinners as serveth most for the illustration of the glory of his justice as well as of his mercy And therefore as in mercy he freeth none from hell for whom his justice is not satisfied so in mercy hee admitteth none to heaven for whom Christ hath not by his obedience merited the fame Secondly it is revealed that the judgement of God is according to the truth and therefore he justifieth none by his sentence but such as hee maketh just by imputation of Christs righteousnesse thereby not onely absolving them from their sinnes but also accepting yea constituting them righteous in CHRIST Thirdly that as wee are justified from our sinnes by the blood of Christ so we are made just by his obedience that as he was made finne for us so we were made the righteousnesse of God in him that as wee are reconciled unto God by the death of his Sonne so wee are justified and saved by his life by his life I say which he lived before his death in the dayes of his flesh and by the life which he lived and doth live after his death By the acts of his life before his death meritoriously by the acts of his life after his death as his resurrection his ascension his session at the right hand of his Father and intercession his comming againe to judgement hee saveth us effectually that Christ as hee was made unto us redemption so also righteousnesse that as hee came to deliver us from sinne so to bring
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
and therefore is not that righteousnesse which is imputed Thus therefore I argue By what we have remission of sinne by that wee are justified and by what we are justified that is our righteousnesse by the bloud of Christ we have remission of sinne and not by that righteousnesse which is purchased by his blood viz. remission of sinne for that to say were very ridiculous Wherefore by the blood of Christ we are justified and consequently that with the resâ—… of his obedience is our righteousnesse § VII To the fifth I answer that the meritorious obedience of Christ both active and passive are the merits of Christ. If therefore the merit of Christ be imputed then his meritorious obedience Neither can the merit of Christs obedience be imputed to us unlesse the obedience it selfe be imputed and by imputation accepted of God for us as performed by our selves For as the guilt of Adams transgression could not be imputed to us unlesse the transgression it selfe were first imputed and made ours by imputation whereof wee are made sinners that is guilty of his sinne unto condemnation so the merit of Christs obedience cannot bee imputed unlesse the obedience it selfe be imputed and made ours by imputation whereof we are freed from the guilt of sinne and damnation and are accepted as righteous and as heires of eternall life And as it may truely be said of them to whom Adams disobedience is imputed that they sinned in Adam so of them to whom Christs obedience is imputed it may no lesse truely be said that in Christ they have satisfied the justice of God in Christ they have fulfilled the Law the Lord accepting of the obedience of Christ in their behalfe as if they had performed it in their owne persons For Christ is the end the perfection and complement of the Law to all that beleeve So that whosoever truely beleeveth in Christ hath in him fulfilled the Law as the Greeke expositors expound that place Rom. 10. 4. § VIII But say they we were not so in Christ when he obeied as we were in Adam when he sinned Neither are wee members of Christ untill we actually beleeve And therefore neither could we be said to have satisfied the justice of God for our sinnes nor to have fulfilled the Law in him as we are truely said to have sinned in Adam Or if it could be said that in Christ we satisfied Gods justice for our sinnes then should we need no pardon Neither can punishment and pardon stand together if wee have borne the punishment then are we not pardoned Aâ—…sw The first Adam was a type of the second and both were heads and roots of mankinde Adam of those that shall bee condemned Christ of those that shall be saved For as in Adam all dye that dye eternally so in Christ all live that live eternally And as in Adam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is all that shall be condemned were constituted sinners his disobedience being imputed to them because in him they sinned so in Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that shall be saved shall be constituted just his obedience being imputed to them because in him as their head they have satisfied and fulfilled the Law Neither are wee more truely derived from Adam in respect of the life naturall than wee are from Christ in respect of the life spirituall Therefore if Adams disobedience were imputed to condemnation much more Christs obedience is imputed unto justification of life as the Apostle argueth Rom. 5. and from thence Bernard Cur non aliunde justitia cum aliunde reatus alius qui peccatorem constituit alius qui justificat à peccato Alter in semine alter in sanguine An peccatum in semine peccatoris non justitia in Christi sanguine § IX Yea but then say they when Christ obeyed we were not his members No more say I were we the branches of the first Adam when he disobeied Actually we are neither branches of the first Adam untill we partake the humane nature by generation nor members of the second Adam untill we be made partakers of the Divine nature by regeneration and yet it is most true which Bernard avoucheth in the place even now cited satisfecit ergo Caput pro membris c. the head therefore satisfied for his members c. § X. Yea but our faith relyeth upon Christ as having already redeemed us Ans. Christ is the Lambe of God slaine from the beginning of the world The vertue of whose obedience is extended not onely to them that come after Christ but also to all the faithfull that went before from the beginning of the world who were members of Christ as much as we are now And for them as well as for us Christ obeyed the Law and suffered death and to them so many as beleeved was the obedience of Christ imputed as well as to us They all did eate the same spirituall meat and did all drinke the same spirituall drinke For they dranke of that spirituall Rocke which followed and that Rocke was Christ. § XI But if in Christ say they we satisfied the punishment then we need no pardon Answ. When wee say that in Christ wee satisfied and fulfilled the Law our meaning is that his satisfaction and obedience is imputed to us that is it is accepted of God in our behalfe as if wee had performed the same in our owne persons Neither should it seeme strange that satisfaction and pardon may stand together seeing God pardoneth no sinne for which his justice is not satisfied But it is Christ that satisfied bare the punishment and we are they who are pardoned by imputation of his satisfaction unto us Here therefore especially mercy and justice met together justice executed upon Christs mercy exhibited to us who are justified by the grace of God freely in respect of us through the redemption that is in Christ Iesus and therfore not freely in respect of him who paid so great a price For him God set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his bloud to declare his righteousnesse for the remission of sinnes c. But that the righteousnesse of Christ is the onely thing which properly is imputed to justification I have at large disputed Lib. 4. 5. § XII The sixth I have already refuted Lib. 1. Cap. 2. § 7. Whereunto I now adde that these men confessing the truth with us that faith is the instrumentall cause of justification confute themselves For if it be the instrument to receive that which is imputed then is it not the thing it selfe which is imputed properly though relatively it may in respect of the object which it as the instrument or hand doth receive to justification and that is the righteousnesse of Christ. And for this cause as hereafter shall bee declared the same benefits which wee have from Christ properly are attributed to faith not absolutely
because the hebrew word which signifieth to justifie doth never signifie to make righteous by infusion of righteousnesse § I. HAving thus briefely set downe the true Doctrine of Iustification according to the Word of God we are now to confute the erroneous doctrine of of the Papists There are six maine and capitall errours which the Papists most obstinately hold and maintaine concerning justification and consequently so many principall heads of controversie betweene us whereunto divers other particular questions are to be reduced The first concerning the name whether justification and sanctification are to bee confounded The second concerning the moving cause which is the justifying and saving Grace of God which they call gratia gratum faciens The third concerning the matter of justification The fourth concerning the forme The fifth concerning the instrumentall cause which is Faith The sixth concerning the fruits of faith and consequents of justification which are good workes concerning which are two maine questions First whether they doe justifie a man before God Secondly whether they doe merit Eternall Life § II. The first capitall errour of the Papists is that they confound justification and sanctification and by confounding of them and of two benefits making but one they utterly abolish as shall be shewed the benefit of justification which notwithstanding is the principall benefit which we have by Christ in this life by which wee are freed from hell and entituled to the Kingdome of Heaven And this they doe in two respects for first they hold that to justifie in this question signifieth to make righteous by righteousnesse inherent or by infusion of righteousnesse that is to sanctifie Secondly they make remission of sinne not to be the pardoning and forgiving of sinne but the utter deletion or expulsion of sinne by infusion of righteousnèsse Thus they make justification wholly to consist in the parts of sanctification For whereas Sanctification is partly privative which is the taking away of sinne which we according to the Scriptures call mortification and partly positive which we call vivification and is partly inward or habituall consisting in the habits of Grace infused and partly actuall which is our new obedience and practice of good workes all these and onely these they make to concurre to justification which with them is partly privative which they call remission of sinne whereby they understand the utter deletion or extinction of sinne wrought by infusion of perfect righteousnesse which is an higher degree of mortification than we can attaine unto in this life and partly positive and that either habituall which they call their first justification wherein a man of a sinner is made righteous by infusion of the habits of Grace which is indeed regeneration and partly actuall which they call their second justification wherein a righteous man is made more just by the practice of good works whereby they merit not onely the increase of righteousnesse but also the Crowne of Eternall Life § III. Of this first controversie therefore are two questions First whether to justifie doth signifie to make righteous by infusion of righteousnesse which is to sanctifie Secondly whether remission of sinne be the utter deletion and abolition of sinne by infusion of righteousnesse In both the Papists hold the affirmative The former which is a most pernicious errour they ground upon the like notation of the Latine words to justifie and to sanctifie That as to sanctifie is to make holy by holinesse inherent so to justifie is to make just by infusion of righteousnesse But though the notation of the Latine words were to be respected yet no more could be inforced from thence but that to justifie is to make just And that is all which Bellarmine goeth about to prove Now God maketh men just two wayes by imputation as he justifieth by infusion as he sanctifieth them For if a man may bee made just not only inwardly by obtaining righteousnesse but also outwardly by declaration as Bellarmine himselfe saith then much more by imputation even as we were made sinners by Adams actuall transgression and as Christ was made sinne that is a sinner for us For even as by Adams disobedience wee were made sinners and guilty of damnation his transgression being imputed to us so are wee made just by the obedience of Christ imputed to us And as Christ who knew no sinne was made a sinner by imputation of our sinnes to him so we are made the righteousnesse of God in him that is righteous in him by the imputation of his righteousnesse who is God unto us But indeed the force of the Latine words is to be respected no further than as they are the true translation of the Hebrew word in the Old Testament and of the Greeke in the New § IV. The Hebrew root Tsadaq from whence those verbs do spring which signifie to justifie is by the Septuagint translated sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be just blamelesse or pure 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be just as Iob 9. 2. 15. 20. 10. 15. 15. 14. 25. 4. 33. 12. 34. 5. 35. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be blamelesse as Iob 22. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be pure as Iob 4. 17. sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same sense to be just as being a translation not of a passive but of a Neuter as Gen. 38. 26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thamar is more just than I. So Psal. 19. 10. jâ—…dicia Dei 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Psal. 51. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so Rom. 3. 4. Psal. 143. 2. Esai 43. 9. cum 41. 26. Ezek. 16. 52. In Ecclus. 18. 1. Deus solus justificabitur the Greeke is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sometimes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be reputed just as Iob 11. 2. 13. 18. 40. 3. Sometimes to be justified and absolved from sinne to bee pronounced and accepted as righteous as Esai 43. â—…6 Let us plead together declare thou 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first thine iniquities that thou maist bee justified Esai 45. 25. in the Lord all the seed of Israel shall be justified The passive is onely once used Dan. 8. 14. where it is said that the sanctuary after 2300. dayes shall bee justified that is expiated or purged In the second conjugation it signifieth to justifie but not as the word is used in the doctrine of justification but as it signifieth either to arrogate righteousnesse to a mans selfe as Iob 32. 2. or to attribute or ascribe it to others as Iobâ—…3 â—…3 32. or to shew himselfe or others righteous as Ier. 3. 11. Ezek. 16. 51 52. In the third conjugation it signifieth to justifie in that sense that the question of justification And it is verbum forense a judiciall word used in Courts of judgement which usually is opposed to condemning And it signifieth to absolve and to acquit from guilt and accepting a man as righteous to pronounce him just
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
debt Matth. 6. 12. The subject where it remaineth are the bookes of Gods providence and of our own consciences The act of God in remitting our debts is the wiping them out of his remembrance as it were his debt-bookes The debt is the sinne it selfe which maketh us debtors unto God And therefore sinnes are called debts and sinners debtors Matth. 6. 12. cum Luk. 11. 4. Matth. 23. 16 18. Luk. 13. 4. cum 2. which also appeareth by the parables of the debtors Luk. 7. 41. Matth. 18. 23 35. and therefore sinners are called debtors because for their sinnes they owe punishment unto which by the just ordination of God they are obliged This obligation whereby sinners are bound over to punishment is called reatus that is guilt When as therefore God remitteth sins he forgiveth the debt hee remitteth or releaseth the punishment hee taketh away the guilt whereby we were bound over to punishment And è converso when God forgiveth the debt releaseth the punishment taketh away the guilt he is said to remit sinne Now sinnes are either habituall or actuall An habituall sinne God doth remit when hee doth take away the guilt of it and cover the Anomy of it not that it should not be at all but that it should not bee imputed as Augustine saith of concupiscence or originall sinne whereof all particular habituall â—… sinnes are members and branches Actuall sinnes God doth remit when he doth forgive the sinfull act it selfe and the guilt also which remaineth after the act is past and gone § VI. But here the Papists have found out a new devise to confirme their error in confounding justification and sanctification that whereas there are two things which as themselves doe teach remaine in the soule after the act of sinne hath been committed viz. reatus macula the guilt and the blemish or spot they teach against sense that it is properly the macula which is remitted in justification But then say I what becometh of the punishment the guilt binding over to punishment It is certaine that the infusion of righteousnesse doth not take away the guilt nor free us from punishment Neither can we be freed either â—…rom the one or the other but only by the satisfaction of Christ imputed unto us Hence therfore they should have learned to distinguish between justification and sanctification rather than to confound them that whereas there are two things remaining after sinne committed the guilt and the pollution the guilt is taken away by imputation of Christs righteousnesse in our justification the pollution is in some measure cleansed in our sanctification § VII And how soever that which they say of the macula or pollution remaining is true in respect of Originall sinne wherein upon the guilt of Adams transgression imputed there followeth an universall macula or corruption consisting of two parts the privation of Originall righteousnesse and an evill disposition and pronenesse to all manner of sinne by which twofold corruption all the parts and faculties of the soule are defiled yet it seemeth not to be altogether true in regard of mens personall sinnes in respect of either part for as touching the former part which is the privation neither are the unregenerate by their actuall sinnes deprived of grace or righteousnesse infused which they had not before they sinned neither are the regenerate utterly deprived of grace by such sinnes as they commit as I have elsewhere proved and as touching the latter part which is the evill disposition this macula whereof they speake is no new evill disposition making him a sinner who before was not but an evill disposition remaining of the old man which by committing of actuall sinnes is increased Insomuch as where the same actuall sinne is often committed and reiterated that evill disposition groweth to bee an habit For all evill dispositions or habituall sinnes which are in men are either the reliquia or remnants of originall sinne in some measure mortified or the increments thereof when by the committing of actuall sinnes they receive increase And such a thing is that macula whereof they speake which remaining in the soule per modum habitus is to bee taken away as all other habituall sinnes are as they are pollutions by the mortification of them which is a part of sanctification and not of justification Neither is the mortification of sinne a totall deletion or abolition thereof in this life as if no sinne or corruption remained in the party justified or sanctified for though in the forgiving or remitting of originall sinne the guilt bee wholly taken away yet the corruption which is called concupiscence remaineth more or lesse mortified § VIII Now followeth the subject where that which is to bee remitted doth remaine and from whence when it is remitted it is wiped or blotted out that is Gods remembrance and our conscience which are as it were the Lords debt-bookes according to which bookes he will judge Apoc. 20. 12. the former is the booke of Gods providence Psalm 56. 8. 139. 15. wherein all offences are written and wherein they remaine upon record Hos. 7. 2. 8. 13. Ier. 17. 1. The other is the booke of our conscience which is as it were the Lords atturney indicting us of sinne In regard whereof David saith Psalm 51. 3. I doe know or am conscious to my transgressions and my sinne is ever before mee Out of the former booke the Lord doth wipe out sinnes when he justifieth us in the Court of Heaven out of the latter when we are justified in the Court of our owne Conscience § IX And hereby the third thing appeareth namely by what act of God our sinnes are remitted For if that which is remitted be a debt which is recorded in Gods booke then this debt is remitted not by any act of God within us either really wiping the pollution out of our soules or infusing grace into them both which are done in some measure after the debt is remitted in our sanctification but by an act of God without us wiping our sinnes out of his booke blotting them out of his remembrance Esai 43. 25. casting them behinde his backe Esai 38. 17. turning his face from them Psalm 51. 9. not remembring Ier. 31. 34. nor imputing them Rom. 4. 8. ex Psal. 32. 2. but forgiving and forgetting them and accepting of Christs satisfaction for them in the behalfe of all that truely beleeve in Christ Rom. 3. 24 25. § X. Our fifth argument may be this The utter deletion of sinne is not granted in this life Remission of sinne is granted to the faithfull in this life Therefore remission of sinne is not the utter deletion of it The proposition is certaine For during this life sinne remaineth in the best Rom. 7. 17. 20. 1 Ioh. 1. 8. The assumption is undeniable as being an Article of our faith testified in many places of Scripture Or thus If in justification there
performed as well as we can because commanded knowing that God will accept of our upright though weake indevour § XXI The sixth and the last who seeth not that these words good workes are mortall sinnes imply a contradiction for they shall be good and not good c. Answ. We doe not affirme that good workes are mortall sinnes neither doe we deny them to be truly good Onely we deny them to bee purely and perfectly good And we acknowledge the impurity and imperfection concurring with them to bee a sinne and consequently that the good workes of the faithfull are good per se as being commanded as being the fruits of the Spirit and of faith working by love but sinfull per accidens as being stained with the flesh yea but saith Bellarmine Bonum non existit nisi ex integra causa malum verò ex quolibet vitio that is that is not to bee accounted a good worke whereunto all things doe not concurre which are requisite but that is evill wherein there is any defect therefore if there be any defect or imperfection to bee found in any worke that worke is not to be accounted good but evill Answ. that rule of Diony sius is true according to the rigour of the Law which they call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from which our Saviour hath delivered us but it is not true according to the covenant of grace wherein the Lord accepteth the sincere and upright indevours of his children though defective and unperfect for perfect performance their wants being not imputed unto them but covered with the robe of Christs perfect righteousnesse As therefore their persons though in themselves sinners are in Christ accepted as righteous so their actions though in themselves defective are acceptable in Christ. Here therefore wee may justly retort both the accusation it selfe and all these absurdities upon the Papists who be necessary consequence are proved to hold that all the workes of the righteous are simply evill and so absolutely to be called sinnes Those works wherein is found any defect or imperfection are not good but absolutely they are to bee called sinnes as the Papists teach But in all even the best works of the righteous there is to be found some defect imperfection or blemish as being stained with the flesh This assumption is plainely taught in the holy Scriptures as I have proved heretofore Therefore all even the best actions of the righteous are absolutely to be called sinnes as the Papists teach Here then let all men againe take notice of the Popish pharisaisme or pharisaicall hypocrisie of Papists with whom no man is just or justified in whom is any sinne no action good but simply evill in which is any defect and yet their persons are just and their actions not onely good but also meritorious and that ex condigno and that ratione operis of eternall life CHAP. V. Our fourth Argument that the righteousnesse by which wee are justified satisfieth the Law so doth Christs righteousnesse so doth not that which is inherent in us § I. NOw I returne to our owne proofes The fourth argument therefore to prove joyntly that we are justified by Christs righteousnesse and not by ours may be this By that righteousnesse alone and by no other we are justified by which the Law is fully satisfied By the righteousnesse of Christ alone the Law is fully satisfied and not by any righteousnesse inherent in us or performed by us Therefore wee are justified by the righteousnesse of Christ alone and not by any righteousnesse inherent in us or performed by us For the proofe of the proposition three things are to be acknowledged first that whosoever is justified is made just by some righteousnesse for as I have shewed heretofore to thinke that a man should be justified without justice is as absurd as to imagine a man to be clothed without apparell secondly that all true righteousnesse is a conformity to the law of God which is the perfect rule of righteousnesse insomuch as what is not conformable to the Law is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is iniquity and sinne thirdly that there can be no justification without the Law be fulfilled either by our selves or by another for us For our Saviour when he came to justifie us and save us protested that hee came not to breake the Law but to fulfill it and professeth that not one jot or tittle of the Law should passe unfulfilled Matth. 5. 17 18. Saint Paul likewise avoucheth that by the doctrine of justification by faith the Law is not made void but established Rom. 3. 31. The proposition therefore is undenyable The assumption hath two parts the former affirmative that by the righteousnesse of Christ the Law is fully satisfied the other negative that by any righteousnesse inherent in us or performed by us the Law neither is nor can be fully satisfied For the clearing of the assumption in both the parts wee are to understand that to the full satisfying of the Law since the fall of Adam two things are required the one in respect of the penalty unto the suffering whereof sinne hath made us debtours the other in respect of the precept to the doing wherof the Law doth bind us The former to free us from hell and damnation the other to entitle us to heaven and salvation according to the sanction of the Law If thou dost not that which is commanded thou art accursed if thoudoest it thou shalt be saved In respect of the former the Law cannot be satisfied in the behalf of him who hath oncetransgressed it but by eternal punishment or that which is equivalent in respect of the latter it is not satisfied but by a totall perfect and perpetuall obedience § II. Now our Saviour Christ hath fully satisfied the Law for all them that truly beleeve in him in both respects For hee hath superabundantly satisfied the penalty of the Law for us by his sufferings and by his death and he hath perfectly fulfilled the Law for us by performing all righteousnesse in obeying his Father in all things even unto death and by them both he hath justified us freeing us from hell by his sufferings and entituling of us unto heaven by his obedience And therefore the holy Ghost affirmeth that wee are justified by his bloud Rom. 5. 9. and by his obedience verse 19. For his sufferings were the sufferings of God in which respect they who put him to death are said to have killed the Author of life Act. 3. 15. and to have crucified the Lord of glory 1 Cor. 2. 8 and for the same cause the bloud by which we are redeemed is called the bloud of God Act. 20. 28. or which is all one the bloud of the Sonne of God 1 Iohn 17. His obedience likewise was the obedience of God For Iesus Christ the word that is the second person in Trinity being in the forme of God God coequall with his Father for our sakes
became flesh that is abased himselfe to become man which before hee was not but not ceasing to bee that which hee was before namely the true and the great God God above all blessed for evermore in our nature being perfect God and perfect man hee farther humbled himselfe and became obedient untill death even to the death of the crosâ—…e And therefore the righteousnesse of Christ both habituall inherent in his person and that which was performed by him both active and passive being the righteousnesse of God as it is often called Rom. cap. 1. 3. 10. the righteousnesse of God and our Saviour 2 Pet. 1. 1. who was given to us of God to be our righteousnesse 1 Cor. 1. 30. that wee beleeving in him might bee the righteousnesse of God in him 2 Cor. 5. 21 is therefore called Iehovah our righteousuesse Ier 23. 6. I say his passive righteousnesse being the righteousnesse of God the bloud of God it is a price of infinite valew and superabundantly sufficient to satisfie for the sinnes not onely of the faithfull but of all the world and not onely of this one world but of more if there were more And this habituall and actuall righteousnesse being the righteousnesse and obedience of God is of infinite and alâ—…-sufficient merit to entitle all those that beleeve in him were they never so many to the kingdome of heaven These things if the Papists should deny It would deny them to be Christians The former part therefore of the assumption is of undoubted truth § III. Come wee then to the other part Is there any righteousnesse inherent in us or performed by us that can fully satisfie the Law Nothing lesse For first in respect of the penalty which is due unto us for our sinnes wee cannot possibly fatisfie it but by enduring everlasting torment which though wee should endure for a million of millions of yeares yet wee could not bee said to have satisfied the Law which cannot be satisfied but by endlesse punishment or that which is equivalent but there is nothing equivalent but the precious death and sufferings of the eternall Son of God who gave himself to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a full price of ransome countervailing in respect of the dignity of his person the eternall pains of hel which all the elect should have suffered Therefore there is no possibility for us to escape hell the just guerdon of our sinnes unlesse the Lord impute our siâ—…s to our Saviour Christ and his sufferings to us accepting them in our behalfe as if we had sustained them in our owne persons For although wee should for the time to come performe a totall and perfect obedience to the Law yet that would not free us from the punishment already deserved by us But the Law must be satisfied both in respect of the penalty to be borne and in respect of perpetuall and perfect obedience to bee performed through out our whole life Neither may we thinke by the payment of one debt to satisfie another The obedience which wee hope to performe for the time to come though it were totall and perfect is a debt and duty which wee owe unto God Luk. 17. 10. and therefore cannot discharge us of the penalty which is another debt which wee owe for our sinnes past for wee were sinners from the wombe yea in the wombe and to the guilt of Adams transgression in whom wee sinned and to that originall corruption which we have received from him for which though wee had no other sinnes wee were worthily subject to eternall damnation wee have added in the former part of our life innumerable personall transgressions all deserving death and damnation which if wee be not delivered therefrom by the death and merits of Christ wee must make account to suffer in our owne persons neither can our future intended obedience satisfie for our sinnes as Bellarmine confesseth God is just in forgiving sinnes neither doth he forgive any sinne for which his justice is not fully satisfied § IV. Neither can our righteousnesâ—…e â—…atisfie the Law in respect of the precept by fulfilling it for whosoever hath not continued in all the things which are written in the booke of the Law to doe them but hath at any time transgressed the Law hee hath not fulfilled it Therefore it is most certaine that we cannot satisfie the Law in respect of the precept because wee have already broken it and by our breach of it have made our selves subject to the curse of the Law so farre are we from being justified by it Neither are wee able by our obedience to satisfie the Law for the time to come § V. Against this branch of our argument which by us is added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as over measure Bellarmine taketh exception alleaging that the faithfull and regenerate are able to fulfill the Law and entreth into a large dispute to prove that the Law is possible which disputation I have fully examined in his due place and confuted Here let the Reader take notice that Bellarmine disputeth sophistically in diverse respects for first hee will needs be actor when indeed hee is reus and that hee might get the better end of the staffe pretendeth to confute our errours when indeed he laboureth to defend his owne Secondly hee answereth but a piece of our argument and such a piece as might be spared as being added mantisae loco by way of advantage for thus we reason no man can satisfie the Law because hee hath already broken it yea hee is so farre from satisfying the Law in respect of the time past that for the time to come hee is not able to fullfill it Thirdly where hee should prove that all those who are to bee justified doe fulfill the Law for else how should they by fulfilling of the Law be justified all that he endevoureth to prove is that it is possible for them that are already justified to fullfill it disputing as wee say a posse ad esse Fourthly where hee should prove that all who are justified doe fulfill the Law for else how should they be justified by fulfilling it hee endeavoureth to prove that some rare men have fulfilled it not caring what becomes of the rest Fifthly where hee argueth that if men shall fulfill the Law they shall be justified his consequence doth not hold in respect of them who at any time heretofore have broken it as all meere men without exception have done though they should perfectly fulfill the Law for the time to come Sixthly he would prove that some doe fulfill the Law and yet cannot deny but that even those some doe sinne many times yea seven times a day and that they have need daily to pray for the forgivenesse of their sinnes and therefore faileth in the proofe of that also as I have made manifest in answering his arguments § VI. Now to make good this part of our reason
indowments And therefore that I may come to the proofe of my assumption those phrases of putting on Christ and his righteousnesse figured by Iacob his putting on of his elder brothers apparell Gen. 27. of the wedding garment Mat. 22. 11. of the first or chiefe robe Luke 15 22. of the white garment promised by Christ Apoc. 3. 18. of the fine linnen cleane and shining which is the righteousnesse of the Saints Apoc. 19. 8. of which place I have spoken before are most fitly understood of the righteousnesse of Christ imputed unto us and put on as it were by faith § XI In his second answere Bellarmine confesseth that this similitude of garments and that example of the Patriarch Iacob may after a sound manner bee accommodated to righteousnesse imputed if it shall bee said that it behoueth us to put on or to be clothed with the merits of Christ that being after a sort covered with them we may aske of God pardon of our sinnes for as I have said before saith he Christ alone was able to satisfie for our sins and indeed in justice did satisfie and that satisfaction is given and applyed to us and reputed ours when weare reconciled unto God and justified That example therefore being referred to the righteousnesse of satisfaction for the fault it may be admitted But if it be referred to that righteousnesse whereby wee are formally justified when of sinners and wicked men we are made just and godly it is by all meanes to be rejected seeing it is manifestly repugnant to the Scriptures to the Fathers and to reason it selfe For that one man should satisfiâ—… for another it may easily be conceived but that one man should be just because another is just was never heard of and is not onely above but also against reason § XII Here as you see Bellarmine maketh a distinction betwixt the righteousnesse of satisfaction and that by which wee are formally made just But what is that righteousnesse of satisfaction No doubt that whereby our Saviour satisfied the Law for us which he was to satisfie as I have shewed before not onely in respect of the penalty threatened by his sufferings but also in respect of the Commandement by his perfect obedience fulfilling the condition of the promise Doe this and live To this Bellarmine acknowledgeth the similitude of garments and the example of the Patriarch Iacob may fitly be applied which is as much as wee desire For this is the whole righteousnesse of justification wherein the Lord imputing to a beleever the sufferings of Christ covereth or not imputeth or forgiveth his sinnes and the punishment thereunto belonging and imputing unto him the perfect obedience of Christ accepteth of him as righteousnesse in Christ. For it is most certaine that to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne them hee accepteth as righteous and that hee imputeth righteousnesse to whom hee imputeth not sinne Rom. 4. 6 7. For as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth the not imputing of sinne bringeth with it the imputing of righteousnesse Neither is it to be doubted but that the Lord accepteth as well the merits of his obedience as of his sufferings And what is that justice whereby he saith we are formally made just no doubt inherent justice or the righteousnesse of sanctification by infusion where of sinne is expelled To this saith Bellarmine the similitude of apparell and the example of Iacob cannot be applyed For though one may satisfie for another yet one cannot be formally just by the righteousnesse of another which never any of us to my knowledge affirmed The more absurd was Bellarmine in thinking so absurdly of us For because hee confoundeth justification and sanctification hee would needs beare the world in hand that wee confounding them also doe teach that wee are formally made just by the righteousnesse of another which is out of us in him But if justification and sanctification are to be distinguished as I have proved they must of necessity bee distinguished then it will appeare manifestly that that which Bellarmine calleth the justice of satisfaction is the whole righteousnesse of justification and that by which hee saith wee are formally made righteous is the righteousnesse of sanctification Now wee are well content that the righteousnesse whereby wee are sanctified or formally made righteous should not be imputative so that they will confesse that the righteousnesse of Christs whole satisfaction whereby wee are justified before God is imputed unto us which they must confesse or else they cannot bee saved Here therefore we may sing the triumph and say Magna est veritas praevalet And thus have I aboundantly proved that the righteousnesse of God whereby wee are justified is not any righteousnesse inherent in us or performed by us but onely the righteousnesse of Christ our Saviour which is out of us in him as being proper to his person though by imputation communicated to all that truly beleeve in him CHAP. X. Bellarmines eight allegations to prove justification by inherent righteousnesse answered § I. NOw I am to examine Bellarmines proofes And first hee alleageth Rom. 5. 17 18 19. out of which place he would prove that to bee justified by Christ is not to be accounted or pronounced just but to be truly made and constituted just by obtaining inherent righteousnesse and that a righteousnesse not unperfect but absolute and perfect for that to justifie in this place is to makejust and not to pronounce just appeareth first out of those words verse 19. many shall be constituted or made just unto which allegation I have heretofore answered in his due place so much as concerneth the signification of the word and have maintained the exceptions of Calvin and Chemnitius against his cavils His second reason is from the Antithesis of Adam unto Christ. For thus saith he the Apostle writeth As we are made unjust through the disobedience of Adam so we are made just through the obedience of Christ. But it is certaine that through Adams disobedience we are made unjust by injustice inherent and not imputed Therefore through the obedience of Christ we are made just by righteousnesse inherent and not imputed Answ. Wee confesse that as from the first Adam we receive inherent corruption in our carnall generation so from the second Adam wee receive inherent grace in our spirituall regeneration but this is not our justification but our sanctification whereof the Apostle speaketh not in this place whereas therefore he assumeth that wee are made unjust through Adams disobedience by inherent injustice onely not imputed I deny the assumption and returne the argument upon the Adversary As we are made sinners that is guilty of sinne and damnation by Adams disobedience or transgression so wee are justified that is not onely absolved from the guilt of sinne and damnation but also accepted as righteous uâ—…to salvation by the obedience of Christ. But wee are made sinners that is guilty of sinne and damnation by imputation of
Adams disobedience or transgâ—…ession Therefore wee are justified that is not onely absolved from the guilt of sinne but also accepted as righteous by imputation of Christs obedience As touching the proposition that the word sinners doth in this place signifie guilty of sinne and obnoxious to condemnation it is testified by Chrysostome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what then is the word sinners in this place it seemeth to mee that it is to be subject or obnoxious to punishment and condemned to death by Oecumenius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by Theophylact likewise sinners that is obnoxious to punishments and guilty of death which exposition is plainely confirmed by the verses going before where the same opposition betweene the first and second Adam being made the â—…ormer part is expressed in these words that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or guilt of Adams transgression came upon his posterity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto condemnation especially vers 16. and 18. § II. The assumption though gaine-said by Bellarmine in this place yet is taught not only by other Papists who fully contradict Bellarmines Assumption but elsewhere also by Bellarmine himselfe For Durandus Pighius Catharinus doe hold originall sinne to be nothing else but the guilt of Adams fall or the disobedience of Adam imputed unto us which opinion also Occam professeth that he would hold if he were not hindered by the authority of the Fathers Yea saith Bellarmine it seemeth to have beene the opinion of some of the ancient as Peter Lombard reporteth Iâ—… refuting this opinion Bellarmine justly findeth fault with them that they held originall sinne to be nothing else but the guilt of Adams disobedience imputed it being also the depravation of our nature following thereupon But in that they say originall sinne is the disobedience of Adam imputed unto us that he doth approve For Adam alone did indâ—…ed commit that sinne by actuall will but to us it is communicated by generation eo modo quo communicari potest id quod transiit nimirum per imputationem after that manner whereby that may be communicated which is transcient and gone to wit by imputation Omnibus enim imputatur c. for it is imputed to all who are borne of Adam because wee all being then in the loynes of Adam when hee sinned in him and by him wee sinned Yea and farther hee rightly disputeth that if Adams sinne were not ours by imputation neither the guilt of it nor the corruption following upon it had belonged to us This assertion of Bellarmine confirmeth our assumption and contradicteth his own alleaging that wee are made sinners through the disobedience of Adam by injustice inherent and not imputed which also he contradicteth in other places For he granteth the sinne of Adam so to be imputed to all his posterity as if they all had committed that sinne and to the same purpose citeth Bernard Ours is Adams fault because though in another yet we sinned and to us it was imputed by the just though secret judgement of God And againe taking upon him to prove that the propagation of sinne may bee defended without maintaining the propagation or traduction of the soule he saith that nothing else is required to the traduction of sinne but that a man be descended from Adam by true and ordinary generation For generation not being of a part but of the person or whole man for homo generat hominem therefore the person descending from Adam though his soule be from God was in the loynes of Adam and being in him originally as in the roote in him and with him hee sinned the actuall sinne of Adam being communicated unto him by imputatioâ—… For as Augustine saith definita est seutentia c. it is a resolved case by the Apostle that in Adam we all sinned § III. But what shall wee say to the inherent corruption which Adam by his transgression contracted By this assertion it seemeth not to be traducted otherwise than as the fruit and consequent of the actuall disobedience which was the opinion of Pighius and Catharinus For as Adam by his first transgression which was the sinne of mankind contracted not onely the guilt of death but also the corruption of his nature being both a privation of originall righteousnesse and also an evill disposition and pronenesse to all manner of sinne which is that macula peccati remaining in the sinner after the act is gone so wee having sinned in Adam are not onely made guilty of death and void of originall righteousnesse but also are defiled with that habituall disposition and pronenesse to all manner of sinne So that according to this assertion it may be defended that nothing in our generation is communicated unto us with the humane nature but the disobedience of Adam which is communicated by imputation As for the guilt of death and the inherent coruption they are not derived from Adam but contracted by our sinning in him And hereunto we may apply Bellarmines distinction of sinne so properly called that it is either a voluntary transgression or that blemish which remaineth in the soule caused and contracted by the transgression being of the same nature with it diffeâ—…ing no otherwise from it than as heat from the act of heating For in the former sense originall sinne is the voluntary trangression of Adam imputed unto us and is one and the same in all men in Adam actuall and personall in us originall For onely he by actuall will committed it but to us it is communicated after that manner by which that which is past and gone may bee communicated to wit by imputation In the latter sense it is the corruption inherent contracted and caused as in Adam by his personall sinne so in us by our sinning originally in him which though it bee alike and equall in all yet it is every mans owne § IV. But supposing originall sinne according to the received opinion to be wholly communicated unto us from Adam in our generation yet we must distinguish betwixt Adams first transgression or actuall disobedience which we call his â—…all and the corruption or depravation of his nature which thereupon followed For though we be partakers of both yet not after the same manner Of the transgression we can be no otherwise partakers than by imputation For Adams transgression being an action and actions continuing or having a being no longer than they are in doing cannot bee traducted or transmitted from Adam to his posterity But the corruption being habituall is derivable by propagation Now the Apostle Rom. 5. speaketh of Adams actuall disobedience once committed by him by which he saith we are made sinners that sinne of his being communicated unto us by imputation and not of the corruption thereupon following So by the like reason we are made just by the obedience of Christ which hee performed for us in the daies of his flesh which can
no otherwise be communicated unto us than by imputation Object Yea but wee are truly made sinners by the disobedience of Adam and truly made righteous by the obedience of Christ. Answ. As we are truly made sinners by imputation of Adams disobedience so we are as truly made righteous by imputation of Christs obedience Iust. Yea but we are made sinners by injustice inherent through Adams disobedience and therefore wee are made just by inherent justice through â—…he obedience of Christ. Answ. We are not made sinners in respect of inherent justice by Adams disobedience formally as Bellarmine saith Inobedientia Adami nos consâ—…ituit peccatores non formaliter sed 〈◊〉 for that only is imputed but by the corruption which followeth and is caused by that transgression committed by Adam and imputed to us In like manner wee are not made just in respect of inherent justice by the obedience of Christ whether active or passive formally for that is onely imputed but by the graces of the Spirit merited by the obedience of Christ performed by him and imputed to us § V. Thus then standeth the comparison betwixt the first and the second Adam As by the actuall disobedience or transgression of the first Adam all his off spring were made guilty of sinne and subject to death his disobedience being not inherent in them but imputed to them as if it were their owne because they were in him originally so by the obedience of the second Adam all his off spring are or shall be justified from sinne and accepted to life his obedience not being inherent in them but imputed to them as if it were their owne because by faith they are in him And this is our justification by imputation of Christs righteousnesse And further as Adams fall deserved as a just punishment the defacing of Gods image by inherent corruption in all his posterity to whom the same corruption is by naturall generation transfused so the obedience of Christ merited as a just reward the restoring of Gods image in us by inherent righteousnesse in all the faithfull into whom the said righteousnesse is in their Spirituall regeneration infused And this is our Sanctification by the Spirit of Christ of which the Apostle speaketh not untill the next Chapter where he sheweth that our justification is alwayes accompanied with Sanctification In a word from either of the two Adams we receive two things which are contrary each to other From the first Adam his disobedience is communicated unto us by imputation whereby wee are made sinners that is guilty of sinne and damnation which guilt is opposite to justification and secondly the corruption which he contracted is transfused unto us by carnall generation which corruption is contrary to sanctification From the second Adam his obedience is communicated to us by imputation whereby wee are constituted just that is absolved from the guilt of sinne and damnation and accepted in Christ as righteous and as heires of eternall life which is the benefit of justification and secondly the graces of his holy Spirit which hee received without measure are in some measure as it were by influence infused into us by our spirituall regeneration § VI. Whereas therefore hee would prove out of this place that justification is the obtayning of righteousnesse inherent I answer first that to be constituted sinners by Adams disobedience is to be made guilty of sinne and subject to death and damnation and so contrariwise to be constituted just or justified by Christs obedience is to be acquitted from the guilt of sinne and damnation and to bee accepted unto life secondly that wee are constituted sinners by Adams personall sinne which is not inherent in us but once and that long since committed by him so we are justified by Christs personall obedience which is not inherent in us but long since performed by him thirdly that as wee are truely made sinners by imputation of Adams transgression which is not inherent in us so we are truly made just by imputation of Christs obedience which is not inherent in us fourthly that the disobedience of the first Adam is imputed to all his children because they were in him originally as the root so in him they sinned and therefore when he did fall they fell so the second Adams obedience is imputed to all the sonnes of God because by faith they are in him as his members the head and the members making but one body This place therefore alleaged by Bellarmine maketh wholly against him Neither doth that which he addeth concerning persect absolute and abundant righteousnesse communicated unto us by Christ agree to that righteousnesse which is in herent in us unperfect and but begunne as being the first fruits of the Spirit but to the absolute and most perfect righteousnesse of Christ communicated unto us by imputation On this place I have insisted the longer because though Bellarmine alleage it as a prime place to prove his purpose is notwithstanding a most pregnant testimony to prove justification by impuâ—…ation of Christs righteousnesse as hereafter shall further appeare § VII His second Testimony is Rom. 3. 24 which I have also heretofore fully proved to make wholly against him Lib. 3. Cap. 3. 4. His third allegation is out of â—… Cor. 6. 11. to which also have I answered before I where acknowledged the benefit of baptisme to be here described according to that which here he alleageth out of Chrysâ—…st Ambrose Theophylact and others which is noted first generally in the word washed and then particularly in the words Sanctified and Iustified the former signifying the cleansing of the Soule from the pollution of sinne the latter from the guilt of sinne the former wrought by the Spirit of our God the latter by faith in the name of the Lord Iesus And these two distinct benefits the Scriptures ascribe to Baptisme viz. remission of sinnes and regeneration as I shewed before And therefore these benefits which the Holy Ghost hath accurately distinguished ought not to be either ignorantly or Sophistically confounded And whereas he saith that these benefits as here it is noted are wrought by the invocation of the name of Christ and by the power of his Spirit neither of which is needfull to justification by declaration or imputation he saith he knoweth not what For to justification as we conceive of it to be granted and sealed in Baptisme both these are as needfull as to Sanctification For to the obtayning of the remission of sinnes to be sealed unto us in Baptisme invocation of the name of God is required Act. 22. 16. and it is the Spirit of Adoption which by Baptisme sealeth unto us the remission of our sinnes § VIII His fourth testimony is Tit. 3. 1. 6 7. whence hee argueth to this effect Regeâ—…ration â—…r renâ—…vation is formally wrought by some inherent gift Iustisication according to the Apostle in this place is regeneration â—…r renovation Thâ—…refore justification is formally wrought
is to say justified so also by infusion that is sanctified For the justifying faith being a lively and effectuall faith purifieth the heart and worketh by love and may be demonstrated by good works And where is not inherent righteousnesse concurring with faith there is no justifying faith at all But although sanctification doe alwaies accompany justification yet wee are not justified by the righteousnesse of sanctification which is inherent because it is unperfect and wee are sanctified but in part whiles we have the flesh that is the body of sinne remaining in us Neither was there ever any man since the fall absolute or perfect in respect of inherent righteousnesse Christ onely excepted § X. Yea but saith Bellarmine the Scripture acknowledgeth some men to have beene perfect Gen. 6. 9. immaculate Psal. 119. 1. just before God Luke 1. 6. I answere that this perfection is not legall as being a perfect conformity with the Law which is the perfect rule of righteousnesse but evangelical as being one of the properties of our new obedience which is not to bee measured by the perfect performance but by the sincere and upright desire and purpose of the heart For this uprightnesse goeth under the name of perfection and what is done with an upright heart is said to be done with a perfect heart and with the whole that is entire heart And likewise those men who were upright are said to have been perfect And yet notwithstanding all those men who are said in the Scriptures to have been perfect and to have walked before God with a perfect heart as Noah Iacob Iob David Ezâ—…kias c. had their imperfections Ezekias is said to have been a perfect man and to have served God with a perfect heart notwithstanding when God left him a little to try him he discovered his imperfections 2 Chr. 32. 25. 31. Of Asa it is said 2 Chron. 15. 17. that his heart was perfect all the dayes of his life and yet in the very next chapter there are three faults of his recorded where Zachary is said to have beene just before God and to have walked in all the Commandements and Ordinances of God blamelesse in the same chapter his incredulity is registred for which hee was stricken with dumbnesse and deafnesse for the space of tenne moneths So that all that are sincere and upright that is to say no hypocrits are notwithstanding their imperfections called perfect and so the word which is translated immaculate Psal. 119. 1. signifieth upright and to be righteous before God is all one with upright Thus the holy Ghost teacheth us to expound the word which is translated perfect viz. thamin and tham that to be upright is to walke before God is to walke before God and to walke before God is to be perfect Gen. 17. 1. Let perfection and uprightnesse preserve me Psal. 25. 21. Psal. 37. 37. Observe the perfect man and behold the upright for the end of that man is peace § XI Yea but Bellarmine will prove that these men which are in the Scriptures called just were endued with inherent righteousnesse because they brought forth good workes which were the fruits and effects of their inward righteousnesse for he that doth righteousnesse is righteous whom doth he now confute wee doe not deny them who are commended in the Scriptures for righteous persons to have been endued with righteousnesse inherent but wee deny that they or any of them were justified before God thereby As for example Abraham who abounded with good workes was justified by faith without workes Rom. 4. 2 3. and as hee was justified so are all the faithfull Rom. 4. 23 24. David though a man according to Gods own heart walking before him in truth and righteousnes and uprightnesse of heart yet professeth that neither he nor any man living could be justified if God should enter into judgement with them and therefore placeth his happinesse and justification notin his vertues or good works but in the not imputing of sin and imputation of righteousnesse without workes Rom. 4. 6. Paul though hee knew nothing by himselfe yet professeth that hee was not thereby justified 1 Cor. 4. 4. Yea in the question of justification hee esteemeth his owne righteousnesse of no worth Phil. 3 8 9. But as wee doe not deny the faithfull to bee endued with inherent righteousnesse so we affirme that whosoever is justified by imputative righteousnesse is also sanctified in some measure with righteousnesse infused and inherent In respect whereof though they bee also sinnes in themselves by reason of their habituall corruptions and actuall transgressions being in part carnall and sold under sinne and by the Law which is in the members led captive to the Law of sinne yet they have their denomination from the better part Even as a wedge of metall wherein much drosse is mingled with Gold is called a wedge of Gold though not of pure Gold and an heape of Corne wherein is as much chaffe as Wheate is called an heape of Wheate though not of pure Wheate So the faithfull man in whom there is the flesh and body of sinne as well as the Spirit and regenerate part is called of the better part a righteous man though not perfectly absolutely purely just in respect of his righteousnesse inherent Indeed every true beleever so soone as he is indeed with a true justifying faith is perfectly just by righteousnesse imputed but at the best he is sanctified onely in part § XII His sixth testimony is taken out of Rom. 8. 29. and 1 Cor. 15. 49. where it is said that the just are conformable to the image of Christ and doe beare the image of the second Adam as they have borne the image of the first Adam from whence hee collecteth three reasons The first As Christ was just so are wee and as hee was not just so â—…re not we But Christ was just by inhâ—…rent rightâ—…ousnesse and not by imputatiâ—…n Therefore we are just by inherent righteâ—…usnesse and not by impâ—…tation The proposition he proveth by the places alleaged First I answer to the proofe of the proposition that the places alleaged are impertiâ—…ent For the question being of the righteousnesse of â—…ustification never any understood the Apostâ—…e in these places to speake thereof But either of filiation as Chrysostome and others understand the former plate because as Christ is the Sonne of God so also are wee or of afflictions because whom God hath predestinated to bee like his Sonne in glory they shall bee conformable to the image of his Sonne in bearing the Crosse which sence is given by our Writeâ—…s and is agreeable to the scope of the Apostle in that place to the Romans or of Glory that when he shall appeare wee shall bee like him in glory of which as Ambrose Sedulius and others understand Rom. 8. â—…9 fo the other place being read in the future as it ought to bee in
instruments of justice to God where by righteousnesse saith hee is understood something that is inherent c. and that hee goeth about to prove which no man doubteth of when indeed hee should prove not that there is a righteousnesse inherent in the faithfull for that wee freely confesse but that the righteousnesse which is inherent is that by which wee are justified But it is evident that the Apostle speaketh not heere of the righteousnesse of justification but of the righteousnesse of sanctification whereunto in this Chapter hee doth exhort as to a necessary and unseparable consequent of justification Neither doth the Apostle heere or elsewhere as before I observed in setting downe the differences betweene justification and sanctification exhort us to the righteousnesse of justification or the parts thereof which bee not our duties but Gods gracious favours for that were to exhort us to remission of sinne and acceptation to life But to the righteousnesse of sanctification and the parts mortification and renovation and to the particular duties thereof hee doth both here and in many other places exhort as namely in his sixth testimony cited oâ—…t of Eph. 4. 23 24. from which hee would prove which no man doth deny that our renovaâ—…ion according to the image of God standeth in righteousnesse and holinesse inherent § VII His fourth allegation had need to be a good one for this is the third time that hee hath cited and recited and as it were recocted it out of Rom. 8. 10. The Spirit liveth because of justification or as it is in the Greeke the Spirit is life because of justice For justification or justice which maketh us to live and thereby to worke cannot be onely remission of sin but something inward inherent Answ. In this place vers 10. 11. as I shewed before the Apostle setteth down a double priviledge of those in whom Christ dwelleth by his Spirit freeing them from the Law of death The one in respect of the soule vers 10. that howsoever the body bee dead that is as Bellarmine himselfe expoundeth mortall or appointed to death by reason of sin which the first Adam brought in and by it death his sinne being imputed to all yet the soule for so the word Spirit is taken when it is opposed to the body is life that is as the Antithesis requireth designed unto life by reason of that righteousnes of the second Adam by imputation whereof all the faithfull are entituled unto everlasting life For as in the former part of the Antithesis is not meant the spirituall death of men dead in sinne for that is the death of the soule and not of the body and the Apostle speaketh of those in whom Christ dwelleth but the corporall death unto which they also in whom Christ dwelleth are subject so in the latter is meant not the life of grace or of righteousnesse but the life of glory The other priviledge respecteth the body vers 11. that after it hath beene dead and turned into dust the Spirit of him that raised up Christ from death dwelling in us shall raise unto life eternall our mortall bodies § VIII His fifth testimony Gal. 3. 21. where when the Apostle saith If there had been a Law given which could give life or justifie as the Rhemists translate the word vivificare then in very deed justice should be of Law hee doth plainely saith he demonstrate that justice from whence justification is named is something which giveth life to the soule and hee doth place the same in motion and action Answ. If from this proposition propounded by the Apostle Bellarmine could have assumed the antecedent that so hee might conclude the consequent then might hee strongly have concluded against us that wee are justified by inherent righteousnesse But seeing the Apostle doth tollere antecedenâ—… that is intendeth to contradict that antecedent what reason hath Bellarmine to argue as hee doth It is very true that if the Law could have given us life that is as Chrysostome and Oâ—…umenius expound could have saved us according to that legall promise Hocfac vives doe this and thou shalt live or as the Rhemists translate could have justified us then undoubtedly wee might have beene justified by inherent righteousnesse But forasmuch as it was impossible for the Law to justifie and save us because it neither was noâ—… is possible for us by reason of the flesh to performe the condition and forasmuch as God therefore sent his Sonne to performe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all that the Law requireth unto justification that wee who could not bee justified nor saved by any inherent righteousnesse of our owne prescribed in the Law and therefore not by a justice consisting in our actions or motions might bee justified and saved by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed unto us what can Bellarmine gather from hence with any shew or colour of reason to prove justification by such a righteousnesse as is inherent and consisteth in motion and action § IX The sixth I have already answered with the third As for his testimonies collected out of Augustine a briefe anâ—…were may serve that hee not considering the force of the Hebrew and Greeke words which never in all the Scriptures are used in the signification of making righteous by inherent or infused righteousnesse but resting as it seemeth upon the notation and composition of the Latine word justificare as not differing in respect thereof from the Verbe sanctificare doth sometimes more largely extend the signification of the word justification than the Scriptures use it as including the benefit of sanctification But it is a most certaine truth that the word justificare being used in the Scriptures translated into Latine as the translation of the Hebrew Hitsdiq and of the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be understood to signifie no other thing if it bee a true translation than what is meant by the Hebrew and the Greeke which as I have shewed before doe never in all the Scriptures signifie to make just by infusion of righteousnesse And therefore it cannot be denied but that it is and was an oversight in them who using the word as mentioned in the Scriptures and from thence borrowing it extend it to another signification than that of the originall wherof it is a translation I say againe as I have said before that the fotce of the Latine word in this controversie is no further to be respected than as it is a translation of the Hebrew and the Greek and as it is a true translation it must bee understood no otherwise than according to the meaning of the originall if it be understood otherwise then is it not a true translation neither is the sence of the word divine but humane Howbeit Augustine differeth from Bellarmine as touching the use of this word in two things first that hee doth not alwaies so use the word as for example when hee teacheth as hee and the rest of the Fathers often doe
prove our glosse to bee repugnant to the Apostle unlesse he imagine that wee hold the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to a beleever to bee not reall but imaginary And then by the same reason let him say that the imputation of our sinnes to Christ for which he really suffered and the imputation of Adams transgression to his posterity for which they are really punished was but imaginary Howbeit there is a difference in the manner of imputing a reward to him that worketh and of righteousnesse to him that beleeveth for that is ex debito this ex gratia § IV. Our ninth argument Hee that is justified not by his owne righteousnesse but by the righteousnesse of another is justified by righteousnesse imputed But all the faithfull are justified not by their owne righteousnesse Phil. 3. 8 9. Rom. 10. 3. but by the righteousnesse of another this was fully proved and maintained in the whole third controversie for that which is but one mans righteousnesse cannot be every faithfull mans owne by inherencie but onely by imputation The righteousnesse by which wee are justified is but the righteousnesse of one Rom. 5. 18 19. § V. Our tenth argument There is the same matter whereby infants are justified and others But infants are not justified by righteousnesse inherent for neither have they habituall righteousnesse which consisteth in the habits of faith hope and charity of which they are not capable whiles they want the use of reason nor actuall as all confesse but by the righteousnesse of Christ and that imputed And therefore Berâ—…d saith they want no merits because they have the merits of Christ. § VI. Our eleventh argument As Abraham was justified so are wee Rom. 4. 23 24. Abraham was justified by imputation Rom. 4. 3. 22. and not by inherent righteousnesse though hee did excell therein Therefore wee are justified by imputation and not by inherent righteousnesse § VII Our twelfth argument To those that are justified by faith righteousnesse in their justification is imputed without workes that is without respect of righteousnesse inherâ—…nt Rom. 4. 5 6. All the faithfull are justified by faith Esai 53. 11. Rom. 3. 28. Gal. 2. 16. Therefore to all the faithfull in their justification righteousnesse is imputed without respect of inherent righteousnesse § VIII Our thirteenth argument whose sinnes are remitted by imputation of Christs satisfaction unto them they are justified by imputation for to be absolved from sinne is to be justified Act. 13. 38 39. where to have remission of sinne is to bee justified from sinne So Rom. 4. 6 7 8. where the Apostle sheweth that whose iniquities are forgiven whoâ—…e sinnes are covered to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne to them hee imputeth righteousnesse without workes where the Apostle saith Bellarmine ex non imputatione peccatorum colligit imputationem justitiae from the not imputing of sinne hee gathereth the imputation of righteousnesse them he justifieth them he maketh blessed So Luk. 18. 13 14. when our Saviour would signifie that the Lord had heaâ—…d the prayer of the Publican who had prayed for the remission of his sinne hee saith he went home justified But the sinnes of the faithfull are remitted by imputation of Christs satisfaction to them This the Papists themselves cannot deny Or if they did the whole Doctrine of the Gospell would confute them which teacheth that Christ dyed for our sinnes that hee hath redeemed us from all our iniquities that hee gave himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a full price of ransome for us 1 Tim. 2. 6. that hee gave himself for us an offering and sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savor Ephes. 5. 2. that in him God is well pleased and reconciled unto us forgiving our sinnes 2 Cor. 5. 19. that hee is the propitiation for our sinnes 1 Iohn 2. 2. that hee bare our iniquities Esai 53. 12. that in his ownâ—… body hee bare our sinnes upon the Tree 1 Pet. 2. 24. that by him wee have redemption that is remission of sinnes that we are justified by his bloud Rom. 5. 9. and by his obedience verse 19. that God is just in justifying a beleeving sinner and therefore forgiveth no sinne for which his justice is not satisfied And his justice cannot be satisfied for our sinnes being an infinite offence as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth but by a price or satisfaction of infinit valew which can be no other but the perfect and al-sufficient satisfaction of Christ which the Lord accepteth in behalfe of all those that beleeve in him which is nothing else but to impute it to them for if God should not accept of Christs satisfaction in the behalfe of those that beleeve then in vaine had Christ dyed or satisfied for us Therefore the faithfull are justified by imputation § IX Hereunto the Papists have nothing to oppose but their owne erroneous assertion which is hereby confuted that remission of sinne is an utter abolition extinction deletion of sinne by infusion of righteousnesse But as in the Law two things are to bee considered the precept it selfe and the sanction thereof denouncing punishment to the transgressout so in sinne there are two things to be considered the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it selfe which is the transgression of the precept and the guilt which bindeth over the sinner to punishment The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is twofold for it is partly transient which is the sinfull act or transgression it selfe and partly immanent in the soule of the offendor which is that macula or labes the blemish spot or pollution which the act doth leave behind it in respect whereof as Bellarmine teacheth the transgressour after the act is gone remaineth formally a sinner The guilt also is twofold for it is either reatus culpae the guilt of offence or of offending God and reatus paenae which is the binding over of the sinner unto punishment Now God doth take away the sinnes of the faithfull both in respect of the fault and also of the guilt of punishment but not after one manner He taketh away the guilt by remission of sinne for in regard of the guilt our sinnes are debts which debts God doth forgive when hee remitteth the punishment and taketh away the guilt which did bind us over to punishment by imputation of Christs sufferings unto us who as our surety did pay our debts for us And because our Saviour fully satisfied our debt therefore our sinnes in respect of the guilt of death are in our justification wholly taken away and in that respect there is an utter deletion of them as there useth to be of debts â—…out of debt bookes when they are satisfied But when the Lord doth justifie a man he doth impute unto him not onely the suffering of Christ to free him a paena reatu paenae but also his obedience that he may be constituted righteous and so freed also a culpâ—… reatu 〈◊〉 For as touching the fault whether you meane the sinfull act which is
wee doe not receive by Christ Adam lost inherent righteousnesse and not imputed Therefore by Christ wee receive inherent righteousnesse and not imputed Then would I deny the latter part of the proposition for wee doe receive by Christ more than we lost â—…n Adam Adam was mutable and the graces which he had were not without repentance But Christ maketh the faithfull inseparabiles id est usque in finem perseverantes and the saving graces which wee receive by him are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hoc est saith Augustine sine mutatione stabiliter fixa Adam lost an earthly Paradise but by Christ we receive an inheritance in heaven Adam stood righteous before God in his owne righteoâ—…snesse but wee stand righteous before God in the righteousnesse of Christ which farre surpasseth the righteousnesse of Adam c. § V. Hâ—…s seventh argument If by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed unto us we may truly be said to be just and the sonnes of God then by our sinne imputed to Christ hee may in like manner bee trâ—…ly called a sinner and which is horrible to thinke the sonne of the devill but the latter is blasphemous therefore the former Answ. The proposition containeth a double consequence which is to be distinguished The first if by the righteousnesse of Châ—…ist imputed to us wee may truly bee said to bee righteous then Christ by imputation of our sinne may truly though not formally bee called a sinner but the consequent is falâ—…e therefore the antecedent This proposition I grant as being firmely grounded on 2 Cor. 5. 21. and I doe confesse that Christ was so made sinne that is a sinner for us as wee are made in him the righteousnesse of God that is righteous by the righteousnesse of him who is God that is to say by imputation But the assumption I doe deny For it is most trâ—…e and no dishonour to Christ our Blessed Saviour but that which wonderfully setteth forth his unspeakable goodnesse and love towards us that hee which knew no sinne but was in himselfe most holy and righteous and blessed for evermore by taking upon him our sinne and by undertaking as our surety our debt was content to bee reputed and by imputation made a sinner that is guilty of sinne and accursed and accordingly punished as a sinner that we might be made righteous and happy in him Thus the Hebrewes call them that are punished sinners 1 King 1. 21. and that those are freed from punishment innocent Gen. 44. 10. But the other part of the consequence if we by imputation of Christs righteousnesse become the sonnes God then which I abhorre to speake Christ by imputation of our sinnes should bee made the Sonne of the devill I utterly deny For though to bee made the childe of God is a consequent of being made righteous by imputation adoption going alwayes with justification yet to become the childe of the devill is no consequent of being made a sinner by imputation in respect of him who is most righteous and holy in himselfe For to undertake the burden of others mens sinnes and to bee willing to have them imputed to him being himselfe most righteous is the property of the immaculate Lambe of God who tooke upon him the sin of the world and for that cause is most worthy to be accounted just and to bee acknowledged the Sonne of God For hee that satisfieth for others is most just saith Bellarmine § VI. Vpon this Syllogisme Bellarmine inferreth another If therfore Christ saith he because in himselfe hee was holy was called not a sinner but just though our sinne was imputed to him then by the like reason we iâ—… after our justification we were indeed sinners and uncleane in our selves should not be called just but unjust though Christs righteousnesse be imputed to us But the Scriptures after the lâ—…ver of regeneratiâ—…n hee might better have said after regeneration it selfe calleth us righteous and holy and the sonnâ—…s of God as appeareth by many places These are the premisses The conclusion should be this Therfore after our justification we are not indeed sinners and uncleane in our selves But in stead of that Pharisaicall conclusion he concludeth thus therefore we are not justified by imputation of Christs rightâ—…ousnesse but by that righteousnesse it selfe which is inherent and abiding in us which conclusion is neither it selfe deduced from these premisses neither is it a consectary of that which ought to have beene the conclusion For although after our justification wee be as before we were not righteous and that by righteousnesse inherent as Abraham was and all the faithfull are yet it doth not follow that wee are justified thereby For our inherent righteousnesse is a consequent of our justification and not a cause thereof not going before justificandos but following justificatos But to this Syllogisme first I returne the like If Christ though most righteous in himselfe was not onely accounted but really punished as a sinner yea made a sinner and a curse for us by taking upon him our sinne which as our debt was laid upon him as our surety and imputed to him then by the like reason wee though sinners in our selves are by imputation of his righteousnesse made righteous before God in him as before hath evidently beene proved out of 2 Cor. 5. 21. § VII Secondly as Christ though ouâ—… sinnes were imputed to him was called holy and just because hee was so in himselfe So wee though Adams transgression was imputed unto us and the corruption which hee contracted was derived unto us and ever dwelleth in our mortall bodies yet being once justified by Christ are notwithstanding that habituall sinne inhabiting in us and these actuall transgâ—…essions which through humane frailty we daily commit in regard whereof we are by the verdict of the Law sinners we are I say termed just and that in two respects first and principally in respect of our justification wherâ—…in we were made just by imputation of Christs righteousnesse secondly in respect of our regeneration whereby inherent righteousnesse is begun in us And howsoever in the regenerate man there is both the flesh and the Spirit the Old man and the New in regard whereof he may in divers respects be termed either a sinner in respect of the flesh and the fruits thereof according to the sentence of the Law or a righteous man in respect of the Spirit and the fruits thereof according to the doctrine of the Gospell yet the denomination is taken from the better part as an heape of wheat and chaffe wherein perhaps is more chaffe than wheat is called an heape of wheat and a wedge of gold wherein perhaps there is more drosse than pure mettall is called a wedge of gold as I have said And whereas upon his premisses this conclusion is inferr'd therfore after the laver of regeneration we are not verè and indeed sinners nor uncleane in our selves you may see
walke with God is for a man to behave himselfe as in his pâ—…esence and to walke before God is to behave a mans selfe in his sight that is uprightly Thus Henâ—…ch Gen. 5. 22. 24. Noâ—…h Gen. 6. 9. Abraham and Isâ—…ack Gen. 48. 15. David and others are said to have walked before God Of David it is said that hee walked before God in truth and righteousnesse and uprightnesse of heart 1 Kin. 3. 6 of Ezekias 2 King 20. 3. that hee walked before God in truth with a perfect that is an upright heart For you are not so to understand it as if Ezekias had no imperfections For when the Lord left him a little unto himselfe that he might try him and know that is make knowne unto him what was in his heart he rendred not againe according to the benefits done to him but hâ—…s heart was lifted up with pride 2 Chron. 32. 24 25 31. From this example of Ezechias as it were from the lesse Bellarmine inferreth If Ezechias walked before God with a perfect heart who will deny it to Abraham to whom it was said walke before me and be perfâ—…ct Answ. I doubt not but Abraham did walke before God that is to say was perfect or upright For so much the Scriptures testifie of him Gen. 24. 40. 26. 5. 48. 15. and that hee was the friend of God 2 Chrâ—… 20. 7. Esai 41. 8. Iam. 2. 23. But Bellarmines proofe is very slender that Abraham was such because hee was required so to be For so the whole people of Israel which for the uprightnesse required in them was called Ieshâ—…run Deut. 32. 15. 33. 5 26. are exhorted Deut. 18. 13. thou shalt be perfect that is upright with the Lord thy God Ios. 24. 14. serve him in perfection and in truth 1 Sam. 12. 24. In truth with all your heart And thus it appeareth that the termes of perfect heart and whole heart in the places before mentioned doe not import any legall perfection but uprightnesse and integrity of hearâ—… which though it be but a perfection inchoated or begun being only a perfection in respect of the parâ—…s and not of the degrees towards which notwithstanding it aspireth yet neverthelesse it is the Evangelicall the Christian and the best perfâ—…ction which we can attaine unto this life § XVII These were his proofes out of the Scriptures Now he will prâ—…ve out of the Fathers that the Law of God is not impossible he shoâ—…ld say for so he propounded the state of the question absolutely posâ—…ble But â—…he Fathers may be distinguished into two rankes For either they weâ—… such as wrote before Pelagius spred his errour or after Those whâ—…h wrote before did as Augustine saith write more carelesly of thee things insomuch that 〈◊〉 would seeme to father his errours upâ—… them Those who wrote after hee had broached his heresies as naâ—…ely Hierome in his latter dayes and Augustine had the like controvere though not altogether the same with Pelagius that we have with the â—…apists For both doe hold the same assertion that the Law is possiblâ—… both doe use the like arguments and both doe abuse the same Testâ—…onies of Scripture to confirme their errour § XVIII There are I confesse two seeming differences betweene the Pâ—…agians and the Papists The one that the Pâ—…lagians held that a man â—…y strength of nature might fulfill the Commandements of God which â—…e Papists deny The other that a man might so fulfill the Law of God as that he might live without siâ—… which the Papists also deny But if it 〈◊〉 considered that the Pelagiaâ—…s did call the power of nature Gods gracâ—… and did acknowledge that the direction and instruction which men haâ—…e by the Word and Law of God was to bee ascribed to Gods grace aâ—…d that the grâ—…ce of God doth helpe men more easily to obey the Law oâ—… God iâ—… will appeare that there is no such great differencâ—… in the foâ—…er respect as is pretendâ—…d Againe the 〈◊〉 betweene the Pelagians and Papists is not in respect of 〈◊〉 or impossibility but in respect of greater or lesse difficulty For the Papists doâ—… not aâ—…knowledge that men by natâ—…re are dead in sinne â—…d utterly deprived of the Spirituall life but that they are sicke and weake and â—…yed with the bands of sinne so that they cannot fulfill the Law of God unlesse they 〈◊〉 â—…olpen and loosed by grace but being holpen by grace then the fulfilling of the Commandements is easie to them The Pelagians likewise confesse that by the grace of God which they call bonum naturae or the power or possibility of nature they were enabled by the grace of God vouchsafed in his Word and Law guided and directed by the justifying grace of God freed from the bond of their sinnes and by the Sanctifying grace of God holpen with more ease to fulfill the Commandements of God So that the Papists although they doe not with the Pelagians deny originall sinne or the necessity of saving grace yet they doe extenuate the originall corruption and so magnifie the strength of nature that they differ not much from them For whereas originall corruption is both a privation of the habit of originall righteousnesse and also an evill and wicked disposition and pronenesse to all manner oâ—… sinne infecting all the parts and faculties of the soule they make the â—…rivation to be of the act onely and not of the habit or power as if it were not a meere impotencie to that which is spiritually good but a dfficulty the evill disposition either they altogether deny saying that â—…iginall sinne is onely carentia justitiae debit ae in esse the want of originall â—…ighteousnesse or else they so extenuate it that they make it to be lese than any veniall sinne and in the regenerate no sinne at all But Auâ—…ustine doth truly teach against both Pelagians and Papists that man by â—…nne lost both bonum possibilitatis and also possibilitatem non peccandi as I vill hereafter shew And as touching the other differenceâ—… though the Papists hold â—…at a man cannot bee altogether without sinne for any long time thoâ—…h for some short time in which short time if he shall say he hath no sine he shall make Saint Ioâ—…n and not himselfe a lyar 1 Ioh. 1. 8. yet â—…ey say they may be without all siâ—…nes excepting those which they do â—…all veniall which they doe so extenuate that indeed they make theâ—… no sinnes as being no anomies or transgressions of the Law comâ—…tted against the Law or repugnant to Charity but onely besides the â—…aw such as may well stand together with perfect inherent righteoâ—…esse For they say he onely is a righteous man in whom there is no siâ—…e and yet that there is no man so righteous as that he liveth without â—…ese veniall sinnes But if they be 〈◊〉 and not contrary to the Lw then they are neither commanded nor forbidden and so no sinnes â—…t
all but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things indifferent § XIX But let us examine his testimonies two whâ—…reof are scarce worth the examining the one out of Origâ—…n the othâ—…r out of Cyrill and yet both of them so little to his purpoâ—… as theâ—…seeme to make against him rather than for him Origâ—… compareth â—…to women such men as say they are not able to observe certaine pâ—…epts of Christ which the Papists doe not call precepts but Counèlls and therefore belong not at all as they teach but to those who would be thought to live in a state of perfection Besides which notorioâ—…s hypocrites all in the Church of Rome are by this testimony to be â—…ompared to women who not onely say they cannot but also thinke â—…hey need not to observe them as to sell all that a man hath and give it to the poore which indeed is neither a commandemenâ—… nor counsell given by Christ unto all but a precept of tryall to that one wealthy justitiary to him that striketh thee on the one cheeke turne to him the other also blesse him that curseth thee pray for him that persecuteth thee and such like which are indeed precepts given to all the faithfull and not counsailes directed onely to such as are or would seeme to be perfect Cyrill saith hee affirmeth that the precept it self thou shalt not lust which is noted to be most difficâ—…lt may through grace be fulfilled Answ. That place of Cyrill as it is translated into Latine is in a maner without sence neither can any thing be soundly inferred from it Heâ—… seemeth to say that Christ restoring mans nature to his originall perfection which is but begunne in this life said To them of old it was said thou shalt not commit adultery but I say unto you thou shalt not lust quamvis res sit ut â—…pinor ad quâ—…m pertingi nequeat though it be a thing as I suppose which cannot be attained unto namely in this life yet to this perfection Christ hath reformed or restored us viz. inchoative in this life and perfectly in the life to come § XX. The rest of the testimonyes are of â—…wo sorts for either they deny the commandements of God to be impossible as Bâ—…sil orat in illud attende tibi Deut. 15. 9. Hierâ—…e â—…dvers Pelag. lib. 3. in Matth. 5. 〈◊〉 de Natura gratia Cap 43. c. or else they affirme that they are possible if men would as Câ—…ncil Arâ—…sican 2. Can. ult Hilâ—…ru in Psalm 118. Chrysâ—…stom in Matth â—…om 39. in Hebr. homil 16. c. Answ. To preserve these fathers from contradicting themselves certaine distinctions are to be admitted For the same men who deâ—…y the law to be impossible doe conâ—…esse that God commandeth some things which wee cannot doe aâ—…d that never any since the fall of Adam did or could fulfill the whole law of God and that there is no man that liveth without sinne Their meaning therfore is that although no man can fulfill the law yet it is not impossible The first distinction is that which I mentioneâ—… before bâ—…twixt the perfect fulfilling and the upright keeping of Gods commandments for although they cannot in this life be fulfilled in thâ—…t pâ—…rfection which the law requireth yet they may and usually are kept of the faithfull in sincerity and uprightâ—…esse which the Lord in the covenant of grace acceptech The second is conserâ—…ing impossibility For when it is said that the law is impossible to be fulfilled pâ—…ctly it is either understood simply per se as the fathers understood it as it is impossible saith Basil for the eye of a man to see his owne backe or conditionally and per accidens in respect of mans condition or estate For the law was possible to man in his integrity when he was in the earth by Paradise before his fall and shall be possible againe when hee shall be fully renewed in the heavenly Paradise But to man being fallen into the state of disobedience the fulfilling of the law is impossible by accident For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fleshly disposition of our corrupt nature is not subject to the law of God neither can it be The third distinction is in respect of the persons for men are either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unregenerate or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 regenerate The regenerate man by the grace of God is both willing and able to keepe the law according to the measure of grace received The unregenerate man is not able to keepe the law because hee will not the very frame of his will being enmity against God Rom. 8. 7. Gen. 6. 5. 8. 21. And here it is to be observed that those fathers which had to doe with the Pelagians who held that men by strength of nature were able to fulfill the Law of God or else the Lord commandiug them unpossible things should be unjust neither should the fault be in men who cannot obey but in God who enjoyneth impossible things did grant unto them that God did not command impossibilityes yet they did hold which the Papists also confesse that no man without grace could performe them For indeed to an unregenerate man who is dead in sinne it is as unpossiâ—…le to fulfill the wâ—…ole law of God which is spirituall as it is for a dead man to perfâ—…rme the actions of the naturall life For as I said before out of Augustine man by his sinne hath lost not onely bonum possibilitatis so that â—…ee can doe no good but also possibilitatem non peccandi so that hee cannot but sinne though hee sinne most freely For this is the freedome of a man not regenerate quâ potest peccare non potest non peccare 〈◊〉 dam nabiliur saith the Master of the sentences whereby hee is able to sinne and can doe no other but sinne and that damnably § XXI And further to those testimonies which affirme that men may fulfill the commandements if they will I answeare that nothing can be inferred from thence uâ—…lesse it be proved that men at all times are willing to fulfill them For if they be not willing they are not able and much lesse doe they actually performe them Thus therefore they must argue To them that are allwaies willing to keepe the commandements the Law is not impossible But all men are alwaies willing to keepe the Commandements Therefore to no man is the Law impossible The proposition is not generally true in respect of the regenerate themselves unto whom to will is oftentimes present when how to performe that which is good they find not Râ—…m 7. 18. For the good that they would they doe not and the evill which they would not that they doe v. 19. But the assumption is manifestly false and the contrary is generally true No man is allwaies willing c. And therefore from those Testimonyes wherein the condition of the will is interposed nothing can be concluded
for the absolute possibility of fulfilling the Law but rather against it For those who are not at all times so willing as they ought to be to fulfill the Law they cannot allwaies fulfill it But no man is at all times so willing as he ought to be to fullfill the Law Augustine averreth Nâ—…minem esse qui tantum velit 〈◊〉 res exigit therfore no man is able allwaies to fulfill it For although perhaps he could if hee would which as even now I said is not generally true of the regenerate themselves yet whiles hee will not hee cannot For the will of obeying is the chiefe part of obedience The meaning therfore of those Fathers is that the impossibility of the Law is not to be ascribed to the Law as if it were not possible but to the will of man who will not obey it § XXII Now that the Fathers who deny the Law to be impossible doe not meane that it is absolutely possible to be perfectly fulfilled appeareth by these reasons First because they yeelded so farre to the objection of the Pelagians as not to deny it to be possible to the unregenerate as I noted before Secondly because they held that all men are sinners and that no man in this mortall life can live without sinne and consequently without transgressing the Law Now it is manifest that hee who transgresseth thâ—… Law doth not fulfill it But when we thus argue Bellarmine saith we confound two questions which ought not to be confounded whether the Commandements may be kept and whether a man may live without sinne which questions are so different that to the former â—…gustine allwayes answered affirmatively to which purpose â—…ee citeth Dâ—… peccat merit remiss lib. 2. cap. 3. 6. De Nâ—…tur gratia c. 69. De gratia lib. arbitr c. 16. in Psal. 56. And to the latter negatively to which purpose hee quoteth Lib. de Natur. gratia cap. 34. De spiritu litera cap. ult contr 2. Epistolas Pelag. c. 14. Epist. 89. 95. and the whole booke de perfectione justitiâ—… Aâ—…sw This say I is a plaine evidence that Augustine when hee saith which wee also say that a man may keepe the Commandements meaneth not the perfect fulfilling of the Law For if the question be propounded concerning the perfect fulfilling of the Law it is the same in effect with the other For hee that perfectly fulfilleth the Law doth undoubtedly live without â—…nne and hee that doth not live without sinne doth not perfectly fulfill the Law Wherefore the affirmation of the one question understood of perfect fulfilling and the Negation of the other doth imply a contradiction Thirdly Because the fathers explane their meaning when they say that the Law is possible and that a man may keepe the commandements not in respect of the perfect fulfilling but partly in respect of the sinceâ—…e study and upright endevour to performe and partly in respect of Gods mercie in Christ pardoning what is wanting in their obedience So saith Augustine hîc studium pracepta servandi gratia Dei tribuit quâ—… si quid etiam in eis prâ—…ceptis minus servâ—…tur ignoscit Here the grace of God bestoweth the study of keeping the precepts which also if any thing in those precepts be not kept it pardoneth which I cited before all the commandements are reputed to be done when whatsoever is not done is pardoned And elsewhere hee saith that our righteousâ—…esse in this life doth consist rather in remission of sins than in perfection of virtues For as touching perfection he saith Vâ—…rtutem quae nuâ—… est in homine justo perfectam hactenus nominare ut ad ejus perfectionem pertineat etiam ipsius imperfectionis in veritate agnitio in humilitate confessio that the virtue which now is in a just man is â—…o farre forth called perfect that to the perfection thereof appertaineth both the acknowledgment of the imperfection there of in truth and the confâ—…ssion of it in humilily § XXIII But heâ—…e Bellarmine holdeth a strange paraâ—…oxe That although a man cannot live without sin yet he may perfectly fulfill the Law of God The absurdity whereof hee hopeth to salve with the distinction of sinnes into veniall and mortall because veniall sinnes without which none are in this life doe not hinder the fulfilling of the Law But this distinction will not serve his turne unlesse hee can prove that veniall sinnes are no sinnes For if they be sinnes they are transgressions of the Law And if they be transgâ—…essions of the Law as undoubtedly thâ—…y are or else they be no sinnes then hee that cannot live witâ—…out them cannot live without transgression of the Law and hee thâ—…t cannot live without transgression of the Law cannot perfectly fulfill it I will not enter into the full discussing of this question at this time because it is another controversy onely for the clearing of the point in hand I doe avouch according to the Sâ—…riptures that the wages of sinne or stipend Rom. 6. 23. the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the just recompence of reward Heb. 2. 2. is death and that the least sinne according to the sentence of the Law if it be a sinne maketh a man subjâ—…ct to the curse of God Gal. 3. 10. And that as every sinne deserveth death and therefore in it self is mortall so every sinne is punishâ—…d with death either with the death of the party who hath no part in Christ to whom all sinnes are mortall or with the death of Christ as the sinnes of those who are his members to whom their sinnes which in their owne nature are mortall become veniall as being allready punished in Christ and the justice of God satisfied for them by the satisfaction given by Christ whose bloud doth cleanse us from all our sinnes both great and small none being so small but that it is of sufficient weight to presse down the sinner to hell being of infinit guilt committed against infinite justice deserving infinite punishment for which the justice of God cannot be satisfyed but by a propitiation of infinite value Thus therefore I reason That sinnâ—… which is punished with the death of Christ is in it selfe mortall all and every even â—…he least sinne of the faithfull is punished with the death of Christ therfore all and every even the least sinne of the faithfull is in it selfe mortall But Bellarmine hath a conceipt that veniall sinnes are not simply siâ—…nes nor against the Law but besides it I answere First that which is besides the Law is an aberration from it and a declination from it â—…ither to the right hand or to the left and that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and is absolutely forbidden Secondly to doe that which is besides the Law is not to doe that which is commanded but hee that doth not the thing commanded that doth not all that doth not continue in doing all is subject to the
curse Thirdly Whatsoever is not agreeable or conformable to the Law is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is a sinne But that which is besides the Law is not conformable unto it therefore it is a sinne and a transgression of the Law which whosoever committeth hee doth not fulfill the Law Fourthly Things forbidden in the Law are against the Law Those which they call veniall sinnes are forbidden in the Law For either they are forbidden or commanded or neither forbidden nor commanded If they be commanded then are they duetyes and not sinners if neither commanded nor forbidden then are they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 things indifferent it remayneth therefore that they are forbidden § XXIV Now because the proofe of this point that the fulfilling of the Law is not possible unto us is a matter of great consequence for thereby the popish doctrine of justification by inherent righteousnesse in generall and by workes in particular is evidently confuted I will to those arguments heretofore used adde the testimonies of antiquity in requitall of Bellarmines allegations out of the Fathers First Therefore Iustin Martyr saith that never any man did accurately performe all the things that are commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly Eusebius Caesariensis demonstrates that things required in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to all men impossible Thirdly Ambrose Tanta mandata sunt ut impossibile sit servari ea so great things are commanded that it is impossible they should be kept whence Peter in the Acts of the Apostles saith why doe you impose a yoke upon the brethren which neither our fathers nor we were able to beare Fourthly Chrysostome what did the Law intend to make a man just but it was not able 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for no man did fulfill it 2. No man could be justified by the Law unlesse hee fulfilled all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But this was not possible to any man therfore that righteousnesse it self is quashit 3. That the Apostle by Testimony cited out of Deut. proveth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that no man hath fulfilled the Law Hierome and Augustine in this point deliver the same things against the Pelagians which wee doe against the Papists Fifthly Quoniam a. saith Hierome nemo potest implere legem that no man can fulfill the Law and doe all things that are commanded the Apostle testifieth also elsewhere For that which was impossible of the Law in that it was weake through the flesh Rom. 8. 3. c. 2. This is the onely perfection of men if they know themselves to be unperfect And you saith hee when you have done all say wee are unprofitable servants wee have done what was our duety to doe If hee be unprofitable who hath done all what is to be said of him who was not able to fulfill 3. And againe thou saist the Commandements of God are easie tamen nullum proferre potes qui universa compleverit and yet canst bring forth none that hath fulfilled them all 4. God saith the Pelagian hath given possible Commandements and who denyeth this but how this sentence is to bee understood the vessell of election most plainely teacheth that which was impossible of the Law in that it was weak through the flesh c that is that the Law is not simply impossible but by reason of the flesh that which was possible before the fall is since the fall impossible by reason of mans coruption 5. When the Pelagians said that although no man bee without sinne yet he might be without sinne what kinde of arguing saith he is this posse esse quod nunquam fuerit that that may be which never was posse fieri quod nullum fecisse testeris that that may be done which your selfe testifie never any man did and to attribute that I know not to whom which you can never prove to have beene in the Patriarches or Prophets or Apostles 6. That which our Saviour Christ saith if thou wilt be perfect is said to him who could not yea would not and therefore could not 7. Then are we just when we confesse our selves to be sinners and our righteousnesse consisteth not of our owne merit but of Gods mercie 8. If wee doe not that which we would but worke that which wee would not how say ye that a man may be without sinne if he will Behold the Apostle and all beleevers are not able to accomplish what they would 9. Having cited many testimonies to prove that no man is justified by the workes of the Law all these saith he I runne through ut ostendam a nullo legem esse imâ—…letam that I might shew that the Law is fulfilled of none meaning by the Law all the Commandements which are contained in the Law 10. If you can shew the man who hath fulfilled all then may you shew a man who needeth not Gods mercie 11. The Law is made weake quoniam nemo potest iâ—…plere eam nisi Dominus because none but our Lord can fulfill it VI. Augustine saith that to that immortall life appertaineth that precept thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart with all thy soule and with all thy might but to this life let not sinne reigne in your mortall bodies to obey the lusts thereof to that life thou shalt not lust to this thou shalt not goe after thy lusts 2. God doth so worke righteousnesse in his Saints labouring under the temptation of this life that notwithstanding there remaineth both what he may largely adde to them when they aske and also what he may mercifully forgive when they confesse 3. In the same chapter hee had said that the two Commandements of loving God with all our heart and our neighbours as our selves wee shall fulfill when we shall see face to face But saith he the same is now commanded us ut admoneremur quid fide exposcere quò spem praemittere ut oblivisâ—…endo quaeretro sunt in quae anteriâ—…ra nos extendere debeamus that wee might be admonished what by faith to desire whether to send before our hope unto what things which are before we should preasse forward forgetting what is behind 4. That the virtue which now is in a just man is so farre to be called perfect that to the perfection thereof there belongeth the acknowledgment of its imperfection in verity and the confession thereof in humility for then this petite justice is according to its small measure infirmely perfect when it understandeth what is wanting to it selfe And therefore the Apostle saith both that he is unperfect and that hee is perfect unperfect considering how much he wanted unto justice the fulnesse whereof he did as yet hunger after and thirst perfect both because he is not ashaâ—…ed to confesse his imperfections and goeth forward well that he may attaine unto it 5. Surely hee that is renewed from day to day which is the cause
state of perfection or supererogation as that it is for the most part a sinnefull state and that in three respects First in respect of making the vow For it is sinne to vow that which a man doth not know to be lawfull or not in his owne power then doth hee sinne with an high hand not onely resolving but also vowing to sinne and to continue therein Secondly in respect of the performing the vow when the thing vowed viz. continencie in single life doth appeare not to be in their power and yet to performe their vow of single life live in incontinency and uncleanenesse Many times it falleth out that a man at the first doth not know the thing vowed to be either not lawfull or not in his power yet because he doth not know it to be lawfull and in his power he sinneth by rash vowing but when afterwards it doth appeare to be either unlawfull or not in his power he is not bound to keepe that vow which rashly he made but hee is bound to breake it for by performing it he addeth sinne to sinne and many times a greater sinne to a lesse that is to the rashnesse of his vow the incontinencie of his life And this is perpetuall among the Popish votaries who never dissolve their vow though the performance of it bee never so wicked Thirdly because the vowed single life among the Papists being for the most part so filthy and abominable that all the world cryeth shame upon them for their filthinesse yet by them is obtruded unto God as a matter not onely of religion and satisfaction but also of merit of perfection and supererogation And the like might be said of their vow of blinde obedience For simple and absolute obedience is onely to bee vowed and performed to God But to vow the like towards any sinfull man who either doth or at least may command that which is unlawfull as sometimes they doe to murther Princes or to attempt other traiterous practises c. and to thinke that in so doing he doth merit and supererogate it is to forsake God § VII His second reason If the Commandements were impossible they would binde no man And so the precepts should bee no precepts for it cannot bee imagined how any man should sinne in that which hee cannot avoid c. His reason is thus to be framed To that which is impossible no man is tyed To the Commandements all men are tyed Therefore the Commandements are not impossible The assumption which no man denyeth he proveth because if they did not binde they were no precepts neither were the transgression of them a sinne The proposition he proveth because it cannot bee imagined how a man should sinne in that which he cannot avoid I answere as heretofore by distinction That the Commandements are said to be impossible either simply or by accident If therefore the meaning of his conclusion be that the Commandements bee not simply and absolutely impossible then I grant all for wee never held that the Commandements are simply impossible for to man both before his fall and after his resurrection they were and shall be absolutely possible But since the fall they are impossible in respect of the perfect performance in and by our selves not simply but by reason of the flesh that is to say through our owne default For if wee would not have sinned in Adam the Law had beene possible unto us but by our voluntary sinne we lost both 〈◊〉 possibilitatis and also possibilitatem non peccandâ—… Now it were absurd to imagine that our fault should free us from obedience Howbeit even after the fall there is a distinction to be held betweene men unregenerate in the corrupt state of nature and the regenerate in the state of grace To the unregenerate the Law is impossible through their owne default which doth not lessen their sinne for they sinne voluntarily and many times of malice as the devils also doe who though they have brought upon themselâ—…es a necessity of sinning so that they can doe no other but sinne yet this doth not as I said extenuate their sinne for they commit sinne with greedinesse but rather aggravate their finfulnesse Those that are habituated in sinne in whom custome is become as it were another nature they can no more of themselves ceasse from sinning than a Black-moore can wash away his blackenesse Ier. 13. 23. § VIII Yea but saith Bellarmine It cannot bee imagined how a man should sinne in that which hee cannot avoid Answ. That seemeth to be true in respect of the liberty of contradiction but not in respect of the liberty of contrariety In respect of a sinfull action a man hath liberty to doe it or not to doe it which wee call the liberty of contradiction But he hath not liberty to doe that which is good his naturall will enabling him onely to sinne So that although a naturall man may abstaine from this or that sinfull act yet he sinneth in whatsoever he doth neither can he doe any other but sinne If therefore they doe not sin who are not able to fulfill the Law then all Infidels yea all naturall men who câ—…n doe nothing but sinne should be exempted from sinning which is absurd To the regenerate man as I said before the Law is possible both in respect of his faith For he that truely beleeveth in Christ hath fulfilled the Law in Christ. Secondly in regard of his new obedience and that in three respects For first his new obedience though it be not compleat yet it is obedientia inchoata and though it be not a fulfilling of the Law yet it is an acceptable keeping thereof Secondly though it be unperfect and stayned with the flesh yet being â—…ntyre that is sincere and upright it is in Christ accepted as perfect Thirdly because the imperfection thereof being covered with Christs perfect obedience and cured by his intercession is remitted Now all is esteemed done when that which is not done is remitted § IX His third reason If God should command things impossible he should be more cruell horresco referens and more foolish than any tyrant in exacting atribute from his owne friends which none were able to pay and making such Lawes which he knew none were able to performe But the Consequent is blasphemous therefore the antecedent To the proposition I answere as before by distinction That if God should command things simply impossible there would besome colour for his blasphemous consequence But the Lord commandeth nothing but what to man in his first creation was absolutely possible neither doth he exact any tribute which he did not make us able to pay nor make any law which we were not able to observe And although now wee cannot in our selves fulfill it yet God was not tyed to accommodate his Law like a Lesbian rule to our weakenesse contracted by our owne default but it became him to propound such Lawes as were answerable to our first integrity describing
§ 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
justifie not onely peâ—…petuall in the Scriptures but also ordinary in the speeches and writings of men Wherein God is said to justifie men and man is said to justifie God and one man is said to justifie another and one and the same man to justifie himselfe without any signification of infusing righteousnesse into him but by cleering him and pronouncing him just Secondly that there is no further respect to be had in this controversie to the notation of the Latine or English word than as it is a true translation of the Hebrew word in the old Testament and of the Greek in the new now I shall make it evident that the Hebrew hitsdiq and so the greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Verbum forensâ—… a judiciall word taken from the courts of justice which being attributed to the Iudge is opposed to condemning and signifieth to absolve or to give sentence with the party questioned § III. In the definition we consider justification as an action of God whose alone worke it is and so the Scriptures consider it in many places as Rom. 8. 33. It is God that doth justifie for it is he only that forgiveth sinnes Esa. 43. 25. It is he onely that can by making us righteous in Christ give us right and title to the kingdome of heaven It is no action therefore of our owne or of any creature neither is it wrought by our owne preparations and dispositions For although every man is bound to use all meanes to attaine to justification yet it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that sheweth mercy For if God bee the agent in justifying us then are wee the patients And for that cause we are never in the Scriptures exhorted to justification or to the parts thereof which are not our Officia or duties but Gods Beneficia as wee are to the duties of sanctification whereunto we being already justified and regenerated doe cooperate with the Spirâ—…t of grace § IIII. Secondly when we say it is an action of God Imputing the righteousnesse of Christ and absolving the beleeving sinner and accepting him c. wee consider it not as an action of God within us working a positive or reall change as in sanctification but as an action of God without us For it is a judiciall act of God as the Iudge oppoâ—…ed to condemning And therefore as by his sentence hee doth condemne that is make wicked so by his sentence hee doth justifie that is of guilty he maketh not guilty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by his sentence God doth justifie as Chrysostome and Oecumenius note upon Rom. 8. 33. where a judiciall proceeding in the businesse of justification is plainely described For there is mention of the accuser of Gods elect there is God that justifieth and none to condemne there is the advocate and intercessor to plead for us And as in condemning though the hebrew word Hirshiah opposed to justifying signifieth to make wicked for as Tsady is to be just and Hitsdiq to make just that is to justifie so Rashah to be wicked and Hirshiah to make wicked that is to condemne yet God by condemning doth not make a reall or positive change by infusion of wickednesse into the party whom by his sentence hee maketh wicked that is condemneth so in justifying though the word doe signifie to make righteous yet the Lord doth not Quatenus justificat as he justifieth worke a reall or positive mutation in the party whom by his sentence he maketh just that is justifieth in respect of any inward dispositions or qualities but onely a relative change or mutation in respect of his estate and condition before God and in respect of some relations to him It is true â—…hat in our justification we are of sinners made righteous but the righteousnesse which we have by justification standeth in remission of sinne and acceptation or constitution of us as righteous not in our selves but in Christ both which are wrought by imputation of his righteousnesse It is true also that whom God doth justifie he doth also sanctifie But in justification he doth not worke a reall change in the party as he doth in sanctification And this 〈◊〉 in the like actions of God viz. adoption redemption and reconciliation which three in substance differ not from justification For all agree in the not imputing of sinne by imputation of Christs righteousnesse but are diversified by certaine relations all which concurre in justification that men having their sinnes forgiven whereby they had beene either the children of the devill by adoption are made the sonnes of God or the vassals and bondslaves of sinne and Satan are by redemption made the servants of God or enemies to God by their reconciliation become his favourites or guilty of sinne and damnation in their justification they are accepted as righteous in Christ and consequently become Gods servants Gods favourites Gods sonnes and if sonnes then also heires of eternall life As therefore in adoption redemption reconciliation there is no reall change made in the party but onely a new relation acquired of being a sonne and hâ—…ire to the adoptour a servant to the redeemer a favourite to the reconciler which before he was not so neither in justification is there a reall or positive change as the Papists would have it but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 relative or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is in relation in respect of those relations even now mentioned and in respect of his estatâ—… and condition before God being in his justification translated from the estate of damnation unto the state of salvation Even as the councell of Trent it selfe defineth justification to be a translation from that state wherein a man is borne the sonne of the first Adam into a state of grace and adoption of Gods sonnes through the second Adam Iesus Christ our Saviour which is done without any reall change wrought in the party as hee is justified For who before was guilty of sinne and damnation the same man remaining a sinner in himselfe and in himselfe worthy of damnation is in his justification absolved from the guilt of sinne and accepted as râ—…teous in Christ in whom also hee is made a servant a favourite a sonne of God and consequently as I said in the definition an heire of eternall life § V. And yet we deny not but that those whom God reconcileth unto himselfe receiving them into his grace and â—…avour in Christ them also he endueth in some measure with the graces of his Spirit whom he adopteth to be his sonnes in Christ them also he regenerateth by his holy Spirit whom he redeemeth from the guilt of sinne he also freeth from the dominion of sinne and whom he justifieth by faith he also sanctifieth by his Spirit that is whom he maketh just by imputation them also he maketh just by infusion of righteousnesse to whom he imputeth the merit of Christ his death and
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
condemnation and justification some where signifie the action of the Iudge as in the place cited Rom. 5. 16. yet notwithstanding when God doth justifie a sinner by dâ—…claring him just he doth also make him just because the judgement of God is according to the truth And therefore Christ whether he justifieth us by his obedience or by his judgement he alwayes maketh just And thus Augustine saith he understood this place Reply That God maketh just whom he pronounceth just we freely confesse but the question still is of the manner for in justification when he pronounceth a man just he maketh him just and that perfectly just not by infusion of inherent righteousnesse but by imputation of Christs righteousnesse And whom hee justifieth that is maketh just by imputation of righteousnesse them hee also sanctifieth that is maketh just in some measure by infusion of grace For to use Bellarmines owne words when God doth justifie a sinner by declaring him righteous it is plaine that in himselfe hee is a sinner who by God is declared to bee just and therefore that hee is not justified by inherent justice for in himselfe he is a sinner as wee all are How then shall the judgement of God bee according to the truth when hee declareth a sinner to bee just To a sinner beleeving in Christ the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended by faith is imputed for righteousnesse Rom. 4. 5. and this we shall hereafter shew to be an argument unanswerable None remaining sinners in themselves can truely bee declared or pronounced just in respect of righteousnesse inherent All mortall men even the most righteous of them meraine sinners in themselves 1 Ioh. 1. 8. Ecclus 7. 20. Therefore No mortall man can truly be declared or pronounced just in respect of inherent righteousnesse and consequently none are or can bee justified by righteousnesse inherent § IIII. The testimony of Augustine is falsified For disputing against the errour of the Pelagians who imagined that originall sinne was not propagated from Adam but that imitation onely maketh sinners by Adam hee inferreth that then by the same reason onely imitation maketh just by Christ. As though either Adam had done no more against us or Christ for us than that they had been prime examples and precedents the one of sinne the other of righteousnesse But Augustine sheweth out of Rom. 5. that as those who are regenerated by the Spirit of Christ obtaine remission of sinnes and inward grace so those who come from Adam by naturall generation are made guilty of his sinne unto condemnation and also receive corruption from him by propagation all which we teach But that Augustine pleadeth not for justification by inherent justice appeareth by the antithesis which in that place hee maketh betwixt our condemnation by Adam and our justification by Christ. First that whereas to condemnation there concurres our owne voluntary transgression besides Adams sinne yet to our justification there doth not concurre any righteoufnesse besides Christ. Secondly which difference Saint Paul also noteth Rom. 5. 15 16 because in the carnall generation originall sinne onely is contracted but in the spirituall regeneration there is remission not onely of originall but also of voluntary sinnes § V. The second reason of Calvin and Chemnitius which Bellarmine taketh upon him to confute is this because the Apostle writing of justification did no doubt imitate the Hebrew phrase though he wrote in Greeke But the Hebrew word signifying to justifie hath the judiciall signification The argument may thus be propounded Such as is the signification of the Hebrew hitsdiq in the old Testament the same is the signification of the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both in the edition of the Septuagints as being the translation thereof and in the new Testament which in this point retaineth the translation of the Septuagints But the Hebrew hitsdiq is meerely a judiciall word opposed to condemnation as I have proved heretofore by induction of examples as Deut. 25. 1. 1 King 32. 8. Prov. 17. 15. Esai 5. 23. and never signifieth to make righteous by infusion or to endue with righteousnesse inherent Therefore the Greeke word also hath the same signification To the assumption Bellarmine answereth that the Hebrew word properly signifieth to make just but because a man may bee made just both inwardly by obtaining of justice and outwardly by declaration hence it is that the word admitteth these divers significations Reply In this answer we are to take his confession of the truth both that we may be made just outwardly by declaration and also that the Verbe sometimes doth signifie so much In vaine therefore doe the Papists urge against us the signification of the Latine word justificare as signifying justum facere seeing by our exposition it signifieth justum facere also not onely by declaration as Bellarmine heere speaketh but much more by imputation But though he confesseth the signification of the Verbe urged by us yet wee may not acknowledge the signification so much urged by the Papists yea wee confidently deny that the Hebrew hitsdiq doth any where in the Scriptures signifie to endùe with righteousnesse inherent § VI. This therefore hee endevoureth to prove by induction of examples and first out of Dan. 12. 3. Qui adjustitiam erudiunt multos who instruct many to righteousnesse The Hebrew word is matsdiqim where the Prophet speaking of the great glory which shall bee of Teachers who justifie many the vulgar Latine which is the onely authentique Text among the Papists doth not translate the word making righteous by infusion or enduing with righteousnesse inherent which is the worke of God alone and not of the Teacher but instructing unto righteousnesse or as Bellarmine himselfe expoundeth by teaching to bring men to righteousnesse which is done by bringing them to beleeve and therefore this allegation proveth not the Popish signification of the word Yea but it disproveth saith Bellarmine the judiciall signification so much urged by you For Teachers doe not justifie after the maner of â—…udges howbeit the Popish Priests dot in their absolutions as themselves doe teach Reply But this is nothing but a cavill For where wee say that to justifie in this doctrine of justification is verbum forense a word taken from Courts having a judiciall signification as namely to absolve from sinne or to give sentence with a man after the maner of a Iudge our meaning is that this word being attributed to God as it is God alone that justifieth and so wee consider justification as an action of God it alwaies hath this judiciall signification and never signifieth to endue with righteousnesse inherent But wee doe not say that it being attributed to any other as it is to divers others both perâ—…ons and things it is to bee expounded as the act of the Iudge though otherwise the justice implyed in the signification of the word bee after the judiciall sense not inherent but imputative Thus as I
because with it concurre not onely all other inward graces but also our outward obedience § IX The righteousnesse by which wee are justified is not prescribed in the Law but without the Law is revealed in the Gospell the righteousnesse of God that is to say of Christ who is God apprehended by faith For the Law to justification requireth perfect and perpetuall obedience to bee performed by him in his owne person that should bee justified thereby which fince the fall of Adam hath beene and is by reason of the flesh impossible to all men who are descended from Adam by ordinary generation But the Gospell assureth justification without respect of workes to all that truely beleeve in Christ teaching that wee are justified by faith that is by the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended by faith without the workes of the Law that is without respect of any obedience prescribed in the Law and performed by us But the righteousnesse by which wee are sanctified is prescribed in the Law which is a most perfect rule of all righteousnesse inherent § X. Unto the act of justification our owne righteousnesse and obedience doe not concurre as any cause thereof but follow in the subject that is the party justified as necessary fruits of our redemption and justification Yea in the question of justification wherein is considered what that is by which wee are justified and saved in hope our owne righteousnesse and obedience if it should bee obtruded as the matter of our justification is to be esteemed as dung that we may bee found in Christ not having our owne righteousnesse which is prescribed in the Law but that which is through the faith of Christ. But in the question of sanctification that righteousnesse which is inherent in us and that obedience which is performed by us is all in all as being both that habituall and also actuall righteousnesse and holinesse wherein our sanctification doth consist § XI By our justification wee are entituled to Gods kingdome that is saved in hope by our sanctification we are fitted and prepared for Gods kingdome into which no uncleane thing can enter Iustification therefore is the right of Gods children to their inheritance Sanctification is the cognizance and marke of those that shall bee saved wherefore our Saviour saith that by faith wee have remission of sinnes and inheritance among them that are sanctified § XII The righteousnesse by which we are justified is the meritorious cause of our salvation But the righteousnesse by which we are sanctified is a fruit of our justification but no cause of our salvation unlesse you will call it causam sine quâ non which is no cause for we are neither saved by it nor for it but onely by and for the merits of Christ apprehended by faith But though it bee not the cause by or for which wee are justified or saved yet it is the way wherein wee being once justified are to walke towards our countrey in heaven Ephes. 2. 10. as Bernard well saith via regni non causa regnandi the way which leadeth to the kingdome but not the cause of comming unto it § XIII By our justification wee have our right and title to the kingdome of heaven but according to the duties of sanctification as the evidence shall the sentence of salvation bee pronounced at the last day § XIV We are justified by the grace of God as it signifieth onely his gracious love and favour in Christ. But wee are sanctified by Gods grace not onely as it signifieth the favour of God in himselfe but also as it signifieth the graces or gifts of grace infused into us and inherent in us § XV. In justification and in the parts thereof wee are meerely patients but in the duties of sanctification wee are also agents who being acted by the holy Ghost doe cooperate with him For which cause the holy Ghost in the Scriptures doth never exhort us to justification or the parts thereof viz. remission of sinne and acceptation of the beleever as righteous unto life as being the actions of God but to sanctification and the parts thereof he useth to exhort as to mortification Col. 3. 5. to vivification Ephes. 4.23,24 to both Ezek. 18.31 § XVI The acts of faith are of two sorts some tending to justification some to sanctification The former are immediate which are called actus eliciti which it bringeth forth of it selfe without the mediation of any other grace that is to beleeve in Christ by beleeving to receive him and by receiving him to justifie the beleever and therefore faith doth justifie alone The other mediate which it bringeth forth by the meanes of other graces which are called actus imporati and are the fruits of faith working by love and other graces tending to sanctification Thus faith by love worketh obedience and therefore it dtoh not sanctifie alone § XVII Of justification the Apostle treateth in the five first chapters of the Epistle to the Romanes of sanctification in the sixth and seventh § XVIII Our Saviour Christ the blessed Angels Adam in his integrity were sanctified but not justified properly For justification onely is of sinners and consisteth partly in remission of sinnes § XIX Of this difference betweene justification and sanctification the Papists will by no meanes take notice though it bee manifold and manifest But will needs understand justification to be that which wee according to the Scriptures call sanctification And this is the very ground both of their malitious calumniations against us and also of their owne damnable errours concerning justification For as if we also did confound justification and sanctification they charge us as if wee taught that wee are sanctified by faith alone that wee are formally made just or sanctified by a righteousnesse which is without us c. But if wee did hold that justification were to bee confounded with sanctification we would acknowledge that the most things which the Papists affirme concerning justification are true because they are true of sanctification As namely that wee are not sanctified by faith alone that we are sanctified by a righteousnesse inherent in us and performed by us that it is partly habituall consisting in the habits of grace as faith hope charity c. and partly actuall which is our new obedience consisting in good workes which are the fruits and effects of our faith and charity and other inward graces That of sanctification there are degrees and that by exercise and practice of the duties of holinesse and righteousnesse our sanctification is encreased c. § XX. What then Is the difference betweene us and the Papists in this great controvefie onely in words Nothing lesse For as their confounding of justification and sanctification is the ground of their calumniations against us so of their owne errours For confounding justification and sanctification first they confound the Law and the
law of God Therefore all evill concupiscence whatsoever in whomsoever remaining is a sinne § IX Yea but concupiscence is no sinne unlesse the Will consent unto it Then say I not a sinne in infants not baptized But the Law doth not say non consenties concupiscentiis sed omninò non concupisces thou shalt not consent to concupiscences but thou shalt not have any evill concupiscence at all And it is most evident that the concupiscence forbidden in the tenth Commandement is such as goeth before the consent of will For it is such as Saint Paul himselfe had not knowne to be sinne if the Law had not said Non concupisces thou shalt not covet But such concupiscences as have the consent of the will the very Heathen knew to bee sinnes And the Papists themselves must acknowledge them to be forbidden in the former Commandements unlesse they will deny the Law of God to be spirituall and preferre the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 corrupt interpretations of the Elders of the Iewes before the exposition of the Lawgiver himselfe Matth. 5. True therefore is that which some Writers cite out of Augustine that Originall sinne is remitted in Baptisme not that it be not but that it be not imputed unto sin Here Bellarmine takes on and saith that Luther first falsified this testimony of Augustine and that all who have followed him have continued the same fault though they have beene told of it A great accusation if true Augustines words in answere to an objection which the Papists cannot answer how can originall sinne bee transmitted from regenerate parents if in Baptisme it be wholly taken from them are these I answer saith he dimitti concupiscentiam in baptismo non ut non sit sed ut in peccatum non imputetur Where Augustine speaking of the traduction of originall sinne calleth it as his manner is Concupiscence in stead whereof some of our Writers have said sinne both Augustine and they meaning nothing else but originall Now that Augustine by that which he calleth Concupiscence meant sinne hereby appeareth first he saith it is remitted in Baptisme and remission is of debts onely and of sinnes as debts secondly because he saith it is remitted not that it should not bee any longer but that though it be a sinne yet it should not be imputed unto sinne for nothing is wont to be imputed unto sin by God but that which is sinne Where by the way wee may observe that in Augustines judgement remission of sinne is not the utter deletion of it that it bee no more but the not imputing of it For whereas the Papists for a poore shift and evasion say that Concupiscence is called sinne not because it is a sinne sed quia expeccato est ad peccatum inclinat this hindereth not its being a sinne but rather setteth forth the greatnesse of this evill as having all the respects of evill in it being both a sinne and a punishment of sinne and the cause of all other sinnes aâ—… Augustine saith Concupiscentia carnis adversus quam bonus concupiscit Spiritus sc. in renatis peccatum est poena peccati causa peccaâ—…i § X. But howsoever Bellarmine letteth passe as well he might his other arguments alleaged in his Booke of Baptisme as impertinent to this present question yet one of them hee hath thought good not to omit as being in his conceit unanswerable which notwithstanding I have not onely answered elsewhere but also have used it as an invincible argument to prove justification by imputation of Christs righteousnesse viz. the argument taken from the antithesis of Adam to Christ Rom. 5. 19. which Bellarmine here straineth beyond the extent of the antithesis made by the Apostle In other places Bellarmine hath thus argued As through Adams disobedience we were made sinners so through Christs obedience wee are made righteous but through Adams disobedience we were made truely sinners namely by unrighteousnesse inherent and not onely by imputation Therefore through the obedience of Christ we are made truly righteous namely by righteousnesse inherent But here to serve his present turne he altereth both the assumption and the conclusion The assumption for where before he said not onely by imputation here he saith not by imputation The conclusion for first in stead of concluding that wee are by the obedience of Christ made inherently just which we confesse though not intended by the Apostle in that place he concludeth that the obedience of Christ hath truly taken away and wiped out or abolished all our sinnes And secondly that he hath taken away our sinnes non imputaâ—…ivè sed verè not by imputation but truly His former argument I retorted after this manner As through Adams disobedience wee were made sinners that is guilty of death and damnation so by Christs obedience wee are made just that is absolved from that guilt and accepted as righteous unto eternall life But by imputation of Adams disobedience we were made sinners Therefore by imputation of Christs obedience wee are made righteous The assumption that we were made sinners by imputation of Adams disobedience I proved as by other arguments so by Bellarmines owne confession in other places Secondly I have acknowledged it to bee true that as we are made truely sinners through Adams disobedience not onely by imputation of Adams sinne but also by transfusion of both that privative and positive corruption which by that disobedi ence he contracted so we are made truly just through the obedience of Christ not onely by imputation of his obedience but also by infusion of righteousnesse from him But though we be truly made just by righteousnesse inherent yet it followeth not that we are in this life made perfectly just Neither doth it follow that because Christ doth free us from the dominion of sin we are therfore freed wholly from the being of sinne in us neither that if we be freed from sinne by imputation we are not freed truly For the Apostle useth these termes promiscuously remitting of sinne and not imputing of sinne justifying and imputing righteousnesse And as Christ was truly and really made a sacrifice for sinne in our behalfe so wee are truly and indeed made the righteousnesse of God in him Thus have I proved that neither remission of sinne is the abolishing of sinne nor justification all one with sanctification and that the Papists by confounding justification and sanctification and of these two making but one have utterly taken away and abolished out of their Divinity that great benefit of our justification A TREATISE OF IVSTIFICATION THE THIRD BOOKE Concerning Justification or saving Grace CAP. I. What is meant by the word Grace in the Question of Iustification § I. THE second Capitall errour of the Papists in the Article of justification is concerning justifying and saving grace For when as the holy Ghost would note unto us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first moving cause or
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 good works but that wherby he loveth us § V. Now let us come to the words which follow which as Cornelius à Lapide confesseth Valde favent doe very much favour our exposition wherein the Apostle sheweth how this love of God whereon our hope c. is grounded is both manifested and assured unto us It is manifested by this verse 6. that when wee were of no strength yea dead in our sinnes the Son of God dyed for us for so saith the Apostle Eph. 2. 4 5. God who is rich in mercie for his great love wherewith he loved us even when wee were dead in our sinnes hath quickened us together with Christ by whose grace wee are saved which wonderfully setteth forth the love of God towards us for scarcely as it is vers 7. for a righteous man will one dye And greater love no man hath than this that a man lay downe his life for his friend Ioh. 15. 13. But God saith the Apostle vers 8. commendeth his love towards us even that love mentioned verse 5. in that whiles wee were yet sinners and by our sinnes his enemies Christ dyed for us It is assured by an argument from the lesse to the greater For if when we were sinners we were redeemed and justified by the bloud of Christ much more being justified wee shall be saved from wrath through him For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne much more being reconciled wee shall bee saved by his life I conclude therefore that notwithstanding the testimony of Augustine which as himselfe confesseth deserveth no credit further than it is warranted by the authority of Gods word or sound reason by the love of God in this place is meant Gods love towards us I come to his two other arguments § VI. The former which is a very weake one is by paralleling that place with Rom. 8. 15. For saith hee the same Apostle speaking of the same spirit given unto us saith You have received the Spirit of adoption of sonnes by which we cry Abba Father Now saith hee wee cry Abba Father by that charity whereby we love God not by that whereby he loveth us Which reason if it bee reduced into a syllogisme will not conclude his assertion but the erroneous opinion of Lombard the master of sentences which Bellarmine himselfe elsewhere confuteth namely that the charity whereby wee love God is the holy Ghost That whereby wee cry in our hearts Abba Father is the holy Ghost By that charity wherewith wee love God we cry in our hearts Abba Father Therefore that Charity wherewith wee love God is the holy Ghost This conclusion Bellarmine knoweth to bee false Therefore either the proposition is false or the assumption for it is impossible that a false conclusion should bee inferred from true premisses in a formall syllogisme as this is But the proposition is the Apostles both Rom. 8. 15. and Gal. 4. 6. therefore the assumption is false Neither is charity that fruit of the holy Ghost whereby the Spirit of adoption causeth us to cry Abba Father but faith For although by charity wee may bee declared or knowne to bee the sonnes of God yet wee become the sonnes of God not by charity but by faith Ioh. 1. 12. Gal. 3. 26. And consequently not by charity but by faith wrought in us by the Spirit of adoption testifying with our Spirits that wee are the sonnes of God the said spirit maketh us to cry in our hearts Abba Father § VII His second proofe is out of Rom. 8. 10. where it is said that by justifying grace we doe live The body indeed is dead by reason of sinne Spiritus autem vivit propter justificationem as the vulgar Latine readeth but the Spirit liveth because of justification But wee cannot well be said to live by the externall favour of God seeing nothing is more inward than life Answ. In this argument nothing is sound for first it proveth not the point for which it is brought viz. that by the love of God Rom. 5. 5. is meant our love of God Neither is it said Rom. 8. 10. that wee live by justifying grace for neither is justifying grace mentioned but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 justice neither is it said that we live by it though it bee true that by justifying faith we live but that the Spirit is life propter justificationem for or by reason of righteousnesse And further it is well said that our Spirit liveth the spirituall and eternall life by the gracious favour of God which is out of us in him by which wee are saved as also for and by reason of the righteousnesse and merits of Christ which also are out of us in him Neither doth it follow that because life is inward that therefore it propter quod for which or by reason whereof wee doe live should also be inward § VIII But to let passe his impertinent allegation of this place and to explaine the true meaning thereof which is to set downe in this verse and that which followeth two priviledges of those in whom Christ dwelleth by his Spirit the one in respect of the soule vers 10. that howsoever by reason of sinne the body is dead that is mortall or subject to death yet the soule is life that is designed unto life by reason of righteousnesse The other in respect of the body vers 11. that if Christ dwell in us by his Spirit then hee which raised up Christ from the dead shall also by the same Spirit quicken that is raise up unto life eternall our mortall bodies Now as our bodie is dead that is subject to death by reason of Adams sinne in whom as the roote all sinned so our soule is life or intituled to life by reason of Christs righteousnesse in whom as our head wee satisfied the justice of God The sinne of the first Adam and the righteousnesse of the second being both communicated unto us by imputation And this is all that Bellarmine hath alleaged to prove that justifying grace is inherent all which is as good as nothing CAP. VI. The use of the word Grace in the writings of the Fathers § I. HAving shewed how the word grace is used in the Scriptures something is to be added concerning the use thereof in the writings of the Fathers whose authority the Papists are wont to object against us Howbeit as in the Scriptures so also in the Fathers there are two principall significations of the word Grace the one proper signifying the gracious favour of God in Christ by which they acknowledge us to be elected called justified and saved The other metonymicall signifying the gift of grace and namely the grace of regeneration or sanctification which in the Scriptures is called the Spirit opposed to the flesh and the new Man or new creature which is renewed and as it were recreated according to the Image of
is true God This righteousnesse of Christ which is called the righteousnesse of God by which we are justified the Papists even Bellarmine himselfe sometimes confesse to be a plenary satisfaction to God and by him imputed to them that beleeve and that this righteousnesse of Christ is the meritorious cause of our justification and that by the merit of Christs righteousnesse we are justified and yet they cannot abide to heare that it is the matter of justification when as wee by the matter of justification understand nothing but that righteonsnesse which is imputed to justification Now it is certaine that the righteousnesse of Christ neither active nor passive which were transient nor the merit thereof can otherwise be communicated to us but by imputation Even as the actuall transgression of Adam and the guilt thereof were by imputation communicated to us Neither could inherent righteousnesse bee merited for us unto our sanctification unlesse his righteousnesse it selfe and the merit thereof were first imputed to us unto justification no more than the actuall sinne of Adam could have infected us with originall corruption if his sinne and the guilt thereof had not first beene imputed to us § V. The fecond part of the assumption was that the righteousnesse inherent in us is our righteousnesse which one would thinke should need no proofe For though we receive it from God as wee doe all other good things which wee have yet it as well as all other good things even our daily bread which we have received from God is to be called ours All good things which we have are Gods gifts and yet they are not called his but ours As our bodies our soules our life our liberty our learning our wisedome our charity our temperance our piety c. and so our righteousnesse The Papists and some others doe teach that that righteousnesse is called Gods righteousnesse which wee shall have from God and that ours which wee have from our selves and by the strength of nature whereto I answer first there can bee no righteousnesse which is not the gift of God from whom all gifts doe come Neither is it credible that the Iewes who were instructed in Gods word should ever looke to bee justified by a righteousnesse not received from God The Pharisee himselfe who trusted unto his owne righteousnesse and thought as the Apostle speaketh of the Iewes to be justified by his owne righteousnesse acknowledged it to be the gift of God and therefore thanked him for it And hereunto Bellarmine elsewhere accordeth endeavouring by the example of the Pharisee who trusted in himselfe as being righteous to prove that men are not justified by speciall faith or by affiance in Gods speciall mercie And lest any should object that hee trusted to a righteousnesse which he had of himselfe hee addeth Neither can it bee said that the Pharisee had faith or affiance of Gods benevolence by reason of his owne merits as though hee â—…eleeved that he had his righteousnesse from himselfe Nam agebat gratias Deo de sua justitia proinde à Deo eam se habere credebat for he gave God thankes for his righteousnesse and therefore beleeved that he had it from God Secondly the righteousnesse of God by which wee are justified is without the Law revealed in the Gospell but all that righteousnesse which is from God within us is fully and perfectly described in the Law § VI. Thirdly as the severall parts of inherent righteousnesse though received from God as being his gifts of grace are notwithstanding called ours as our faith Matth. 9. 2 22. Rom. 1. 8. Hab. 2. 4. â—…am 1. 3. Our charity 2 Cor. 8. 8 24. 1 Cor. 16. 24. Philem. 1. and 7. Our hope Phil. 1. 20. 1 Thess. 2. 19. Our good workes Mat. 5. 16. Apoc. 2. 2. Our patience Luk. 21. 19. 2 Thess. 1. 4. Apoc. 2. 2. 3. 10. 13. 10. So righteousnesse inherent is in very many places of Scripture called ours whereof I will quote some Gen. 30. 33. 1 Sam. 26. 23. 2 Sam. 22. 21 25. 1 King 8. 32. Iob 33. 26. Psalm 7. 8. 18. 20 24. 35. 27. 112. 3 9. Prov. 11. 5 6. Eccl. 7. 16. Esa. 5. 23. 64. 6. Ezech. in his 3. 4. 18. and 33. chapters foureteene times Matth. 5. 20. and 6. 1. according to the Latine 2 Cor. 9. 9 10. but there are two which are most remarkeable Psalm 4. 1. where David thus calleth upon the Lord O God of my righteousnesse that is saith Bellarmine à quo est omnis meâ—… justitia acknowledging all his righteousnesse to bee from God and yet calleth it his owne righteousnes Esa. 54. 17. their righteousnesse is from me saith the Lord from God but yet theirs If it bee objected out of Augustine that it is called the righteousnesse of God non qua justus est sed qua nos justos facit not whereby hee is just but whereby hee maketh us just I answer that Christs righteousnesse both habituall and actuall both active and passive is such for it is not that whereby God that is the Godhead is just but that whereby hee maketh us just Fourthly whereas the Papists will needes have the righteousnesse of God by which wee are justified and which is the principall matter taught in the Gospell to be inherent in us though from God they confound Gods righ teousnes and ours and thereby confound the Law and the Gospell and by confounding them abolish the righteousnes of God as before by confounding justification with sanctification they abolished the benefit of justification and evacuate the Gospell or at least with the false Apostles Gal. 1. teach another Gospell whiles they teach another righteousnesse whereby to bee justified than the righteousnes of God which whosoever doth though hee were an Apostle though an Angel from heaven he ought to be held accursed § VII Our second argument That is the matter of our justification besore God by which wee being sinners in our selves for that justification which the Scriptures teach is the justification of a sinner doe stand righteous before God which wee being sinners may oppose to the judgement of God why he should not condemne us which wee being sinners may interpose betwixt Gods justice and us and which we may plead as a full satisfaction to God for us Such is the righteousnes of Christ for being sinners in our selves yet beleeving in Christ we are in him accepted and constituted righteous The righteousnesse of Christ is that which we being sinners in our selves may oppose to Gods judgement or interpose betwixt Gods justice and us which wee may plead as a full satisfaction made in our behalfe For though by our sins wee have deserved to bee condemned and to be excluded from heaven yet if wee beleeve in Christ his sufferings are accepted in our behalfe to free us from hell and his obedience to entitle us unto heaven In him we have borne the penalty in him
is manifest both in respect of the affirmative that we are reconciled unto God by the death of his Sonne Rom. 5. 10. Col. 1. 21 22 and also of the negative For we were enemies when we were reconciled and such enemies as whatsoever we minded was enmity against God Rom. 8. 7. Lastly the fourth branch needeth no proofe neither in respect of the affirmative unlesse it may bee thought needfull to prove that we are saved by the merits of Christ nor in respect of the negative the Scriptures so often testifying that we are saved by grace through faith not by workes no not by any workes of righteousnesse that we have done So much of this argument which if I should strive for number might stand for eight foure for the affirmative and foure against the negative CAP. VII Containing sixe other arguments proving joyntly that we are justified by Christs righteousnesse and not by ours § I. THe sixth argument The righteousnesse by which we are justified is the righteousnesse of faith and not of workes as Saint Paul constantly teacheth The righteousnesse which is out of us in Christ is the righteousnesse of faith or the righteousnesse which we receive and have by faith or the righteousnesse of God by faith The righteousnesse inherent is of workes By that justice therefore we are justified and not by this § 2. The seventh The righteousnesse of God by which wee are justified is not prescribed in the Law to justification but without the Law is revealed in the Gospell Rom. 3. 21. The righteousnesse which is out of us in Christ was not prescribed in the Law to justification but without the Law is revealed in the Gospell righteousnesse inherent is prescribed in the Law to justification which in the question of justification is renounced in the doctrine of the Gospell This being the maine difference betweene the Law and the Gospell that the Law to justification requireth perfect obedience to bee performed in our owne persons the Gospell propoundeth the obedience of Christ which hee performed for us to bee accepted in their behalf who beleeve in him Wherfore let him be held accursed though hee were an Apostle though an Angell from heaven who shall reach justification by the legall righteousnesse and not by the evangelicall Againe the Law was given as the Apostle saith foure hundred and thirty yeares after the covenant of Grace and promise of justification by faith in Christ was made to Abraham and therefore cannot disanull that covenant which was before confirmed in Christ that it should make the promise of none effect which it would if the promise of justification were made upon condition of fulfilling the Law § III. Eightly By what righteousnesse we are justified the justice of God is fully satisfied God being so mercifull in forgiving sinnes that he remaineth just Rom. 3. 25 26. For though he proclaime himselfe mercifull and gracious long-suffering and abundant in goodnesse and truth keeping mercie for thousands forgiving iniquity transgression and sinne yet he protesteth that absolving he will not absolve that is by no meanes will absolve such as ought not to be absolved that is such as for whom his justice is not satisfied Neither doth he indeed forgive any sinne for which his justice is not satisfied But as every sinne deserveth death so it is punished with death either with the death of the party for whom he hath no other satisfaction or with the death of Christ who hath satisfied the justice of God for the sinnes of all that truly beleeve in him By the righteousnesse of Christ which is out of us in him the justice of God is fully satisfied as Bellarmine himselfe proveth g and therefore professeth that in him he is well pleased Finally saith Bellarmine Nothing more frequently doth all the Scripture testifie than that the passion and death of Christ was a full and perfect satisfaction for sinnes He made the attonement betweene God and us giving himselfe an offering and sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour But by that righteousnesse which it inherent in us the justice of God is not satisfied as Bellarmine confesseth Therefore wee are justified by the righteousnesse of Christ which is out us in him and not by righteousnesse inherent in us And here I will make bold with Bellarmine to borow a speech from him which he borrowed as it seemes from our Writers to the confusion of himselfe and all other Popish Iustitiaries For where Osiander had argued that God accepteth for a satisfaction no justice but that which is infinite and consequently none but his owne uncreated and essentiall righteousnesse Bellarmine answereth God indeed doth not accept as a true satisfaction for sinne any justice but that which is infinite because sinne is an infinite offence But that some justice may be finite that is of infinite price and valour it is not necessary that it should be the essentiall justice of God but it is sufficient that it be the justice of an infinite person such as Christ is God and man Therefore the obedience the passion and death of the Sonne of God though in it selfe and essentially it was a created justice and finite notwithstanding in regard of the person who obeyed suffered and died it was infinite and in the true rigour of justice it was a propitiation for our sinnes and not for our sinnes alone but for the sins of the whole world From whence I argue thus that justice which is of infinite value the Lord accepteth as a true satisfaction for sinne and that which is not of infinite value he doth not accept for the offence of sinne is infinite But the righteousnesse of Christ onely is of infinite value ours is not therefore the Lord accepteth Christs righteousnesse and not ours as a true satisfaction for sinne § IV. Ninthly they that cannot be justified without remission of sin are justified neither by inherent righteousnesse because they are sinners nor without the righteousnesse of Christ imputed without which as there can be no satisfaction for sinne so no remission of sinne But no man can be justified without remission of sinne Therefore no man is justified by righteousnesse inherent but onely by the righteousnesse of Christ. § V. The tenth that is to be esteemed the true doctrine of justification which doth minister sound comfort to the distressed conscience of the faithfull and that falfe which is a racke to the conscience of Gods children when they are humbled under the hand of God The doctrine of justification by the merits and obedience of Christ imputed ministreth singular comfort to the distressed conscience of the faithfull even in the agony of death assuring the beleeving sinner that howsoever the devill accuseth the Law convicteth the conscience confesseth his demerits yet notwithstanding if hee truly beleeve in Christ he shall be accepted of God as righteous in Christ and as
the latter branch as wee have borne the image of the earthy so wee shall beare the image of the heavenly is necessarily to bee understood Or of holinesse as Oecumenius understandeth that place that as hee is holy so we should be holy also Neither is it to be doubted but that the image of God according to which we are renewed consisteth in true holines and righteousnes but that is the righteousnes of sanctification wherby we resemble the image of Christ in true righteousnes holines But the righteousnes of justification is Christs righteousnes it self not the image of it § XIII As touching the proposition it selfe wee must distinguish betwixt the thing and the manner In respect of the thing it is true that Christ is righteous and so are all his members But in respect of the manner it is not true neither generally nor adaequatè or reciprocally as Bellarmine understandeth it who from thence argueth negatively as well as affirmatively For things that be like are not like alâ—…ogether and in all respects as may appeare by other resemblances in respect whereof wee are said to beare the image of Christ. As first in respect of filiation Christ is the Sonne of God and so are wee True in respect of the thing but not true in respect of the manner For hee is the Sonne of God by nature and by eternall generation but wee are the Sonnes of God in him by grace of regeneration and adoption Secondly in regard of the Crosse. Christ did beare the Crosse and so do wee True in respect of the thing but not true in respect of the manner For Christs sufferings were the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the price of ransome which hee as our Redeemer laid downe for us But wee doe not suffer as redeemers neither are our sufferings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a price of ransome but either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 chastisements for sinne or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 trialls for our good or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our sufferings for Christ or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is such chastisements or corrections as the Lord laieth upon his children having scandalously offended to vindicate his owne honour Thirdly in respect of glory Christ is glorified and so shall we who beare his image true in respect of the thing but not in respect of the manner for he as the head we as the members according to our proportion Fourthly in respect of holinesse or sanctification Christ was holy and so are wee true in respect of the thing for whosoever is in Christ hee is a new creature renewed according to his image in true holinesse but not in respect of the manner Christ was holy from his conception and originally so are not wee Christ in himselfe was perfectly just and holy without blemish of sinne so are not wee § XIV But as touching the righteousnesse of justification we are not said to beare Christs image Neither can Christ bee said truely and properly to be justified as we are For justification properly is of a sinner and it consisteth partly in remission of sin But if in respect thereof wee did beare Christs image then in imitation of Bellarmine wee might conclude As Christ was not just nor made just so neither are wee But Christ was not just nor made just by the benefit of justification in like manner neithetare wee just or made just by the benefit of justification which is evidently false But in respect of our justification we may rather use that similitude of the Apostle 2 Cor. 5. 21. As Christ was made sinne or a sinner for us so wee are made righteous with the righteousnesse of God in him Christ was made a sinner for us not by inherencie God forbid but by imputation of our sinne Therefore we are made righteous in our justification not by inherencie but by imputation of his righteousnesse § XV. Secondly he reasoneth thus If wee bee not just by iuberent righteousnesse but by imputation onely or as hee speaketh like a cavilling Sophister putativè and not indeed being indeed unjust then doe we beare the image of the Devill rather than of Christ. For more rightly have wee our denomination from that which we are than from that which we are onely suppâ—…sed to bee I answer first that whosoever is just by imputation be is not putativè onely iust but truely and indeed For though he bee a sinner in himselfe as all but Papists are yet hee is righteous or as the Apostle speaketh the righteousnesse of God in him 2 Cor. 4. 21. Secondly that the faithfull are just not onely by righteousnesse imputed which is the righteousnesse of justification but also in respect of justice inherent which is the righteousnesse of sanctification in regard whereof all the faithfull are called Saints as Rom. 1. 7 c. Thirdly although the faithfull bee sinners in themselves yet being regenerate and sanctified in part they have their denomination from their better part and are called just though not purely and perfectly just as I have shewed before § XVI His third reason Of the earthy Adam who was a sinner wee have borne the true image because sinne was not in us putativè but truely and indeed so the true image of Christ wee shall beare if justice bee inherent in us not putativè but truely and indeed Answer As wee receive two things from the first Adam viz. the guilt of his sinne communicated as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth by imputation by which we were truely made sinners and truely obnoxious to death and damnation which is opposite to justification and by it is taken away and secondly the corruption of his nature which hee drew upon himselfe being propagated by carnall generation which is opposite to sanctification and by it in some measure and by degrees is taken away so from the second Adam we receive also two things the merits of Christs sufferings and obedience communicated by imputation by which we are truely made just and heires of eternall life and the vertue of his death and resurrection derived unto us by spirituall regeneration by which wee beare the image of the second Adam as truely though not so fully in this life as by carnall generation wee did beare the image of the first Adam But this withall is to bee observed that as we doe beare the image of the first Adam in respect of the corruption derived unto us by generation and not in respect of the participation of his transgression for in him we sinned and were guilty of the same transgression with him it being communicated unto us by imputation so we do beare the image of the second Adam in respect of holinesse and righteousnesse derived unto us from him in our regeneration by which we are renewed according to his image in true righteousnesse and holinesse and not in respect of our justification wherein the same righteousnesse and obedience which hee performed in the daies of
we say it doth The exclusive particle used by some of our Divines doth exclude infusion not imputation of righteousnesse as Bellarmine confesseth For wee doe hold though all perhaps have not so plainely expressed their meaning and some few have delivered their private opinions that remission of sinne is but a part of justification and that by imputation of Christs righteousnesse we are both absolved from our sinnes and also accepted as righteous in Christ and as heires of eternall life But Bellarmine howsoever he would seeme to acknowledge the concurrence of remission of sinne unto justification yet indeed excludeth it For by remission of sinne concurring to justification hee doth not understand the not imputing or forgiving of sinne but the extinction and abolition thereof wrought by the infusion of habituall righteousnesse which expelleth its contrary as heat doth cold and light darkenesse And howsoever there bee duo termini two termes in this motion or mutation as he conceiveth of justification as being a passage b or change from sinne to righteousnesse yet there be not two causes nor yet two distinct actions but the onely cause is justice infused and the action is but one and the same the infusion of righteousnesse expelling sinne Even as in creation which is transitâ—…s à non esse ad esse in illumination which is transitâ—…s à tenebris ad lâ—…cem in calefaction which is a passage from cold to heat But if this be all that is required in the Popish justification as undoubtedly it is the whole and onely forme thereof being infused of righteousnesse or as they love rather to speake righteousnesse infused their justification also not differing from that which the Scriptures call sanctification saving that they dreame of a totall mortification or deletion of sinne and of a perfect renovation then what is become of the absolving of â—…â—…tom the guilt of sinne by which wee are freed from hell and the acceptation of us as righteous in Christ by we are intitled to the kingdome of heaven Both which are wrought by imputation of Christs righteousnesse in which true justification doth consist For infused righteousnesse though it were perfect could not discharge us from our former debts and being unperfect as their owne consciences cannot but tell them it cannot entitle them to the kingdome of heaven Wherefore if they will be saved they must of necessity flee to the righteousnesse or satisfaction of Christ who hath fully satisfied the Law both in respect of the penalty by his sufferings and also in regard of the commandement by his obedience which obedience and sufferings being transient and gone so long since can no otherwise bee communicated unto them but by imputation Now if they can be content to acknowledge the imputation of Christs satisfaction which sometimes they doe and must doe if they will bee saved for there is no other meanes either to escape hell or to come to heaven then let them according to the Scriptures acknowledge this imputation of Christs satisfaction by which they are to bee acquitted and freed from the guilt of sinne and damnation and also accepted as righteous in Christ and heires of eternall life to be their justification As for the mortification of sinne and the renovation of us according to the image of God in true holinesse and righteousnesse both which are but in part and by degrees wrought in us by the Spirit of regeneration let them bee acknowledged to bee the two parts of our sanctification § II. But Bellarmine will needs have our renovation to be the righteousnesse of justification And this he indevoureth to prove by Testimonies of Scripture by the authority of Saint Augustine and by reason The texts of Scripture which he citeth are six The first Rom. 4. 25. who was delivered up for our sinâ—…es and rose for our justification From whence Bellarmine argueth thus to what the Apostle giveth the name of justification in that justification consisteth rather than in that unto which hee doth not give the name But to renovation in this place the Apostle doth give the name of justification and not to remission of sinne Therefore justification consisteth rather in renovation than in remission of sinne Before I answere I thinke good to advertise the reader againe that Bellarmine here by remission of sinne doth not understand the not imputing of sinne or as we in plaine English call it forgivenesse of sinne but the utter deletion the extinction the totall mortification of sinne And that hee doth foure times at the least signifie in this one passage Now I answer by denying his assumption because the Apostle in this place doth give the name of justification neither to remission nor yet to renovation which is not mentioned so much as once in all the Chapter Indeed in some other places the Apostle and his Disciple Saint Luke doe give the name to remission of sinnes that is to the not imputing of sinne or to the absolving and acquitting from sinne Rom. 4. 6 7 8. 〈◊〉 13. 38 39. but never to renovation § III. His assumption Bellarmine proveth because it cannot be doubtâ—…d but that the Apostles meaning was that Christ his death was a samplar or patterne of the death of sin that is saith he of remission or deletion of sins and that his resurrection was a samplar or patterne of our renovation and inward regeneration by which we walke in newnesse of life And is this the meaning of the Apostle Then be like wee are justified by imitation and not by imputation of Christs death and by imitation of his resurrection and then also by the same reason we are made sinners by imitation and not imputation of Adams transgression But indeed in this place the Apostle doth not propound by way of exhortation the death and resurrection of Christ as an example to bee followed in dying to sinne and rising to righteousnesse represented in Baptisme as hee doth in the sixth to the Romans where he exhorteth to sanctification as an inseparable consequent and companion of justification but by way of Doctrine hee speaketh of the death and resurrection of Christ as the cause of our justification of which he had spoken in the whole Chapter and even in the verses next going before that righteousnesse shall bee imputed to us as well as to Abraham if wee beleeve in him that raised up Iesus our Lord from the dead who was given by his father and by himselfe to us and for us that by the obedience of his life untill death but especially at his death he might satisfie for our sinnes and was raised from the dead that we might be justified and saved by his life which he liveth after his death Christ by his death and obedience did satisfie for our sinnes paying a full ransome for them and so did justifie us meritoriously and in that sense we are said to bee justified by his bloud and by his obedience both as the
matter and merit of our justification But neither his death nor obedience had beene effectuall to our justification if he had not risen from the dead As the Apostle sheweth 1 Cor. 15 17. If Christ bee not raised your faith is vaine yee are yet in your sinnes For if Christ had not risen againe it had beene an evidâ—…nce that he was not the Sonne of God and then could not his obedience or sufferings have beene meritorious for us But by his resurrection hee was mightily declared to be the Sonne of God in regard whereof it was said Thou art my Sonne this day have I begotten thee and being God his obedience and sufferings are of infinite and all sufficient merit and value vertue and efficacie for the justification and salvation of all that beleeve in him And againe what benefits Christ merited for us by his obedience even untill death the same being risen he applyeth and giveth to those that beleeve God having raised him and exalted him with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour to give repentance to Israel and remission of sinnes Christ therefore was given unto death that hee might by his sufferings satisfie for our sinnes the penalty thereunto belonging and he did rise againe that by application of his merits we might bee justified Righteousnesse therefore shall be imputed to those that beleeve in the resurrection of Christ or rather in Christ raised againe who as he gave himselfe to bee a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or price of ransome for our sinnes so he did arise againe that by effectuall application of his merits we might bee justified So that whom by his death and obedience he redeemed meritoriously then he doth effectually justifie and save by his life and the severall actions thereof viz. his resurrection ascension sitting at the right hand of his Father as our King and Priest his comming againe to judgement who therefore shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods children it is God that justifieth who is hee that condemneth It is Christ that dyed yea rather that is risen againe who is even at the right hand of God who also maketh intorcession for us § IV. In the words following Bellarmine answeareth a secret objection if remission of sinnes be ascribed to Christs death and renovation to his resurrection then belike remission and renovation be two severall actions proceeding from divers causes contrary to that which hath beene delivered For prevention whereof he saith It is to be noted that the death of Christ which is the price of our redemption was not onely the cause of the remission of sinne but also of internall renovation And the like as he saith afterwards may bee said of the reâ—…urrection For according to the doctrine of the Catholike Church these two cannot bee severed fâ—…rasmuch as one and the same grace viz. charity being through the merit of Christ infused and inherent in us doth both blot out or extinguish our sinnes and also adorneth the soule with righteousnesse wherefore though the Apostle might have ascribed both remission and renovation either to Christs death or to his resurrection yet he chose rather distinctly to attribute remission to his death and renovation to his resurrection propter similitudinem because of the likenesse which the extinction of sinne hath with the death of the body and spirituall renovation with the resurrection of the body whereunto I answer briefly first that though the death and resurrection of Christ in respect of their efficacie though remission and renovation alwayes goission and renovation then in justification there are two actions proceeding from two causes secondly that these foure distinct benefits remission of sinne and acceptation of us as righteous in Christ which are the parts of justification wrought both of them by imputation of Christs righteousnesse which is the one and onely forme of justification likewise the dying unto sinne or mortification and the rising of the Sonle from the grave of sinne which is our first resurrection or vivification which are the two parts of sanctification those foure actions I say proceed from two causes and that in twofold respects For remission of sinne is procured by the merit of Christs death and dying unto sinne is ascribed to the vertue of his death the imputation of Christs merits whereby wee are both absolved from sinne and accepted as righteous is ascribed to his resurrection whereby his merits are applyed unto us for our justification and the grace of rising from the grave of sinne to the vertue of his resurrection for by the same power whereby Christ did rise againe are wee raised from sinne to newnesse of life § V. His second allegation is Rom. 5. 21. That as sinne reigned unto death so grace may reign by justice to life everlasting through Iesus Christ our Lord where by justice opposed to sin he saith is meant inward renovation Ans. 1. We deny not but that in all the faithful there is a two fold righteousnesse the one imputed which is the righteousnesse of justification the other infused and inherent which is the righteousnesse of sanctification which he calleth renovation If therfore the Apostle did speake here of righteousnesse inherent yet this place would make nothing against us For we confesse that as sin reigneth in the children of disobedience by producing the workes of iniquity so the grace of God or the Spirit of grace doth reigne in the faithful by bringing forth the fruits of righteousnes But this is not the righteousnesse of justification but that wherein our sanctification doth consist But indeed the Apostle here doth not speake either only or chiefly if at all of inherent righteousnesse Neither doth hee in this place make an opposition or antithesis betweene sinne and righteonsnesse to which supposition Bellarmines argument is grounded but betweene the kingdome of sinne reigning unto death and the kingdome of grace reigning by righteousnesse unto everlasting life through Iesns Christ our Lord. Now the righteousnesse wherein the kingdome of grace especially consisteth is the righteousnesse of justification by faith whereupon followeth peace of conscience and joy in the holy Ghost Rom. 14. 17. compared with Rom. 5. 1. 2. which being not our righteousnesse as all inherent justice is but the righteousnesse of God is chiefly yea in the cause of justification is onely to bee sought after Phil. 3. 8 9. Rom. 10. 3. Secondly as in all the chapter from the twelfth verse to the end the opposition which is made is of Adams sinne to Christs obedience so in this place as the sinne of Adam was the cause of death so Christs obedience of life the opposition is not of inherent righteousnesse to inherent sinne but of Christs righteousnesse to Adams sinne § VI. His third allegation is out of Rom. 6. 13. Doe not ye exhibit your members as instruments of iniquity unto sinne but exhibit your selves to God as of dead men alive and your members
righteousnesse of God in this place we understand the divine justice which is in Christ which wee willingly embrace as a confession of that truth which we professe For by these words he must understand either the essentiall and uncreated justice of the Deitie in Christ or the righteousnesse of our Mediator the man Christ which notwithstanding is called the righteousnesse of God because it is the righteousnesse of that person who is God which righteousnesse saith he we are said to be not in our selves but in him because he is our head or as Sedulius before expounded those words in him Quasi membra in capite as members in the head Not that either we are formally just saith Bellarmine by Christs righteousnesse or Christ formally a siâ—…ner by our iniquitie but because we are his members For there is such a communion betweene the head and the members that the righteousnesse of the head is imputed to the members and the sinne of the members to the heâ—…d as appeareth also by the places alleaged by Bellarmine Esay 53. 6. posuit in eâ—… iniquitatem omnium nostâ—…ûm he laid upon him that is hee imputed unto him the iniquity of us all and Psal. â—…1 Christ himselfe saith farre from my health are the words delictorum meorum of mine offences Here therfore the Reader is to observe a double confession which the evidence of truth hath wrung from Bellarmine For as in the next precedent section hee confessed the satisfaction of Christ to bee imputed to us so here hee acknowledgeth that wee are the righteousnesse of God which is in Christ as being the members of that body whereof hee is the head and consequently partakers of that righteousnesse which is in him which therefore hee calleth divine or Gods righteousnesse because the person whose righteousnesse it is is God § X. His second exposition is that by the righteousnesse of God is understood righteousnesse inherent in us which is called Gods because it is given us of God But this exposition cannot stand because the righteousnesse of Godof which the Apostle speaketh is neither ours but Gods nor in us in Christ as the Fathers have testified But inherent righteousnesse but though bestowed of God as all other good things which we have received from God is ours and not inherent in Christ but in ourselves for as the parts of inherent righteousnesse or sanctification though given of God are said to bee ours as our faith our hope our charity so the whole righteousnesse which is inherent in us or sanctification is called ours as I have shewed heretofore â—… Neither are wee in this place called righteousnesse in respect of righteonsnesse inherent no more then Christ is called sinne in respect of any inherent sinnefulnesse Neither are wee by Gods righteousnesse said to bee righteous in our selves but in Christ. Neither doth Saint Chrisostome whom hee citeth understand this place of righteousnesse inherent as though such a perfect righteousnesse inherent were given by Christ in this life as that in the justified no spot of sinne were left as Bellarmine dreameth for the contrary is rather to bee gathered from the words of Chrisostome For it is Gods righteousnesse saith hee when wee are justified not of workes that is not by righteousnesse inherent and why so because in that righteousnesse by which wee are justified there may no spot bee found noting as I understand him that in our workes and in our inherent righteousnesse spots are to bee fouud whereas that justice in respect whereof wee are said to bee the righteousnesse of God in Christ is without spot § XI His third exposition that by righteousnesse of God is meant inherent righteousnesse which is so called because it is the image of Gods righteousnesse For as Christ by a trope is called sinne because hee tooke the similitude of sinnefull flesh that hee might becometa sacrifice for sinne so wee by a trope are called Gods righteousnesse because our righteousnesse inherent is like the justice of God And hereupon he inferreth that as Christ truely and not imputatively tooke the likenesse of sinful flesh and truely and not imputatively was made a sacrifice for sinne so we not imputatively but truly are made righteous in our justification by righteousnesse inherent Answere In this discourse nothing is sound nothing almost worth the answering For first in the Scriptures there is an Antithesis betwixt our righteousnesse and Gods righteousnesse in the question of justification but our righteousnesse is that which is inherent Gods righteousnesse is that which is out of us in Christ. Secondly by inherent righteousnesse we are righteous in our selves but by the righteousnesse of God wee are righteous not in our selves but in Christ. Thirdly if by a trope wee are said to be righteousnesse as Christ by a trope was said to be sinne undoubtedly it is to bee understood of the same trope which is a metonymy the abstract being put for the concrete Neither is there the like trope of Christ being called sinne and of us being called the righteousnesse of God in him if by sinne in this place be meant a sacrifice for sinne Fourthly neither is it true either that Christ in this place is called sinne because he tooke upon him the similitude of sinfull flesh as though the Apostle compared our justification whereby we become righteous to Christs incarnation wherein he tooke upon him our nature and not to his condemnation wherein he tooke upon him our sinne or that wee are called the righteousnesse of God in Christ because we have some likenesse of his justice neither would it follow from hence that wee in our sâ—…lves are just unlesse it should follow also which were blasphemous to averre that Christ in himselfe was a sinner For so are we made righteous as hâ—…e was made sinne Fifthly neither is that true that Christ was not made a sacrifice by imputation For when he was made a sacrifice for us our sinne was laid upon him and imputed to him as hath beene said that his righteousnesse in like manner might be imputed to us CAP. II. Containing eight other proofes that wee are justified by impuâ—…ation of Christs righteousnesse § I. MY sixth proofe shall bee out of Rom. 5. 19. As by the first Adams disobedience which wee call his fall we were made sinners that is guilty of sinne and obnoxious to death and damnation so by the obedience of the second Adam we are made just or justified that is acquitted from our sinne and condemnation and accepted in Christ as righteous unto life But wee were made sinners by imputation of Adams disobedience Therefore by imputation of Christ obedience we are justified The proposition is the Apostles The assumption is in divers places confessed by Bellarmine as I have shewed heretofore though sometimes to serve his present turne he doe deny it But it is easily proved For if both the guilt of Adams sinne be communicated unto us and also
the punishment thereof be inflicted upon us which is both our originall corruption and death it selfe besides many other calamityes then is it to be presupposed that the sin it selfe is imputed to us For if the sin it selfe had not been imputed then as Bellarmine himselfe somewhere argues neither the guilt nor the corruption had belong'd unto us Again things that are transient when they are once past and gone cannot bee communicated otherwise than by imputation That transgression of Adam as all other actions was transient and therefore if it be demanded how it being so long past and gone can bee communicated to us Bellarmine truly answeareth it is communicated unto us by generation eo modo quo communicari potest id quod transiit nimirâ—…m per imputationem in that manner according to which that may be communicated which is transient and gone to wit by imputation If it be objected which was Bellarmiâ—…es prime argument for inherent righteousnesse that through the disobedience of the first Adam wee were made sinners by inherent unjustice and therefore by the like reason through the obedience of the second Adam wee are made just by righteousnesse inherent I answere that from Christ we have both justification and sanctification the former answering to the guilt of Adams transgression imputed the latter answerable to the originall corruption by generation derived but though wee have them both from Christ yet not after one manner the former wee have by imputation the latter by infusion But of this place I have spoken heretofore at large § II. Our seventh argument Whosoever is a sinner in himselfe and so continueth whiles he remaineth in this life cannot bee justified otherwise than by imputation This I take to bee a most certaine and undeniable truth But every many whatsoever Christ onely excepted is in himselfe a sinner and so continueth whiles hee remaineth in this life Therefore no man whatsoever can othervise bee justified but by imputation Or thus The justification of a sinner is imputative for to a sinner the Lord when hee justifieth him imputing not sinne imputeth righteousnesse without workes Rom. 4. 6. 8. The justification of every Christian is the justification of a sinner and so is called of all writers boâ—…h old and new both Protestants and Papists Therefore the justification of every Christian is imputative The assumption of the former syllogisme is denyed by the Papists but against the testimony of their owne Conscience and against the common experience of all men in all times and places But this I prove it briefly All that sometimes doe sinne or have sinne abiding in them are sinners all men sometimes do sinne and have sinne remaining in them therefore all men are sinners the assumption is proved by Iames the just and by the holy beloved Apostle including themselves in many things wee offend all of us and if wee say wee have no sinne wee deceive our selves and there is no truth in us But that all mortall men are sinners I have sufficiently proved before Vnlesse therefore the Papists will say they are no sinners and that in them there is no sinne which if they doe say wee may bee bold to tell them that there is no truth in them they must confesse justification by imputation of Christs righteousnesse § III. Our eigth argument To whom faith is imputed unto righteousnesse without workes hee is not justified by workes that is by righteousnesse inherent but by imputation of Christs righteousnesse To Abraham and all the faithfull faith is imputed unto righteousnesse without workes Therefore they are not justified by workes but by imputation of Christs righteousnesse The former part of the proposition is proved by opposition of faith to workes in the question of justificâ—…tion and by the testimony of the the Apostle Rom. 4. 3 4 5 6 7 8. The latter part is proved by the former for if not by inherent righteousnesse then by imputed and if by faith and yet not by inherent righteousnesse then not by faith in respect oâ—… it selfe as it is an habit inherent in us but in respect of the object which it apprehendeth Of which that is verified properly which by a trope viz. a Metonimy is ascribed to faith namely that it justifieth and saveth that by it wee have remission of sinne and the inheritance c. that is Christ received by faith doth justifie and save c. The assumption in expâ—…esse termes is delivered Rom. 4. 3. 5 6. 22 23 Here Bellarmine confesseth that faith indeed is imputed unto righteousnesse and that is our righteousnesse which confession doth not well agree with his assertions elsewhere that faith doth but dispose unto justification and that our formall righteousnesse is our charity that faith is an habit of the Vnderstanding but justice is an habit of the Will But our glosse hee doth not allow when wee say by faith that is by Christs righteousnesse apprehended by faith because it is repugnant to the Apostle for two causes For first hee doth not say Christs righteousnesse but faith is imputed Now faith is not Christs righteousnesse but ours by Gods gift Which notwithstanding is the maine doctrine of the Gospell revealing the righteousnesse of God that is of Christ who is God from faith to faith the righteousnesse of God by faith that is which is apprehended by faith For faith it selfe is not the righteousnesse of God which doth justifie or save us but the instrument to receive Gods righteousnesse and therefore doth not justifie or save properly but relatively in respect of the object which it doth receive that is to say the righteousnesse of Christ which doth justifie and save those which receive it by faith and therefore when it is said in the Gospell more than once thy faith hath saved thee the meaning is that Christ received by faith hath saved those which did beleeve in him Act. 3. 16 it is said that faith in Christ had cured the lame man but it is thus to be understood that the name of Christ by faith in his name did cure him For we are justified and saved by a perfect righteousnes which is of infinite value and merit which is not faith nor any other grace or graces inherent but onely the righteousnesse of Christ. And yet because by faith wee are united to Christ and by it are made partakers of his benefits therefore all the benefits which wee receive from Christ are attributed to faith as elsewhere I have shewed To faith metonimically but properly to Christ himself His second reason because the word imputare in this place doth not signifie a bare reputing but a reputing unto which the truth is answer able in the thing it selfe as is plaine by these words Ei qui operatur merces imputatur c. for it is certaine that to him that worketh not onely in opinion and conceipt but truely and indeed the reward is due Answ. This reason doth not
transient or the sinfull blemish remaining in the soule which is a vicious disposition and pronenesse to sinne left as the remainder of originall sinne and increased by our owne actuall transgressions as it is a fault and the offence of God bringging with it reatum culpae to a beleever and is not imputed to whom Christs obedience is imputed but covered with the robe of Chrisâ—…s righteousnesse by imputation wherof he is not only freed from the guilt both of the punishment and of the fault but also accepted as righteous in Christ but as the maculâ—… is an habituall sinne or sinfull disposition polluting the soule as a remainder of originall sinne increased by our actuall transgressions it is not wholly abolish'd in this life and much lesse at once but it is mortified by degrees in those that repent of their sinnes who day by day are renewed in the innerman As for those places which Bellarmine alleageth to prove remission of sinne to be the totall abolition of sinne I have fully answered heretofore in the second question of the first controversie shewing that divers of them are to be understood in respect of the guilt which in remission is totally abolished The other which are to bee expounded of the corruption are understood of the cleansing and purging of our soules from them either begunne in this life or finished at the end of this life For the death of the body bringeth with it in the children of God the death and utter extinction of sinne And therefore death which was brought in as a punishment of sinne becommeth a remedy to extinguish sinne For whiles we live in the mortall body sinne liveth in us but when the body dyeth sinne is extinguished CAP. III. Containing our two last Arguments § I. OVR foureteenth Argument If redemption reconciliation and adoption be imputative then justification also is by imputation For I have shewed heretofore that these three in substance differ not from justification for as all these three benefits are comprised under justification so in them the whole nature of justification doth consist For what is it to be redeemed and reconciled but to have our sins remitted or not imputed by the imputation of Christs sufferings which is the first part of justification and what is it to be adopted but to bee accepted in the beloved as righteous and as an heire of eternall life by imputation of Christs obedience which is the second part of justification But those three benefits are imputative all of them wrought by the not imputing of sinne which had made us the bond-slaves of sinne and Satan enemies to God and children of the devill and by the imputation of Christs merits whereby of the slaves of sinne and Satan wee are made Gods servants of enemies his favourites of the children of the devill the sonnes of God § II. Our fifteenth Argument out of Psalm 32. and Rom. 4. If the Holy Ghost describe justification to bee the forgiving of iniquities the covering of sinne the not imputing of sinne to the sinner the imputing of righteousnesse not to him that worketh but to him that beleeveth in Christ or imputing of righteousnesse without workes then justification standeth not in deletion of sinne by infusion of righteousnesse but in imputation of Christs righteousnesse by which the sinner is both freed from his sinne and also accepted as righteous But the Holy Ghost doth so describe justification Rom. 4. 6 7 8. â—…x Psalm 32. 1 2. To both parts Bellarmine doth answere The assumption hee first denieth and then cavills with it For first whereas Calvin as he saith demandeth whether this bee a full definition of justification or but halfe he likewise demandeth when either the 〈◊〉 saith Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord and Blessed are they who f are upright in the way or when our Saviour saith Blessed are the poore in Spirit blessed are the meeke c. whether each of these bee a perfect definition For if it be where is then remission of sinne Secondly he saith that Paul alleageth this testimâ—…ny out of the Psalme not that hee might thereby define fully justification but onely to prove that true justification is the gift of God and not gotten by our owne strength And that hee fitly proveth from thence that David calleth him blessed whose sinnes God remitteth that is whâ—… by the gift aâ—…d grace of God is justified § III. To the former I reply that there is not the like reason betweene these places cited by us and those alleaged by him For those containe but certaine notes and markes of Blessednesse though the Papists absurdly make eight beatitudes of the eight notes of one and the same blessednesse Matth. 5. But here the Apostle out of Psalm 32. sheweth that blessednesse it selfe whereby as appeareth by the former verse he meaneth justification which is the onely 〈◊〉 viae because by it we are intitled to the eternall happinesse which is beatitudo patriae all other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being but notes and signes of this is so defined or described For somuch those words import David doth describe the blessednesse as our translation fitly rendreth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this place The second is a meere depravation of the Apostles meaning and intenâ—…ion which was not to prove that justification is the gift of God which he had already taught to be a gracious action of God freely justifying by his grace those that beleeve in Christ but by a new supply of Arguments to prove the same question which in the former Chapters hee had disputed concluding that a man is justified by faith and not by workes which question here hee proveth by the example of Abraham and by the testimony of David The Argument drawne from Abrahâ—…ms example is an excellent proofe which Chrysostome well observed as Cardinall Tâ—…let doth acknowledge For Abraham had both faith and workes and yet he was justified not by his workes but by his faith If Abraham had had no workes or not such notable workes it might have beene said that he was justified by faith without workes because he wanted workes But seeing he abounded with store of excellent works and yet was not justified by them but onely by faith this is an invincible argument to prove that a man is justified by faith and not by workes For Abraham though hee had works yet was justified by faith without workes Likewise David describeth or if you will declareth the blessednesse of the man that is that a man is blessed that is to say justified to whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without workes § IV. This was his denyall of the assumption But now he cavilleth that it may bee that in these words is contained the full definition of justification implicitè For there cannot be remission of sinne in Bellarmines sense that is deletion of sinne unlesse righteousnesse be infâ—…sed as darkenesse is not driven
away unlesse light come in place And this saith he The Apostle manifestly sheweth when he saith David explaineth the blessednesse of a man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without workes Blâ—…ssed are they whose sinnes are forgiven Vbi saith Bellarmine ex non imputatione peccatorum colligit imputationem justitiae where the Apostle from the not imputing of sin gathereth the imputing of justice which is very true and proveth that here is a full definition of justification containing these two parts the not imputing of sinne to the beleever and imputing of righteousnesse or accepting of him as righteous But where is either the popish deletion of sinne or infusion of righteousnesse unlesse as they have turned remission into deletion so also imputation bee converted into infusion § V. To the proposition also Bellarmine answereth in part and first to the word covering that although to cover and not to impute sinnes is not if you respect the force of the word to abolish or to extinguish sinne yet if they be referred to God the sense importeth so much For nothing can bee bid from God unlesse it bee â—…tterly taken away for all things are naked and open before his eyes Reply Nothing can bee hid from God which hee would not have hid But if it please God to cover our sinnes that hee will not behold them Psalm 85. 2. or to hide his face from them Psal. 51. 9. to cast them behinde his backe Esai 38. 17. not to marke what is done amisse Psalm 130. 3. then hee is said not to see them because he taketh no notice of them but passeth by them Mic. 7. 18. In which sense Charity is said to cover sinnes Prov. 10. 12. § VI. To the word not imputing he saith that God cannot but impute sinne to him that remaâ—…neth a sinner neither can hee repute him righteous unlesse he be made righteous therefore â—…he not imputing of sinne draweth with it veram peccati remissionem that is the extinction of sinne and infusion of righteousnesse Reply he should have said as he said before the not imputing of sinne draweth with it imputing of righteousnesse or the acceptation of a man as righteous both which alwayes goe together because both are wrought together by imputation of Christs righteousnesse whereas therefore hee saith that God cannot but impute sinne where sinne still remaineth it is true of unbeleevers and impenitent sinners who are out of Christ but for them that bee in Christ that is to say beleeving and repentant sinners for whose sinnes Christ hath fully satisfied and whom though in themselves sinners hee hath accepted as righteous in Christ and for whom our Saviour maketh intercession that their sinnes may not be imputed to them hee cannot truly be said to impute sinne unto them It is true also that the Lord reputeth none righteous but such as he maketh righteous both by imputation of Christs righteousnesse and also by regeneration by imputation perfectly and at once by regeneration in part and by degrâ—…s they being not onely Spirit but flesh also in regard whereof though they be righteous in Christ yet in themselves they are sinners by reason of sinne remaining in them though in some measure mortified and not at all imputed So that a regenerate man in divers respects is both a righteous man and a sinner righteous not onely in Christ by imputation of his perfect righteousnesse but also in himselfe by inherent righteousnesse begun in him from which as is from the better part 〈◊〉 hath his denomination in the Scriptures a sinner also in himselfe both in respect of habituall sinnes remaining in him as the remnants of originall sinne and also in respect of actuall transgressions both of commission and of omission whereinto hee doth dayly fall § VII And whereas he saith that these phrases almost alwaies goe together and to that purpose citeth Nehem. 4. 5. Psal. 51. 9 85. 2 and so Psal. 32. 1 2. I answere that deletion of sinne covering of sinne forgiving of sinne and the not imputing of it are used as synonima that is as words of the same signification and that in all such places deletion of sin doth signifie the blotting of them our of Gods remembrance which is as it were his record or debt booke Out of which when God forgiveth sinnes he blotteth or wipeth them out Thus to forgive sins is not to remember them Esai 43. 25. I even I am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine owne sake and wil not remember thy sinnes Ier. 31. 34. I will forgive their iniquity and I will remember their sinne no more And to remember them is not to forgive them Ps. 109. 14. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembred with the Lord and let not the sinne of his Mother bee blotted out namely of remembrance that is let it not bee forgotten So Neh. 4. 5. Cover not their iniquity and let not their sin be blotted out before thee Ps 51. 9. hide thy face from my sins and blot out all mine iniquities and to the same purpose Psal. 85. 2. forgiving and covering are used in the same fence Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of thy people thou hast covered all theiâ—… sinne and so Psal. 32. 1. 2. forgiving covering not imputing Deletion therefore of sinnes according to the Scriptures is the blotting of them out of the Booke of Gods remembrance In this sense many things are said deleri to bee blotted out or wiped away by oblivion whose memory is wiped out as it is said of the Amalekites Exod. 17. 14. and according to the vulgar Latine translation Deut. 31. 21. nulla delebit oblivio Esth. 9. 28. Eccl. 6. 4. Ierem. 20. 11. 23. 40. 50. 5. So that non imputare is all one with ignoscere 2 Tim. 4. 16. So Iob 42. 8. according to the vulgar Latine 2 Cbro 30. 19. Ezek. 33. 16. § VIII Now if not to impute sinne bee as Bellarmine sâ—…ith to expell sinne by infusion of righteousnesse for according to his concelt infusion of righteousnesse is not a consequent of the expulsion of sinne as here for a poore evasion he saith but expulsion of sinne is a consequent of infusion of righteousnesse for according to his assertion by infusion of righteousnesse sinne is expelled as by accession of light and heat cold and darkenesse is expelled I say if not to impute sinne bee to expell sinne by infusion of justice then by the rule of contraries which is Contrariorum contraria sunt consequentia to impute sinne shall bee to expell righteousnesse by infusion of sinne as it was well objected by Chemnitius To him Bellarmine objecteth want of Logicke for calling those contraria which are contradicentia Where by Bellarmines Logick adversa onely are contraria whereof notwithstanding there are foure sorts for if contraries bee such opposits as are opposed one to one onely then besides adversa as Tully termeth those which Aristotle calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there are three
debt the sureties payment or satisfaction is imputed to the debtour and accepted in his behalfe as if himselfe had discharged the debt Even so wee being debtours to God both in respect of the penalty due for our sinnes past and also of obedience which we owe for the time to come and being altogether unable either to satisfie the one or performe the other Christ as our surety fatisfieth both these debts for us and his satisfaction is imputed unto us and accepted in our behalfe as if we in our owne persons had discharged our debt § II. Whereas in the second place they deride imputed justice calling it putatitiam as if it were an imaginary righteousnes only which also they say doth both derogate from the glory of God to whom it were more honourable to make a man truely righteous than to repute him righteous who in himselfe is wicked and also detract from the honour of Christs Spouse who is onely arraied with her Husbands righteousnesse as it were a Garment being in herselfe deformed I answere first whomâ—… the Lord doth justifie hee doth indeed and in truth constitute and make them righteous by imputing unto them the righteousnesse of Christ no lesse truely and really than either Adams sinne was imputed to us or our sinnes to Christ for which hee really suffered Secondly whom God justifieth or maketh righteous by imputation them also he sanctifieth or maketh righteous by infusion of a righteousnesse begun in this life and to bee perfected when this mortall life is ended And further that it is much more for the glory both of Gods justice and of his mercie when hee justifieth sinners both to make them peâ—…fectly righteous by imputation of Christs righteousnesse and also having freed them from hell by the perfect sâ—…tisfaction of his Sonne and entitled them to the Kingdome of Heaven by his perfect obedience to prepare and to fit them for his owne Kingdome by beginning a righteousnesse inherent in them which by degrees groweth towards perfection in this life and shall bee fully perfected so soone as this life is ended rather than to justifie or to speake more properly to sanctifie them onely by a righteousnesse which is unperfect and but begun which in justice can neither satisfie for their sinnes nor merit eternall life And as for the Spouse of Christ as it is most honourable for her to stand righteous before God not in her owne unperfect righteousnesse but in the most perfect and absolute righteousnesse of Christ the eternal Son of God which far surpasseth the righteousnes of al men and Angels so it is both profitable to her and honorable to God whiles shee is to continue heâ—… warfare and pilgrimage in this world to bee subject to insirmities and imperfections whereby shee being humbled in her selfe is taught to rely upon the power and goodnesse of God whose grace is sufficient for her and whose power is seene in her weakenesse especially considering that though her obedience bee unperfect yet it being upright it is not only accepted in Christ by whose perfect obedience imputed her wants are covered but also graciously rewarded and also considering that the remainders of sinne are left ad agonem that having maintained a spirituall warfare against them and the other enemies of her salvation and having overcome them she may receive the Crowne promised to them which overcome § III. As touching the third which is Bellarmines first objection in this place that it is no where read that Christs righteousnesse is imputed unto us or that wee are justified by Christs righteousnesse imputed I answer that as in many other controversies the assertion of neither part is in so many words and syllables expressed in the Scriptures so neither in this For where doe the Papists read either in Scriptures or Fathers that our righteousnesse inherent is the formall cause of our justification before God The contrary whereof in substance is so often read as it is said that wee are not justified by our workes or by our owne righteousnesse nor in our selves nor by a righteousnesse prescribed in the Law in which all inherent righteousnesse is fully and perfectly described But the substance of our assertion is often read as namely First that when God doth justifie a finner hee imputeth righteousnesse unto him without workes that is without respect of any righteousnesse inherent in or performed by himselfe Rom. 4. 4 5 6. Secondly that hee justifieth him not by the parties owne righteousnesse or by making him righteous in himselfe but by the righteoufnesse of another viz. Christ in whom hee is made righteous Thirdly that we are justified by the bloud and by the e obedience that is the personall righteousnesse of Christ which neither it selfe nor yet the merit thereof without communication wherof no man can be saved is or can be communicated unto us otherwise than by imputation From whence wee may argue thus The righteoufneffe whereby wee are justified is imputed for when God doth justifie a man hee imputeth righteousnesse unto him By the righteousnesse of Christ wee are justified Rom. 5. 9. 19. Therefore the righteousnesse of Christ is imputed unto us Fourthly that as by the disobedience of Adam wee were made â—…inners namely by the imputation thereof unto us for neither the guilt nor the corruption nor the punishment which is death had belonged to us if the sinne it selfe had not beene imputed unto us so by the obedience of Christ wee are justified which if it were not imputed to us we could by it neither be freed from hell nor entitled to heaven nor made inherently just by it Fifthly that wee are so made the righteousnesse of God in Christ as hee was made sinne for us that is by imputation Sixthly and lastly to omit other proofes when the Papists doe confesse that Christs satisfaction is imputed unto us they confesse as much as wee teach if it bee rightly understood For his satisfaction for us is either in respect of the penalty of the Law to free us from hell or in respect of the Commandement to entitle us to heaven The penalty hee hath satisfied by his sufferings which is obedientia crucis his obedience of the Crosse the Commandement by the perfect fulfilling therof which is obedientia Legis his obedience of the Law Now Bellarmine as I have heretofore shewed teacheth in his fifth chapter of his second booke that God accepteth in our behalfe the righteousnesse of Christ whereby he satisfied for us And in the tenth chapter that not ouâ—… righteousnesse doth satisfie for our sinnes but the righteousnesse of Christ which is imputed to us and to that purpose citeth Bernard For if one faith he dyed for all then all were dead that the satisfaction of that one might bee imputed to all as hee bare the sinnes of all § IV. Bellarmine his second and third argument both tend to prove that for the justification of a sinner there is no need
5 9 19. p Joâ—… 14. 2. q Ephes. 4. 8. r Ioh. 14 3. s Ephes. 1. 14. Luk. 21. 28. Bellâ—…rmines second cause why Christ is said to be our righteousnesse because he satisfied for us t Epist. 190. Bellarmines confession overthroweth the popish doctrine of iustification Arg. 4. because we are iustified by the bloud of Christ and by his obedience Arg. 5. because by Christs righteouinesse out sinnes are covered u ad Diognâ—…m * De iustif l. 2. cap. 11. Bellarmines first answere His second answere Reply to Bellarmines answere Conclusion a De iustif lib. 2. cap. 3. Bellarmines first allegation out of Rom. 5. 17. 18 19. b Lib. 2. c. 5. §. 1. c Ibid. §. â—… 3 c d Non in iustitia Adaminobis imputata e In locum Whether Adams sinne bee imputed e Controv. a. de orig peâ—…cat f In Râ—…m 5. in opuse de lapsu â—…ominis orig peccat c. 6. g De amiss gratiae stat pec l. 5. c. 16. h 2 Senâ—… dist 30. i De amiss gratiae 〈◊〉 peccaâ—… l. 5. c. 17. k Ibid. §. itaque l Ibid. c. 18. Reatus cum sit relatio consequens actionem qua ratione fieri potest ut existat in eo qui non est particeps actionis 〈◊〉 sio babitualis nisi precesserit actualiâ—… ne inâ—…elligi quâ—…dem potest m De amissi gratiae sâ—…atu peccat l. 4. c. 10. n Serm. de Dominica 1. poâ—…t octavas Epiphaâ—…iae o De 〈◊〉 st at pecl 4. c. 12. § est alia â—…x Anselm de conceptu c. 7. Virg. 10. ex â—…h in 1. 2. q. 81. art 1. ex Scotâ—… Durando c. in 2. sent dist 51. p Ibid. §. porro vere Whether originall corruptâ—…on be traduced from Adam q De amiss gra statu pec l. 5. c. 17. 〈◊〉 the transgrâ—…ssion be after the same mannâ—…r communicated r De iustif l. 2. c 9 §. Quartum Comparison betwixt thâ—… first and second Adam s Heb. 2. 13. This place alleaged by Bellarmine maketh not for him but most strongly against him Lib. â—… c. 2. § 1. Testimome 2. Rom. 3. 24. t Lib. 2. c. 3. §. 3. Testimonie 3. 1 Cor. 6. 11. Testimony 4. Tit. 3. 5 6 7. u Esfici mereamur * 1 Pet. 3. 21. x Rom. 4. 11. y Rom. 6. 4. 6. z Ephes. 2. 10. a Heb. 12. 14. b Act. 26. 18. Testimonie 5. Heb. 11. c. where some men have been absolutely called iust c Heb. 11. 6. d Act. 15. 9. e Gal. 5. 6. f Iaâ—… 2. 18. Bellarmines obiect that some men have been perfect g 2 Chron. 19. 7. 10. 1â—… h Luk. 1. 20. 62. Bellarmine proveth that they who are said to have been iust were endued with inherent righteousnesse i 1 Iob. 3. 7. k 1 King 3. 6. l Psal. 143. 2. m Rom. 7. 14. 23 Testim 6. Rom. 8. 29. 1 Cor. 15. 49 from whence three reasons are collected The first reason Answ. 1. to the proofe of the proposition n 1 Cor. 15. 49 Answer to the proposition it selfe o 1 Cor. 11. 32. p Deut. 8. 16. q Phil. 1. 29. r 2 Sam. 12. 14. s 2 Cor. 5 17. We doe not bearâ—…the image of Christ in râ—…spect of the righteousnesse of iustification His second reason t Rom. 16. 15. 1 Cor. 1. 2. 2 Cor. 1. 1. Phil. 1. 1. 4. 22. 1 Tim. 5. 10. His third reason Bellarmines seventh allegation Rom. 6. 4. 6. u Lib. 2. * Lib. 2. c. 2. §. â—… Bellarmines eighth allegation Such as is our adoption â—… sâ—…ch is our iustification x Lib. 3. c. 5. §. 5. 6. Bellarmines two adoptions As adoption is imputative so iustification y Lib. â—… c. 1. and lib. 2. c. 6. De iustif l. 2. c. 4. Bellarmines arguments proving iudirectly iustification by inherent iustice a Luther onely saith that faith that is Christ apprehended by faith is our righteousnesse â—…nd in the same sence 〈◊〉 that faith is inâ—…puted unto righteousnesse Bellarmines allegation of Gal. 5. 5 6. answered b Iam. 2. 14 â—… His wilfull depraving of Gal. 5. 6. c De iustif l 2. c. 5 Bellarmines corrupt interpretation refuted d Rom. 7. 5. 2 Cor. 1. 6 4. 12. Gal. 5 6. Eph 3. 20. Col 1. 29. 1 Thess. 2. 13. 2 Thess. â—… 7. Iam. â—… â—…6 e Prov. 3. 21. f Summi 1. q. 48. art 5. g â—…â—…im 1. 5. 2 Tim. 1. 5. Rom. 21. 9. Iam. 3 17. h Th ibid. Charity not the forme of faith Of the distinction of faith into 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 In the popish sence it is to be reiected for three reasons i Tit. 1. 16. k 1 Iohn 1. 4 l Iam. 2 14. The second Reason The third Reason De iustif lib. c. 6. Iustificationem nostram non constare sola remissione peccatâ—…rum a â—…ib 2. c. 1. §. Ioan Calvin Transitus à peccaâ—…o ad iustitiam c Bellarm. de iustif l. 2. c. 7. §. quar to c. 10. Deinde c. 5. §. quar to §. quòd verâ—… Bellarmines proofe that iustification con sisteth in renovation The first Rom. 4. 25. He proveth his assumption * This is denied by Cardinall Tolet in Rom. 4. annot 25 Christ. non est traditus propter deâ—…icta tanquam examplar sed tanquam vera satisfactio igitur nec resurrexisse proâ—… ter iustifi cationem dicitur tanquam exemplar sed propter ipsum iustificationem quem non essâ—…mus consecaâ—… nisi surrexisset d Rom. 5. 9. 19. e Rom. 1. 4. f Psal. 2. 7. Heb. 1. 5. Act. 13. 33. g Act. 5. 3. 31. h Rom. 5. 10. i Rom. 8 33 34. Whether renâ—…ssion and renovation be two distinct actions k Phil. 3. 9. Testimonie 2. Rom. 5. 21. l Mat. 6. 33. Testim 3. Rom. 6. 13 Testim 4. Rom. 8. 10. Testim 5. Gal. 3. 21. m Rom. 8 3 4. Testim 6. Eph. 4. 23 24. The testimony of Augustine n Lib. 6. cap. 9. o See to this purpose divers testimonies of Augustine citedby Gratian. Dist. 9. Bellarmines reasons The first His second reason p 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 q Rom. 8. 30. r in Psal. 100. s Degratiam lib. arb u Rom. 5. 26. His third reason Testimonies of Fathers * Lib. 2. c. 6. 8 x Lib. 4. cap. 3 §. 5. 16. x Lib. 6. c. 9. z Lib. 7. c. 6 De paritate justitiâ—… Bellarm. de iustif l. 3. c. 16. The calumniation of the Papists All the faithfull equall in righteousnesse iâ—…puted a 2 Pet. 1. 1. b Ambr. lib. 7. in Luc. c. 15. nam undecima conducis bora eqnalem dignaris mercedem solvere â—…qualem mercedem vita groriâ—… c Adv. Jovin lib. 2. d Moral l. 4. c. 42. quia una cunctis erit beatitudo laetitiae quamvis non una sit omnibus sublimitas vitâ—… Bellarmines proofe impertinent The state of the controversie The three first proofes The first a Lib. 1. c. 3. §. 7