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 Berââ¦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 inherââ¦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 whoââ¦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 heaââ¦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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã it selfe which is the transgression of the precept and the guilt which bindeth over the sinner to punishment The ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ââ¦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 ãâã For as touching the fault whether you meane the sinfull act which is
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Now ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã whatsoever the Law requireth to justification that his whole life was a perpetuall course of obedience ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 finââ¦ââ¦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
Flesh and the Flesh lusting against the Spirit So that though Will be present with us that wee cannot doe what we would and much lesse after what manner wee would that is with our whole soules with our whole mind heart and affections For what good wee minde or will as wee are Spirit the same wee will as wee are Flesh. This concupiscence the Apostle had not knowne to bee a sinne had not the Law said non concupisces that is thou shalt have none evill concupiscence neither habituall nor actuall Neither is it onely a sinne as the Apostle oftentimes doth cal it but also it is the mother-sinne Iam. 1. 13 Rom. 7. 17. which taking occasion by the Law to produce ill concupiscences therein forbidden is convinced not onely to bee a sinne but exceedingly sinnefull Rom. 7. 13. But of this I have spoken before and proved by the testimony of Augustine that concupiscence against which the good Spirit lusteth viz. in the regenerate for in the unregenerate the Spirit is not is both a sinne and the cause of sin and a punishment sinne § XIII And as touching the second the summe of the Law is that we should love God with all our heart and with all our soule c. but where is any defect of love there God is not loved with all the heart c. it being legally understood and therefore every defect is an aberration from the Law and consequently a sinne I have also proved out of Augustine that it is a fault where love is lesse than it ought to bee from which fault it is that there is not a righteous man upon earth which doth good and sinneth not For which also though wee bee never so good proficients wee must of necessity say forgive us our debts Therefore every defect is a debt that is a sinne whereunto wee may adde that of the same Augustine It is a sinne either when there is not charity where it ought to bee or is lesse than it ought to bee whether this may or may not bee avoided by the Will § XIV And as to the third If those which the Papists call veniall sinnes bee not contrary to the Law then they are not forbidden in the Law and without doubt they are not commanded therein Now if neither they bee commanded nor forbidden then they are things indifferent but that is absurd yea but saith hee veniall sinnes hinder not justice And the Scripture absolutely calleth some men just and perfect notwithstanding their veniall sinnes I answere they hinder not imputative justice nor evangelicall perfection which is uprightenesse for to them that beleeve and repent they are not imputed Neither can it be denied but that the most upright men have their imperfections infirmities and slippes which though in themselves and according to the Law are mortall sinnes for if they should not bee forgiven they would as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth exclude men from heaven yet to them that are in Christ Iesus thââ¦y become veniall by the mercie of God through the merits and intercession of Christ. § XV. His second reason is taken from divers absurdities which hee conceiveth doe follow upon our assertion when as indeed they follow not upon our doctrine but upon his malicious misconceiving and misreport thereof as if wee held that all even the best workes of the righteous are mortall sinnes But wee acknowledge that the good workes of men regenerate are truly good and so to bee called notwithstanding the imperfection thereof Onely wee deny them to be purely good wherin we have the consent of holy Scriptures and of the ancient Fathers some whereof I before alleaged to whom I added Gregory and Bernard Gregory in the conclââ¦sion of his Moralls saith thus Mala nostra pura mala sunt bona quae nos habere credimus pura bona esse uequaquaÌ possunt Our evill things are purely evill and the good things which we suppose our selves to have can by no meanes bee purely good Bernard t Our lowly justice if we have any is perhaps true but not pure Vnlesse peradventure wee beleeve our selves to bee better than our fore-fathers who said no lesse truely than humbly all our righteousnesses are as it were the cloth of a menstruous woman wee doe not say that the good workes of the faithfull are sins and much lesse mortall sins For we hold that the sins of the faithful become to them venial But this we say with Salomon that there is not a righteous man upon earth that doth good and sinneth not which in effect is the same with that assertion of Luther Iustus in omni opere bono peccat § XVI Now let us examine the absurdities which hee absurdly upon his owne malitious misconceit objecteth against us In all which it is supposed that wee call the good workes of the righteous sinnes yea mortall sinnes The first if all the workes of the faithfull bee sinnes then the worke of faith whereby we are justified and that prayer whereby we begge remission of sinne should be sinnes Answ. The worke of faith and the act of prayer are good but not purely and perfectly good Neither are we justified by the worthinesse or by the worke of our faith but by the Object which it doth receive nor obtaine our desires by the merit of our prayer but by the mediation and intercession of Christ our Saviour Our faith is such that wee have need alwayes to pray Lord increase our faith Lord I beleeve help mine unbeleefe and our prayer such that when wee have performed it in the best manner we can wee have neede to pray that the wants and imperfections of our prayer may bee forgiven us § XVII The second If all the works of the righteous be sinnes with what face could the Apostle say that hâ⦠knew nothing by himselfe And what boldnesse was that for his good workes that is for his mortall sinnes to expect a Crowne of righteousnesse Answ. Though the Apostle had no doubt sometimes offended after his conversion yet he was not conscious to himselfe in particular of any actuall sinne or crime committed by him for as the Psalmist saith who can understand his errors No man saith Basil is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã free from sinne but God for of those many things wherein we offend the most wee understand not for which cause the Apostle saith I know nothing by my selfe but in that I am not justified ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that is in many things I offend and doc not perceive whence also the Prophet saith who understandeth his trespasses But though hee was not conscious to himselfe of his slippes and oversights yet hee was not ignorent of his owne corruptious and infirmities against which when hee had prayed to God hee received this answere My grace is sufficient for thee and in weakenesse my power is made perfect Neither did the Apostle expect the reward for
the merit of his works but for the truth and fidelity of God who is just in keeping his promise made to the upright though unperfect indeavers of his servants And therefore the reward whereby God doth crowne his owne gifts in us is called a crowne of righteousnesse not of ours but of Gods righteousnesse as Bernard saith § XVIII The third If all the works of the righteous were mortall sinnes then God himselfe should sinne mortally because it is God that worketh in us when we doe any good works Phil. 1. and 2. Answ. If all good workes were absolutely sinnes yea mortall sinnes as they malitiously charge us to hold then indeed God who is the author of them might perhaps bee said though not to sinne and much lesse to sinne mortally for he is not subject to the precept of the Law and much lesse to the curse of it yet to be the author of sinne But wee hold that the good works of the faithfull are truly good though not purely good and that what goodnesse is in them is the worke of God and what impurity is in them it is from the flesh which staineth the workes of grace in us Neither are the defects of the secondary causes to be imputed to the first cause That which God worketh in us no doubt is good but this good worke hee hath but begun in us as in the place by him quoted Philippians 1. 6. for our in regeneration wee are not wholly renewed and at once for then wee should bee wholy spirit and no flesh Neither doth the leaven of grace season the whole lumpe at once but the inward man is renewed day by day And what is not yet renued is a remainer of the old man and what is not Spirit is flesh Now betweene these two there is a perpetuall conflict the spirit lusting against the flesh and the flesh lusting against the Spirit So that a man regenerate cannot with full consent of will doe either good or evill there being a reluctation of the Spirit against the evill which the flesh affecteth and a reÌluctation of the flesh against that good which is willed by the Spirit By reason of this conflict it comes to passe that as the sinnes of the faithfull are sinnes of infirmity more or lesse and not wilfull sinnes committed of meere malice so the good works of the faithfull are not purely good but stained with the flesh § XIX The 4. that our assertion is greatly injurious to our Redeemer who as the Apostle saith gave himselfe for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity might purge unto himselfe an acceptable people zealous of goodworks For neither should he truly have redemed us from any iniquity nor truly cleansed his people nor made them zealous of works truly good but of mortall sinnes namely if all their good works be mortall sinnes which we utterly deny But I answere Our Saviour Christ gave himselfe for us both that he might justifie us by redeeming us from all iniquity and also that hee might sanctifie or as the Apostle speaketh that hee might purifie unto himselfe a peculiar people zelous or studious of good works The iniquity from which he redeemeth us is not onely of those transgressions which are absolutely sinnes but also of those unperfect and defective workes which wee indevour to performe in obedience to God And herein as I have said the high Priest was a notable type of our Saviour Christ who did weare in the forefront of his Miter a plate of gold in which was ingraven this inscription Holinesse of the Lord meaning of Iehovah our righteousnesse which he was appointed to weare that he might beare the iniquity of the holy things which the Children of Israell should hallow in all their holy gifts that notwithstanding the iniquity of them they might be accepted before the Lord by imputation of his holinesse who is Iehovah our righteousnesse And the like is to be said of the incense of the Saints upon earth that is of their prayers and all other their good works which have need to bee perfumed with the odours of Christs sacrifice that so being defective in themselves they may be accepted of God in Christ. As for our sanctification it is true that Christ gave himselfe to sanctifie us But this sanctification is but begun and in part in this life and is to be perfected in the life to come So saith the Apostle Ephcs. 5. that Christ loved his Church and gave himselfe for it that hee might sanctifie and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word that he might present it to himselfe viz. at the mariage of the Lambe a glorious Church not having spot or wrinckle or any such thing but that it should be holy and without blemish which last words as I have shewed out of Augustine are to bee understood not of the Church militant on earth but of the Church triumphant in heaven The workes which we are to be studious of are workes not onely truly but also as much as is possible purely good For though wee cannot in this life attaine to full purity and perfection yet we must aspire towards it affecting and desiring to performe good works in a better manner and measure than wee can indeed attaine unto Howbeit we must say with the Apostle to will is present with me but how to performe that which is good I finde not for the good that I would I doe not but the evill which I would not that I doe and lest it should bee said that the Apostle speaketh all these things in the perof a carnall man he concludeth thus so then ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã even I my selfe with the minde that is the Spirit serve the Law of God but with the flesh the Law of sinne § XX. The fifth If all good workes are mortall sinnes then some mortall sinnes are good works and then we may conclude thus All good works are to be done some mortall sinnes are good works therefore some mortall sinnes are to be done Againe no mortall sinne is to bee done all good workes are mortall sinnes therefore no good worke is to bee done Conclusions worthy of the Lutherans that some mortall sinnes are to bee done and that no good worke is to be done Answ. we deny good workes to bee mortall sinnes though in every good worke the most righteous doe sinne The worke it selfe is good though the defect or imperfection which goeth with it is evill The good worke therefore is to bee done the defect we are to strive and to pray against and to crave pardon for it To which deprecation we are to expect this answeare or the like My grace is sufficient for thee and in thy weakenesse my power is perfected Againe wee must distinguish betwixt workes which are sinnes absolutely and per se and those which are onely by accident For those which are good per se are to be
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 uââ¦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 transgââ¦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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ââ¦ormer part is expressed in these words that the ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã or guilt of Adams transgression came upon his posterity ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 indââ¦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 diffeââ¦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 ââ¦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
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 Ezââ¦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 ââ¦re not we But Christ was just by inhââ¦rent rightââ¦ousnesse and not by imputatiââ¦n Therefore we are just by inherent righteââ¦usnesse and not by impââ¦tation The proposition he proveth by the places alleaged First I answer to the proofe of the proposition that the places alleaged are impertiââ¦ent For the question being of the righteousnesse of ââ¦ustification never any understood the Apostââ¦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 Writeââ¦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. ââ¦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 oââ¦t of Eph. 4. 23 24. from which hee would prove which no man doth deny that our renovaââ¦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 Oââ¦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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 anââ¦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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
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 nimirââ¦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 Bellarmiââ¦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 boââ¦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 justificââ¦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 expââ¦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
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 Blââ¦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 ââ¦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 remaââ¦neth a sinner neither can hee repute him righteous unlesse he be made righteous therefore ââ¦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 degrââ¦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 ãâã 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 sââ¦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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã there are three
beleeveth on him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is counted for righteousnesse even as David also describeth the blessednesse of the man unto whom God imputââ¦h righteousnesse without workes Gal. 2. 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the workes of the Law but by the faith of Iesus Christ to which adde the words following in the same verse for by the works of the Law shall no flesh bee justified adde also Chap. 3. vers 10. 11. as many as are of the works of the Law that is who seeke justification by the workes of the Law are under the curse For it is written cursed is every one that continueth not in all the things which are written in the Booke of the Law to doe them But that no man is justââ¦fied by the Law in the sight of God it is evident for the just shall live by faith Ephes. 2. 8 9. By grace are yee saved through faith not by workes lest any man should boast Phil. 3. 8 9. I account all things but losse and dung that I may gaine Christ and may be found in him not having mine owne righteousnesse which is of the Law as all inherent righteousnesse is but that which is through the faith of Christ the righteousnesse which is of God by Faith Tit. 3. 5. Not by workes of righteousnesse which we have done but according to his mercy he saved us § VI. Bellarmine before he maketh answere to these testimonies noteth three things First what the Apostle meaneth by the Law of workes and by the Law of Faith Secondly what difference there is betwixt the justice of the Law and the justice in the Law Thirdly what the Apostle meaneth by workes when he saith a man is justified without workes For the first he cavilleth with Calvin and Chemnitius and others as though they understood simply by the Law of workes that which requireth workes and by the Law of faith which requireth faith as if the Law of faith did not also require workes and the Law of workes did not also require faith whereas our writers distinguish the two covenants of God that is the Law and the Gospell whereof one is the covenant of workes the other the covenant of grace doe teach that the Law of workes is that which to justification requireth works as the condition thereof the Law of faith that which to justification requireth faith as the condition therof The former saith doe this and thou shalt live Rom. 10. 5. Gal. 3. 12. Mat. 19. 17. the latter beleeve in Christ and thou shalt be saved Iohn 3. 16. Act. 16. 31. But the Papists whiles they teach that in the Gospell perfect righteousnesse is required in us to justification and salvation as the condition thereof as much or rather more than in the Law they doe either confound the Law and the Gospell making either of them to be the Law of workes or else as the Apostle speaketh of the false teachers of the Galathians they teach another Gospell than that which Christ and his Apostles taught which whosoever doth though he were an Angell from heaven he ought to be held accursed But you will say is not obedience to the Law required in the Gospell I answere it is not required unto justification and salvation as the condition but the ability of performing obedience is the grace of the New Testament which is promised to those that beleeve And therefore our new obedience is required as the fruit of our redemption and as the way wherein wee being justified are to walke towards our glorification and as the cognizance of them that shall be saved § VII Bellarmine having rejected our exposition setteth downe his owne the summe and effect whereof in plaine termes is thus That the Law of workes is the letter or the doctrine whether of the Law or of the Gospell prescribing what is to be done but affording no helpe to performe the same And that the Law of faith is the Spirit or the grace of the New testament promised to those that beleeve whereby they are enabled to performe that which is commanded Which distinction betweene the letter and the Spirit as it is propounded by Saint Augustine is true but cannot bee applyed to this place Rom. 3. 27. where by Law on both parts is meant Doctrine according to the proper signification of the Hebrew word Thorah The Law of workes signifying the Morall Law which unto justification requireth workes the Law of faith signifying the Gospell which to justification requireth faith onely and is therefore called the word of faith and the Law of faith For although Bellarmine elsewhere seemeth to make this to be a principall difference betweene the Law and the Gospell that the Law is the letter commanding the Gospell is the Law of faith meaning thereby the grace of the New Testament which is the Law written in our hearts wherby we are enabled to performe obedience to the Law yet hee confesseth that the Gospell in the Scriptures doth ever signifie the doctrine of the Gospell and withall confesseth the doctrine of the Gospell as it commandeth any thing to be a Law of workes So that lex fidei the Law of faith according to this exposition is as well opposed to the Gospell as it signifieth the doctrine thereof as to the Law But the difference betweene the Law of workes which is the morall Law and the Law of faith which is the Gospell in the question of justification whereof the Apostle treateth is to bee fetched from that righteousnesse which either of them requireth to justification For both of them require righteousnesse therunto The Law requireth the righteousnesse of workes the Gospell in which without the Law is revealed the righteousnesse of God by which we are justified teacheth the righteousnesse of faith ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã saith Chrysostome upon this place ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã what is the Law of saith to be saved by grace And this explication fitly agreeth to the scope of the Apostle teaching that by the doctrine not of the Law but of the Gospell all boasting is excluded As if the Apostle had thus argued The true doctrine of justification excludeth all boasting See Ephes. 2. 8 9. but the Law of workes that is that doctrine which teacheth justification by workes doth not exclude all boasting See Rom. 4. 2. which the Law of faith doth teaching that wee are justified by remission of sinnes and saved by grace therfore that doctrine which teacheth justification by works is not the true doctrine but that which teacheth justification by faith without workes § VIII As touching the difference which hee putteth betweene the justice of the Law or that which is in it or by it I have spoken before in the third question of this controversie where I shewed that if it be admitted according to Augustines meaning who was the Author of it it maketh wholly against Bellarmine For though a
man could performe justitiam legis considered in the abstract as it is described in the doctrine of the Law and as Bellarmine himselfe De justif lib. 1. cap. 1. doth consider it would justifie him because it is perfect yet considered in the concrete for that righteousnesse which men attaine unto in or by the Law doth not justifie because it is unperfect And therefore that righteousnesse which men have in or by the Law doth not fulfill the righteousnes of the Law which the Apostle calleth ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã These two distinctions Bellarmine hath devised to shift off onely two of the places cited viz. Rom. 3. 27. and Phil. 3. 8 9. both which distinctions being rightly understood make against himselfe as I have shewed § IX Now he commeth to the third thing viz. what is meant by workes For saith he our adversaries by workes which the Apostle excludeth from justification understand all works whether done before or after faith yea faith it selfe considered as a work which opinion to be most absurd and proceeding from the ignorance of the Scriptures Augustine saith hee teacheth Men not understanding what the Apostle saith we make account that a man is justified by faith without the workes of the Law have thought that hee had said that faith is sufficient to a man though he live wickedly and have no good workes which be it farre from that Vessell of Election to thinke And farre bee it also from us so to thinke But although faith alone doth not suffice unto the perfection of a Christian who is to bee saved yet it alone sufficeth unto justification wherein wee have had the consent of many of the Fathers And although to the act of justifying nothing in us concurreth with faith but it alone sufficeth yet in the party justified there must concur with faith both inward graces and also outward works But here the Papists are divided among themselves Some of them thinke that by the workes of the Law are excluded not the workes of the morall but of the ceremoniall Law others that the workes of the morall Law are also excluded not all but such as goe before faith such as are done by the strength of nature without grace and without faith I answere first to both joyntly that not onely the workes of the Law are expressely excluded but all workes whatsoever indefinitely Rom. 4. 2 6. 11. 6. Eph. 2. 9. and more specially the workes which wee have done in righteousnesse Tit. 3. 5. the workes which God hath prepared for the regenerate that they should walke in them Ephes. 2. 9 10. Againe in him that is said not to worke workes are not to bee distinguished but all are understood to be excluded but hee that is justified by faiââ¦h is said not to worke Rom. 4. 4 5. and to have righteousnesse imputed to him without workes verse 6. Therefore his workes are not to bee distinguished but all are understood to be excluded § X. To the former severally I answere first that when the holy Ghost nameth the Law indefinitely he meaneth either the whole Law which is called Mishmereth the observation of the Lord or his charge containing three branches the morall the ceremoniall and the judicial Law or the chiefe part which is the morall Law And that the Apostle meaneth it especially because he speaketh of that Law by which commeth the knowledge of sinne and which was common both to Iewes and Gentiles unto which the whole world was subject Rom. 3. 19 20. whatsoever the Law saith it saith to them who are under the Law that every mouth may bee stopped and all the world may become ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã obnoxious to the judgement of God Therefore by the deedes of the Law there shall no flesh that is neither Iew nor Gentile be justified in his sight for by the Law commeth the knowledge of sinne Moreover it is evident that the Apostle in that place speaketh of that Law which forbiddeth morall offences mentioned from the tenth verse to the ninteenth and by which all both Iewes and Gentiles are convicted to be under sin ver 9. 19. Secondly it is unreasonable to be thought that any man who was a transgressour of the morall Law should looke to bee justified by the observation of the ceremoniall Law which was but a by-law being but an appendice of the first table of the morall Law as the judiciall was an appendice of the second table And further the Apostle professeth that whosoever would be circumcised was bound to the performance of the whole Law Therefore the observer of the ceremoniall law could not be justified without the observation of the morall law Thirdly this answer which is given by some of the Pontificians is rejected by Bellarmine and the greater part of learned Papists who with us following the interpretation of Augustine and other of the ancient Fathers doe confesse that by the workes of the law which the Apostle excludeth from justification are meant the workes of the morall law as well as of the rest § XI But then say I all good workes whatsoever are excluded For in the Law which is the perfect rule of all inherent righteousnesse all good workes are prescribed and therefore those which proceed from faith For if charity which is the fulfilling of the law proceedeth from faith unfained 1 Tim. 1. 5. then doe those good workes which the law prescribeth proceed from faith also or else they are not such as the law requireth And therefore frivolous is the distinction of Bellarmine and other Papists who by the workes of the law excluded from justification underââ¦tand workes done before or without faith by the strength of nature not workes proceeding from faith or workes of grace The absurdity of whââ¦ch distinction being applyed to the question in hand may further appeare 1. If workes going before justification bee excluded from being any cause thereof then much more those workes which follow justification for causes doe not use to follow after but to goe before their effects at least in order of nature 2. The question concerning justification by workes must of necessity be understood of good workes for of those which are not good no question ought to be made But workes done before or without faith are not good For whatsoever is not of faith is sinne and without faith it is impossible to please God Neither can the fruit be good whiles the Tree is bad Neither can it be imagined that a man should bee justified by the workes of the law going before faith unlesse it bee presupposed that a man without faith and before grace is able to fulfill the law For hee that doth not fulfill the law transgresseth it and hee that transgresseth it is cursed not justified by it 3. When the Apostle termeth those workes which hee excludeth from the act of justification the workes of the Law the word Law is added not by way of extenuation as
that which is lesse than it ought to be is faulty or vicious By reason of which vice there is not a righteous man upon earth that doth good and sinneth not By reason of which vice no man living shall be justified before God By reason of which vice if we shall say that we have no sinne we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us And for which though we be never so good proficients we must of necessity say forgive us our debts c. § XI Secondly hee replyeth that the Law which prescribeth love requireth no more but that we should love with our whole heart But that this not onely may be done but also should be done in the new Testament the Scripture doth witnesse Deuâ⦠30. 6. Answ. The Phrase of loving with the whole heart being legally understood according to the perfection prescribed in the Law doth signifie as it soundeth neither can be performed by any mortall man though regenerate because he is partly flesh and partly Spirit Neither can more than the Law requireth in this behalfe be performed in our Country For as August saith in the life to come our love shal be not only above that which here we have but also far above that which we either aske or think Notwithstanding it can be no more than what the Law requireth with all our heart with all our soule and with all our minde For there doth not remaine in us any thing which may be added ad totum to that which is all for if any thing remaine which might bee added then it is not totum all But the phrase is many times Evangelically understood as in the place quoted to signifie not absolute or legall perfection but the integrity and uprightnesse of the heart which is the Evangelicall perfection as I have shewed elsewhere and shall againe ere long declare § XII Thirdly he replyeth that the Scriptures teach that men may bee perfect in this life And to this purpose alleââ¦geth Gen. 6. 9. 17. 1. Matth. 5. 48. 19. 17. Phil. 3. 15. 1 Iohâ⦠2. 5. The use of the word in these and some other places is to bee distinguished For in the most of them it is not opposed to imperfection and so many places are impertinently alleaged but either to hypocrisie and so it signifieth up right and sincere as Gen. 6. 9. 17. 1. Or to partiality when wee are good to some but not to others as Matth. 5. 48. Be you perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect doing good to men of all sorts both good and bad both friends and foes or to infancy and childhood and so it signifieth adultus a growne man and so it is used 1 Cor. 14. 20. Heb. 5. 14. and so in the place cited Phil. 3. 15. Where the Apostle acknowledging that he had not attained to perfection but still labouring to bee a good proficient exhorteth so many as are perfect to be of the same minde with him that is to strive towards perfection as having not yet attained to iâ⦠In 1 Iohn 2. 5. the phrase is varied In him that keepeth Gods word the love of God is perfected that is perfectly knowne hereby we know that we are in him And so is the word used Iam. 2. 22. 2 Cor. 12. 9. There remaineth onely the answere of Christ to the justitiary Matth. 19. 17. If thou wilt bee perfect c. Which as I have shewed before our Saviour fitteth to the disposition of that justitiary whom having a great conceit of himselfe that he had kept all the commandements of God from his youth he thought good to discover and unmaske by a commandement of tryall If thou wilt saith hee bee perfect that is If thou wilt approve thy selfe to be a perfect observer of the Law as thou pretendest goe and sell that thou hast and give to the poore and thou shalt have treasure in heaven and come and follow mee For if thou refusest so to doe thou shalt bewray thy selfe to bee a meere wordling preferring the love of the world besore the love of God and desiring to retaine thy earthly wealth rather than to obtaine the heavenly treasure § XIII His third sort of testimonies is of such as doe testifie that some have kept the Commandements of God and namely those of loving with the whole heart and of not coveting And to to this purpose he alleageth the examples of David of Iosiah of Asa and his people of Iosuah and others whom hee doth but name of Zachary and Elizabeth of the Apostles and namely of Paul and in conclusion of Ezechias and of Abraham Answ. All these were sincere and upright keepers and observers of the Law but none of them were perfect and perpetuall fulfillers of it none of them wââ¦re wââ¦thout sinne David was a man according to Gods owne heart in respect of his uprightnesse and integrity 1 King 3. 6. and for that and not for any absolute perfection he is commended in the places alleaged Psal. 119. 10. 1 King 14. 8. Act. 13. 22. 1 King 15. 5. And yet for all this David was a sinner and in many of his Psalmes bewayleth his manifold sinnes desiring the Lord not to enter into judgement with him for if hee should neither he nor any other could be just in his sight placing his justification in the remission of his sinnes and in Gods acceptation of him imputing unto him righteousnesse without workes Iosias also was a godly and upright king but yet not without fault in that hee harkened not unto the Words of Necho from the mouth of God but presumptuously fought against him 2 Chron. 35. 22. Of the people under Asa no more can be gathered but that with upright hearts and willing minds they entred into a covenant to seeke the Lord in sincerity and truth Of Asa himselfe the Scripture indeed doth testifie that his heart was perfect that is upright before the Lord all his dayes Notwithstanding in the same place it is said that the high places were not taken away and in the next Chapter three sinnes of his are recorded that hee had relied on the King of Syria and not on the Lord that being reproved therefore by the Prophet Hanani he committed the Prophet to prison that in his sickenesse he sought not to the Lord but to the Physitians That which is said of ãâã doth not concerne the observation of the Morall Law but those politicke precepts which the Lord had given to Moses and Moses to Iosuââ¦h concerning the utter destruction of the Canaanites whom the Lord had delivered into his hands Of Zachary and Elizabeth it is said first that they were just before God that is upright and secondly that they walked in all the commandements and ordinances of the Lord blamelesse which latter they might doe and yet bee farre from that perfection which the Law requireth For Paul professeth of himselfe that even before
his conversion he was touching the righteousnes which is in the Law blamelesse Phil. 3. 6. They were blamelesse before men but not faultles before God For Zacharias did use to sacrifice for his owne sinnes as well as for others as Augustine saith in his answere to this argument alleaged by the Pelagians And who knoweth not that for the sinne of incredulity hee was both deafe and dumbe for a time As touching the Apostles before the resurrection of Christ though our Saviour call them his friends and giveth them this testimony that they had kept his word yet who can bee ignorant how farre they were at that time from perfection and with how great imperfections they kept his word But it is strange that he should alleage the example of S. Paul Rom. 7. as one that had kept the Commandement forbidding concupiscence when in that chapter hee doth not onely confesse that by that Commandement hee was convicted to bee a sinner in that hee had concupiscence but also that that habituall concupiscence might appeare exceedingly sinnefull it did take occasion by the Law to worke in him all manner of actuall concupiscence § XIV But Bellarmines conceit is that concupiscence in the Apostle was no sinne because he did not consent to it Whereto I answere first that as he was carnall he did consent unto it but not as he was spirituall for so hee saith I delight in the Law of God after the inward man but I see another Law in my members warring against the Law of my mind and bringing me into captivity to the Law of sin which is in my members Whereupon he cryeth out v. 24. O wretched man that I am who shall deliver me from the body of this death meaning therby the flesh or the body of sin Secondly though the Apostle had not consented to concupiscence yet both the habituall concupiscence it self remainning in him after his regeneration and the actual concupiscences going before coââ¦sent arising from thence were sins The habituall is often called by the Apostle a sin and is noted to be the sinning sin which taking occasion by the Law to send forth evill concupiscences namely which the Law forbiddeth was exceedingly sinfull As for those ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã or first motions of sinne in the thought or affections going before consent and arising from our owne concupiscence they are those very sinnes which are directly forbidden in the tenth Commandement for those which are joyned with consent are forbidden in the former Commandements Neither could Paul who had beene trayned up in the Law bee ignorant of that which the very heathen knew by the light of nature that evill concupiscence accompanyed with consent was a sinne But that which is forbidden in the tenth commandement the Apostle had not knowne to bee a sinne except the Law had said thou shalt not lust or thou shalt not have any evill concupiscence Hence Bellarmine concludeth that because the Law hath beene kept by many it is possible Neither doe we deny it to bee kept by the faithfull in respect of their upright walking in all the Commandements of God but wee deny it to be perfectly fulfilled by them Their new obedience which they performe with upright hearts and willing mindes hath the title of perfection given unto it and is a perfection begunne in respect of the parts for even an infant that is formed in the wombe is perfect in respect of his parts and is accepted of God in Christ the Lord not imputing to the faithfull their imperfections And it is a good saying of Augustine Oââ¦nia ergo mandata facta deputantur quando quicquid non fit ignoscitur All the Commandements are esteemed as done when that whââ¦ch is not done is pardoned § XV. But this answere concerning perfection of obedience begunne and the imperfections remitted will not serve the turne saith Yeaââ¦zechias ââ¦zechias professââ¦th that he had walked before the Lord in truth and with a perfect heart And if Ezechias walked before God with a perfââ¦ct heart who will deny it to Abraham to whom it was said walke before me and be perfect Answ. Wee doe read that the faithfull did keepe the Law but wee never read that they did abââ¦olutely fulfill it but that all of them had their imperfections and their sinnes And although many oâ⦠them abounded with good workes yet their justification consisted in the remission of their sinnes and Gods acceptation of them in Christ imputing righteousnesse unto them without workes And where as it is said that they obeyed God with their whole heart and with a perfect heart this is to be understood of an entire or upright heart The hebrew words Tham Thom Tââ¦min and Shalem which signifââ¦e perfect or perfection are synonyma or words of the same sence with ââ¦ashar Iosher and Emeth that is upright uprightnesse and truth or sincerity and are signified by the phrase of walking with God or be fore God and aââ¦e the same with the Greek words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã all of them opposed not to imperfection but to hypocrisie For Thom Tham and Thamin consider these places Psal. 35. 21. where Thom and Iosher are used as synonima the latter being the exposition of the former Let perfection and ãâã preserve mee Iosh. 24. 14. Where Thamin and Emââ¦th are used promiscuously serve the Lord in perfection and in truth Psal. 37. 37. where Tham and Iashar are put for the same observe the perfect man and behold the upright for the end of that man is peace So Iob is commended to have been Ish Thâ⦠Vejashar a perfect and upright man The word Shalem which in the same speech of Ezechias 2 King 20. 3. is by the 72. translated ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã perfect is by them reââ¦dred Esay 38. 3. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã a true heart as an upright heart is called Heb. 10. 22. § XVI The phrase of performing dueties with the whole heart Deut. 26. 16 as to seeke God with all the heart Deut. 4. 29. Psal. 119. â⦠10. to keepe his Commandements with all the heart and with all ââ¦he soule 2 King 23. 3. Psal. 119. 34 69. to turne unto the Lord with all the heart Ioââ¦l 2. 12. importeth nothing else where it is not legally understood but an entyre or upright heart that is not an heart and an heart as hypocrites use to speake Psal. 12. 2. 1 Chron. 12. 33. the phrase not with an heart and an heart is expounded vers 38. to be a perfect or upright heart Thus to serve the Lord in truth is to serve him with the whole heart 1 Sam. 12. 24. and to praise God with the whole heart Psal. 9. 1. 111. 1. is to praiââ¦e him with uprightnesse of heart Psal. 119. 7. Thus to walke with God or before God is to bee perfect or upright Gen. 17. 1. and to bee perfect or upright is to walke with God or before him for to
walke with God is for a man to behave himselfe as in his pââ¦esence and to walke before God is to behave a mans selfe in his sight that is uprightly Thus Henââ¦ch Gen. 5. 22. 24. Noââ¦h Gen. 6. 9. Abraham and Isââ¦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 hââ¦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 perfââ¦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 Ieshââ¦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 parââ¦s and not of the degrees towards which notwithstanding it aspireth yet neverthelesse it is the Evangelicall the Christian and the best perfââ¦ction which we can attaine unto this life § XVII These were his proofes out of the Scriptures Now he will prââ¦ve out of the Fathers that the Law of God is not impossible he shoââ¦ld say for so he propounded the state of the question absolutely posââ¦ble But ââ¦he Fathers may be distinguished into two rankes For either they weâ⦠such as wrote before Pelagius spred his errour or after Those whââ¦h wrote before did as Augustine saith write more carelesly of thee things insomuch that ãâã would seeme to father his errours upâ⦠them Those who wrote after hee had broached his heresies as naââ¦ely Hierome in his latter dayes and Augustine had the like controvere though not altogether the same with Pelagius that we have with the ââ¦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 Testââ¦onies of Scripture to confirme their errour § XVIII There are I confesse two seeming differences betweene the Pââ¦agians and the Papists The one that the Pââ¦lagians held that a man ââ¦y strength of nature might fulfill the Commandements of God which ââ¦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 ãâã considered that the Pelagiaââ¦s did call the power of nature Gods gracâ⦠and did acknowledge that the direction and instruction which men haââ¦e by the Word and Law of God was to bee ascribed to Gods grace aââ¦d that the grââ¦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 foââ¦er respect as is pretendââ¦d Againe the ãâã betweene the Pelagians and Papists is not in respect of ãâã or impossibility but in respect of greater or lesse difficulty For the Papists doâ⦠not aââ¦knowledge that men by natââ¦re are dead in sinne ââ¦d utterly deprived of the Spirituall life but that they are sicke and weake and ââ¦yed with the bands of sinne so that they cannot fulfill the Law of God unlesse they ãâã ââ¦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 ââ¦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 ââ¦iginall sinne is onely carentia justitiae debit ae in esse the want of originall ââ¦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 Auââ¦ustine doth truly teach against both Pelagians and Papists that man by ââ¦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 ââ¦at a man cannot bee altogether without sinne for any long time thoââ¦h for some short time in which short time if he shall say he hath no sine he shall make Saint Ioââ¦n and not himselfe a lyar 1 Ioh. 1. 8. yet ââ¦ey say they may be without all siââ¦nes excepting those which they do ââ¦all veniall which they doe so extenuate that indeed they make theâ⦠no sinnes as being no anomies or transgressions of the Law comââ¦tted against the Law or repugnant to Charity but onely besides the ââ¦aw such as may well stand together with perfect inherent righteoââ¦esse For they say he onely is a righteous man in whom there is no siââ¦e and yet that there is no man so righteous as that he liveth without ââ¦ese veniall sinnes But if they be ãâã and not contrary to the Lw then they are neither commanded nor forbidden and so no sinnes ââ¦t
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 Nââ¦minem esse qui tantum velit ãâã 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 ââ¦gustine allwayes answered affirmatively to which purpose ââ¦ee citeth Dâ⦠peccat merit remiss lib. 2. cap. 3. 6. De Nââ¦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⦠Aââ¦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 ââ¦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 sinceââ¦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 prââ¦ceptis minus servââ¦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 righteousââ¦esse in this life doth consist rather in remission of sins than in perfection of virtues For as touching perfection he saith Vââ¦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 ââ¦o farre forth called perfect that to the perfection thereof appertaineth both the acknowledgment of the imperfection there of in truth and the confââ¦ssion of it in humilily § XXIII But heââ¦e Bellarmine holdeth a strange paraââ¦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 transgââ¦essions of the Law as undoubtedly thââ¦y are or else they be no sinnes then hee that cannot live witââ¦out them cannot live without transgression of the Law and hee thââ¦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 Sââ¦riptures that the wages of sinne or stipend Rom. 6. 23. the ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 subjââ¦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 punishââ¦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 ââ¦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 siââ¦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 ââ¦ither to the right hand or to the left and that is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Secondly Eusebius Caesariensis demonstrates that things required in ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã for no man did fulfill it 2. No man could be justified by the Law unlesse hee fulfilled all ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 imââ¦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 iââ¦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 oblivisââ¦endo quaeretro sunt in quae anteriââ¦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 ashaââ¦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
what we were and not what we are that seeing from what wee are fallen we might seeke to bee repaired in Christ who is the end of the Law for righteousnesse to every one that beleeveth Rom. 10. 4. The covenant of workes God made with man in his state of integrity when he was able to keepe it But after the fall because it was not possible that man should performe that covenant in and by himselfe he in great mercie made with man the Covenant of grace in Christ. But lest any man should either through ignorance or pride neglect the benefit of the Messias it pleased God to renew the Covenant of workes not to that end that men should be justified or saved thereby but that it might bee a meanes to drive them unto Christ. And fo Bellarmine himselfe hath taught Lex non data erat ut justificaret sed ut morbum ââ¦stenderet ad quaerââ¦ndum medicum excitaret The Law was not given to that end that it should justifie but that it might shew the disease and stirte up men to seeke to the Physitian Againe a distinction is to be made as in the answere to the second reason of the parties to whom the law is given For to the wicked and reprobate who are Gods rebellious subjects the law is indeed impossible through their owne default and yet God exacteth most justly that righteousnesse in which hee did create them hee requireth most justly an accompt of those talents which hee committed to them though now they be not able to pay The debt is duely exacted of the debtour though through his own default hee bee not now able to make payment As for the elect whom the Lord hath before they were loved in Christ hee hath given his law to them not to this end that either by the observation thereof in their own persons they should bee justified or by the breach thereof they should bee condemned for then who could be saved But the use of the law to them before their conversion is that it might bee unto them a Schoolmaster unto Christ and after their conversion and justification it might bee a rule whereby to frame their lives and conversation aspiring alwaies towards that perfection which the law prescribeth though they cannot fully attaine unto it Why then saith Augustine should not this perfection bee enjoyned to man though no man in this life have it Non enim rectè curratur si quò currendum est nesciatur quomodo autem sciretur si nullis praeceptis ostenderetur For men cannot runne well if they know not whither they must runne and how should they know that if by precepts it be not made known to them And worthy is that saying of Bernard to be repeated againe and againe Neither was the commander ignorant that the weight of the commandement doth exceed the strength of men but hee judged it profitable that hereby they should be admonished of their owne unsufficiencie and that they might know to what end or perfection of righteousnesse they should aspire Therefore by commanding impossible things hee did not make men transgressors but humble that every mouth may bee stoppod and the whole world made obnoxious to God For by the works of the Law no flesh shall be justified in his sight For receiving the commandement and feeling our defectivenes wee shall cry to heaven and God will have mercie on us And wee shall know in that day that not by the workes of righteousnesse which wee have done but according to his mercie hee hath saved us § X. His fourth reason is collected out of three places of scripture Rom. 8. 4. Mat. 6. 10. Heb. 5. 9. In the first it is said that Christ suffered that the justification of the Law might be fulfilled in us In the second we are taught to pray that Gods will may bee done upon earth as it is in heaven In the third that Christ is made to all that obey him the cause of eternall salvation But saith hee if we canââ¦t fulfill the Law then Christ misseth of his end For notwithstanding his sufferings the justification of the Law is not fulfilled in us neither is our prayer ever obtayned of fulfilling Gââ¦ds will and commandements on earth as in heaven neither is Christ the authour of salvation to any because none obey him Answ. As touching the first place because it is often alleaged by Bellarmine I will somewhat insist upon it The place is two wayes expounded either of sanctification or of justification Ifit be to be understood of sanctification as the Papists commonly expound it we acknowledge that our sanctification is the end and fruit of our redemption by Christ and that this end is atchieved iâ⦠all those who live not after the flesh but after the Spirit that is in all true believers I say it is archieved ãâã in this life and perfectly in the life to come But as I suppose it is rather to be understood of justification For the Apostle having assured the faithfull vers 1. that notwithstanding sinne and the body of sinne and of death wherof hee had complayned chap. 7. remayneth in them yet forasmuch as we are delivered from the same by Iesus Christ our Lord vers 25. there is no condemnation to them which are in Christ as his members whom hee describeth by this character that they walke not after the flesh but after the Spirit In the verses following he confirmeth the same conclusion showing how Christ hath delivered us For saith hee vers 2. the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Iesus hath delivered me from the law of sinne and of death Whereby the law of the Spirit of life we understand the virtue and power of holynes or sanctification not in us but in Christ Iesus for so hee saith though they doe not observe it who understand this place of sanctification and righteousnesse inherent who by his righteousnesse and merits hath delivered us from the power of sinne and of death But the Apostle as in the former chapter vers 24. so here in the singular number speaketh of himself teaching by his owne example every true Christian to apply the benefits of Christ to himself For that which was impossible for the law to doe that is to justifie us in that it was weake through the flesh God sending his owne sonne in the likenes of sinfull flesh that is in the humane nature subject to passions and infirmities and that for sinne that hee might take away the sinne of the world for so saith ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã condemned sinne in the flesh that is exacted the due punishment of sinne in his humane nature that the guilt of our sinnes being taken away by his alsufficient satisfaction ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that which the law requireth unto justification might by Christ bee fulfilled in us who are his members which walke not as also hee had said in the first verse not after
c. 4. § 15. c. 6. § 12. 19. 21. If thou wilt bee perfect goâ⦠sell all c. l. 7. â⦠7. § 3. 20. 1. ad 16. The parable of the workemen in the vineyard lib. 8. cap. 5. § 6 7. Matth. 25. 21. Well done thou good and faithfull servant c. lib. 8. cap. 5. § 15. 25. 34. 35. Come ye blessed of my Father inherit c. lib. 7. c. 4. § 12. and c. 5. § 11. and lib. 8. c. 5. § 14 15 16. Marke 7. 29. For this saying goe thy way â⦠6. c. 15. § 12. Luke 1. 6. Righteous before God c. lib. 2. cap. 3. § 1. 6. 38. VVith what measure you meet c. lib. 8. cap. 5. § 13. 7. 47. Her sinnes which are many are forgiven for she loved much lib. 6. cap. 12 § 2. 3. 7. 55. Thy faith hath saved thee lib. 6. cap. 15. § 11. 10. 7. The labourer is worthy of his hire lib. 8. cap. 5. § 22. 17. 5. Increase our faith l. 6. c. 3. § 3. 17. 7. 8 9 10. VVhen you have done all say that ye are unprofitable servants lib. 8. cap. 2. § 5. 6 c. 20. 35. They that shall be accounted worthy to obtaine that world c. lib. 8. cap. 5. § 22. Iohn 1. 12. To so many as beleeved he gave power to be the sonnes of God c. lib. 6. cap. 10. § 9. 1. 29. Behold the Lambe of God which takes away the sinne of the world lib. 2. cap. 8. § 2. 6. 64. Iesus knew from the beginning who beleeved not lib. 6. cap. 2 § 7. 12. 42 43. Many of the Rulers beleeved on him but did not confesse him c. lib. 6. cap. 3. § 8. 14. 23. If a man love me he will keep my words and my Father will love him lib. 7. cap. 6. § 22. 15. 13. Greater love hath no man than this that a man lay downe his life for his friends lib. 5. cap. 7. § 3. Acts of the Apostles 13. 38 39. Through this Man is preached unââ¦o you remission of sinnes and by him all that beleeve are justified c. Lib. 4. cap. 6. § 1. 2 c. ad 9. 15. 9. Purifying their hearts by faith Lib. 6. cap. 15. § 9. 15. 10. A yoke which neither we nor our Fathers were able to beare lib. 4. cap. 5. § 9. Epistle to the Romanes 1. 16 17. The Gospell the power of God c. in it is revealed the righteousnesse of God c. Lib. 1. cap. 1. § 1. 3. 24. Being justââ¦fied freely by his race through the redemption c. l. 3. c. 3. 4. 3. 27. Boasting exââ¦luded by what Law c. lib. 7. cap. 3. § 2. 4. 2. If Abraham were justified by workes he hath whereof to glory but not before God lib. 7. cap. 3. § 2. 4. 5 6. 11. The Lord imputeth righteousnesse lib. 1. cap. 3. § 10. 4 4. 5. To him that worketh the reward is not reckoned of grace but of debt but to him that worketh not but beleeveth c lib. 1. cap. 3. § 6. lib. 6. cap. 15. § 7. 4. 20. 21 22. Abraham being strong in faith gave glory to God therfore it was imputed to him for righteousnes lib. 6. § 13. cap. 15. 4. 25. Who was delivered for our sins and rose againe for our justification lib. 4. cap. 12. § 2. 5. 3 4. Tribulation worketh patience and patience probation c. l. 7. c. 5. § 7. 5. 5. The love of God shed abroad in our hearts by his holy Spirit lib. 3. cap. 5. 5. 17 18 19. For as by one mans offence c. lib. 2. cap. 5. § 1. 2 c. lib. 4. cap. 10. § 1. 2 c. ad 7. 5. 19. As by the disobedience of one many were made sinners so by the obedience of one many shall be made righteous lib. 1. cap. 4. § 8. lib. 2. cap. 5. § 1. 2. lib. 2. cap. 8. § 10. lib. 5. cap. 2. § 1. 5. 21. As sinne reigned unto death even so grace c. lib. 4. cap. 12. § 5. 6. 4 6. Wee are burââ¦ed with him by baptisme into death lib. 8. cap. 10. § 17. 6. 13. Neither yeeld your members as instruments of unrighteousnesse c. lib. 4. cap. 12. § 6. 6. 19. As ye have yeelded your members servants to uncleannes c. l. 7. § 19. c. 8. 6. 22. Ye have your fruit unto holines and the end everlasting life lib. 4. c. 12. § 11. 6. 23. For the wages of sinne is death but the gift of God is eternall life c. lib. 8. cap. 2. § 13 c. 7. 18. To will is present with me but how to performe that which is good I finde not lib. 4. cap. 5. § 10. 8. 3. The impossibility of the Law in that it was weake through the flesh c. lib. 4. cap. 5. § 11. 8. 4. That the justification of the Law might bee fulfilled in us lib. 7. cap. 7. § 10. 11. 8. 10. The body is dead by reason of sinne but the Spirit is life because of righteousnesse lib. 3. cap. 5. § 7. 8. lib. 4. cap. 12. § 7 8. 13. If through the Spirit you mortifie the deeds of the body ye shall live lib. 7. cap. 4. § 11. 16. cap. 5. § 8. 8. 10. 15. 23. Lib. 4. cap. 10. § 18. 8. 15. Ye have received the Spirit of adoption c. lib. 3. c. 5. § 6. 8. 17. If yee suffer with him that yee may be glorified with him lib. 7. cap. 4. § 11. 17. 8. 16. 17 18. lib. 7. cap. 5. § 9. 8. 18. The sufferings of this present time are not worthy the glory which shall bee revealed lib. 8. cap. 2. § 18 c. ad 22. 8. 29. Conformable to the image of his sonne lib. 4. cap. 10. § 12. 8. 30. Whom he hath called them hee hath justified lib. 2. cap. 3. § 5. 8. 33 34. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods children it is God that justifieth c. lib. 1. cap. 1. § 4. 10. 4. Christ the end of the Law for righteousnesse to every one that beleeveth lib. 1. cap. 4. § 9. 10. 10. With the heart manbeleeveth unto righteousnesse c. lib. 7. cap. 5. § 10. 10. 13 14. Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall bee saved how then shall they call upon him in whom they have not beleeved c. lib. 6. cap. 10. § 8. cap. 15. § 14. The first to the Corinthians 1. 30. Christ made unto us righteousnesse lib. 4. cap. 9. § 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 2. 6. VVe speake wisdome among them that are perfect lib. 5. cap. 7. § 10. 3. 8. Every one shall receive his own reward according to his owne labour lib. 8. c. 5. § 13. 3. 11. Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid which is Iesus Christ. lib. 6. cap. 15. § 8. 3. 12. If any man build upon this foundation gold silver c.
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 ââ¦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 Bellarmiââ¦es ãâã 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 firââ¦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 ââ¦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 rightââ¦ousnesse the materiââ¦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. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The signification of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã lib. 2. cap. 2. § 1 2. The signification of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã § 3. The signification of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã § 4. The signification of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã § 5. The signification of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã § 6. Dispositions Seven alleaged by Bellarmine to disprove justification by faith alone lib. 6. cap. 10 11 12. Whether any dispositioââ¦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 distinguââ¦shed ibid. § 4. End The end or fiââ¦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. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã How to be understood Gal. 5. 6. l. 4. c. 11. § 3. 4. F Faith The instrument on oââ¦r ãâã 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 ââ¦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 ãâã 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 coozââ¦nage § 15 16 17. and pernicious to the people § 18. True justifying ââ¦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
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 mââ¦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 saââ¦ed in whom as the head communicating his merits to his members all the faithfull have as his members fulfilled the Law and satisfied the justice of God for themselves The head and the body saith Thomas Aquinas are as it were one mysticall person and therefore the satisfaction of Christ belongeth to all the faithfull as to his members the Lord accepting in their behalfe the obedience and Merits of Christ as if they had performed the same in their owne persons not for others but for themselves And therefore by imputation of Christs righteousnesse they are not redeemers but redeemed For though Christ who is the Saviour of his body communicate to his members his obedience yet not his Headship nor his Mediatorship in respect whereof hee was and is both God and man Man to doe and suffer God to give infinite value and worth to that which his Person did or suffered for the justification and salvation of all those to whom his righteousnesse should bee communicated and imputed but not to make them redeemers and Saviours of others The righteousnesse of the head is of sufficient vertue to justifie and redeeme all the members to whom it is imputed but being imputed the merit thereof extendeth no further than to what end it is imputed that is to save the member not to make it a Saviour nor to confound the members with the head nor to take away the proportion that is and ought bee betweene the head and the members Fourthly to the Papists who confesse Christs satisfaction to be imputed unto us I returne the like argument If Christs satisfaction whereby he redeemed mankind bee imputed unto us then are we also redeemers of mankind But they will not not cannot inferre that therefore we are redeemers but that wee among others are redeemed § X. But that we are justified onely by the imputation of Christs righteousnesse I shall by the helpe of God fully prove hereafter in my whole fifth booke Here onely for a tast I will but point at two argumenss the former out of Rom. 4. 5. 6. 11. the basis or ground whereof is this that whom the Lord justifieth to them he imputeth righteousnesse Now this righteousnesse is either the parties owne or of another Not their owne for they are sinners and being sinners they cannot bee justified by righteousnesse inherent but righteousnesse is imputed to them without workes that is without respect of any obedience performed by themselves Therefore it is the righteousnesse of another That other is no other nor can be any other but Christ onely therefore by imputation of his righteousnesse we are justified The second shall bee out of 2 Cor. 5. 21. As Christ was made sinne for us so are wee made the righteousnesse of God in him By imputation of our sinne to him Christ who knew no sinne was made sinne and a sinner for us therefore by imputation of his righteousnesse which here is called the righteousnesse of God we who are sinners in our selves are made righteous not in our selves but in him CAP. IV. Whether wee are justified by the passive righteousnesse of Christ only § I. NOw I come to the private opinions of some of our Divines concerning the matter and some of our justification For some as touching the matter doe hold that we are justified by the passive righteousnesse of Christ onely Of these men some doe not hold the matter of justification to bee the passive righteousnesse of Christ it selfe but a righteousnesse morte Christi partuÌ purchased by the death of Christ as the meritorious cause thereof viz. remission of sinnes which they not without absurdity say is imputed to us For what is remission of sinne but the not imputing of it If therefore wee bee justified by imputation of the remission of sinne then are we justified by the imputation of the not imputing of sinne Againe the authors of this opinion confound justice with justification for they say that remission of sinne is our justice and that justification is nothing also but remission when indeed neither the one nor the other is justice but an action of God imputing righteousnesse and not imputing sinne unto us Others hold that by the passive righteousnesse of Christ it selfe meaning thereby his death and passion we are justified as by the onely matter of justification imputed to us But that wee are not justified by the passive righteousnesse of Christ alone it may appeare by these reasons § II. By what alone the Law is fully satisfied by that we are justified and by what alone the Law is not fully satisfied by that alone wee are not justified By the whole righteousnesse of Christ that is to say the righteousnesse of his person that is his holinesse or habituall righteousnesse the righteousnesse of his life which was his obedience or actuall righteousnesse the righteousnesse of his death and passion which is obedientia crucis or his passive righteousnesse the Law was fully satisfied or fulfilled but by the passive obedience alone of Christ the Law was not fulfilled therefore by the whole righteousnesse of Christ and not by the passive onely we are justified The proposition is thus proved there is no justification before God without perfect and compleat righteousnesse for without that no man can stand in judgement before God and to imagine that
imputed as a full satisfaction for sinne the other by imputation of Christs perfect obedience as a sufficient merit of eternall life by the former we are freed from hell by the latter we are entituled to the kingdome of heaven Of them both the Apostle speaketh Rom. 5. that we are justified that is absolved from our sinne by the bloud of Christ. v. 9. and that wee are justified that is constituted just by his obedience vers 19. To this argument they answere by denying the antecedent saying that there are no parts of justification but that it wholly consisteth in remission of sinnes Indeed if it were the onely matter of justification as some of them teach and the entire formall cause of justification as others avouch of whom we shall speake in the next Chapter I say if both these opinions were true then I would confesse that the whole nature of justification doth consist in forgivenesse of sinne but whiles it is either but the matter as some say or but the forme as others or neither of both as I avouch it is a manifest errour to say that justification consisteth wholly in remission of sinnes Againe in every mutation though it be but relative we must of necessity acknowledge two termes tââ¦rminum à quo terminum ad quem the denomination being taken commonly from the terminus ad quem As in justification there is a motion or mutation from sinne to justice from which terme justification hath its name from a state of death and damnation to a state of life and Salvation But if justification be nothing else but bare remission of sinne then is there in it onely a not imputing of sinne but no acceptation as righteous a freedome from hell but no title to heaven To this they answere that to whom sinne is not imputed righteousnesse is imputed and they who are freed from hell are admitted to heaven I doe grant that these things doe alwayes concurre but yet they are not to bee confounded for they differ in themselves and in their causes and in their effects in themselves for it is one thing to bee acquitted from the guilt of sinne another thing to be made righteous as wee see daily in the pardons of malefactors in their causes for remission of sinne is to be attributed to Christs satisfactory sufferings the acceptation as righteous unto life to Christs meritorious obedience In their effects for by remission of sinne wee are freed from hell and by imputation of Christs obedience we have right unto heaven § XVII If unto justification there be required besides remission of sinne Imputation of righteousnesse then there are two formall causes of justification Answ. It followeth not for although there bee two tââ¦rmini in this mutation yet there is but one action and this one action is the onely forme of justification viz. imputation of Christs righteousnesse of which are two effects which also be the two parts of justification remission of sinne and acceptation as righteous as I said in the definition that justification is an action of God wherein hee imputing the righteousnesse of Christ to a beleeving sinner doth not onely absolve him from his sinnes but also accepteth of him as righteous and as an heire of eternall life § XVIII Notwithstanding this so evident truth some of the Divines of whom we spake when they would prove justification by the passive righteousnesse of Christ onely take this position for granted that justification is nothing but remission of sinne and hereupon inferre that seeing wee have remission of sinne onely by the bloud of Christ we are justified by his bloud onely And to this purpose they alleage many testimonies of Scriptures affirming that by the bloud of Christ and by his death and passion wee have remission of sinne to all which we readily subscribe But if there be any other places that seeme to ascribe unto the sufferings of Christ more than remission of sinnes as entrance into heaven and salvation c. such places are to be understood by a Synecdoche putting the chieââ¦e and most eminent part of his obedience for the whole Others labour to prove this assertion that justification is nothing but remission of sinne by testimonies and by reasons and to this purpose collect a multitude of testimonies of Protestant Divines who against the Papists have maintained that justification confisteth in remission of sinnes onely But this assertion as hereafter I shall shew is to be understood as spoken in opposition to the Papists who unto justification besides remission of sinnes require inward renovation or sanctification and therefore their meaning was to exclude from justification not imputation of righteousnesse which alwayes concurreth in the same act with remission of sinne and without which there can be no remission for by the same act of imputation of Christs whole and entire righteousnesse we have both remission of sinnes and acceptation unto life but to exclude renovation à ratione justificationis from the proper nature of justification as if they had said wee are not justified both by remission and renovation as the Papists teach but by remission without renovation that is in their meaning by remission onely and this is acknowledged by Bellarmine himselfe as hereafter shall bee shewed And forasmuch as by remission of sinne wee have an imputative righteousnesse for to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne to him he imputeth righteousnesse without workes as the Apostle proveth Rom. 4. 6 7. therefore when it is said that we are justified by remission onely and not by renovation it is all one as if wee said that wee are justified by imputation onely and not by infusion of righteousnesse § XIX Their chiefe argument to prove their assertion is this Remission is as well of the sinnes of omission as of commission As therefore he whose sinnes of commission are remitted is reputed as if hee had done nothing forbidden so whose sinnes of omission are remitted is reputed as if hee had left undone nothing that is commanded Now hee that is reputed as if hee had neither done any thing forbidden nor left undone any thing that is commanded hee is reputed as if hee had fulfilled the whole Law I answer by distinction if they consider remission of sinnes barely without imputation of righteousnesse as they must if they will make good their assertion then hee that hath onely remission of the sins both of commission and omission is freed from the guilt of both but not from the fault For notwithstanding such remission of his sinnes he is a sinner as having both committed what is forbidden and also omitted what is commanded Yet by remission or not imputation of sinne hee is freed from the punishment and a rââ¦atu poenae from the guilt binding over to punishment as if hee had neither committed any thing forbidden nor omitted any thing commanded Hee therefore that hââ¦th remission is reputed as having neither committed any evill nor omitted any good not simply
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 formaââ¦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 transgrââ¦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 Chriââ¦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
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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to be just blamelesse or pure ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to be just as Iob 9. 2. 15. 20. 10. 15. 15. 14. 25. 4. 33. 12. 34. 5. 35. 7. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to be blamelesse as Iob 22. 3. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to be pure as Iob 4. 17. sometimes ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in the same sense to be just as being a translation not of a passive but of a Neuter as Gen. 38. 26. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Thamar is more just than I. So Psal. 19. 10. jââ¦dicia Dei ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Psal. 51. 6. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Sometimes ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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. ââ¦6 Let us plead together declare thou ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 Iobââ¦3 ââ¦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
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. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 Hââ¦brew word whereof it is a translation to make righteous by righteousnesse inherent § III. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã 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. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 justiââ¦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. ââ¦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 ââ¦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 ââ¦ometimes extended to signifie a totall freedome as Rom. 6. 7. He that is dead is justified that iâ⦠as Chrysostome and Oââ¦umenius expound it ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is freed from sinne As these places are plainely repugnant to the Popish sense so none of the rest where ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is used doth favour it For either they import remission of sinnes and acceptation as righteoââ¦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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is used onely in two placââ¦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 justificââ¦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 untââ¦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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the guilt which is to be supplied out of the sixteenth verse came upon all men the offspring of the first Adam ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã unto condemnation so by the ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã
ãâã of one whereby hee fulfilled the Law viz. the second Adam the ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã or free gift opposite to the guilt of damnation which is our title and right to the kingdome of heaven commeth to all men that belong to the second Adam unto justification of life § V. The word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is diversââ¦y used both in the plurall number and in the singular In the plurall it hath three significations for first it signifieth Iura the Lawes or Commandements of God either in generall and indefinitely as namely where no other word of the like signiââ¦cation is joyned with it as Psalm 119. 8 12. Rom. 2. 26. Or more particularly the precepts of the ceremoniall Law And this sense is most usuall when it is joyned with words signifying other lawes or precepts For the whole Law which is called mishmereth Iehovah the observation of the Lord that is all that the Lord requireth to bee observed is often distinguished into three parts Mitsvoth whiââ¦h the Septuagint translate ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the Commandements of the morall Law Mishpatim which they translate ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã or ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the precepts of the judiciall Law Chuqqim which they translate sometimes ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and sometimes ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the statutes and ordinances of the Ceremoniall Law Insomuch that the vulgar Latine for Chuqqim rendreth many times even where the 72. have ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ceremonias as Gen. 26. 5. Deut. 4. 8 14 45. 5. 1 31. 6. 1. 17. 8. 11. 10. 13. 11. 1. c. The Apostle Rom. 9. 4. calleth the Morall Law ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the Iudiciall ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the Ceremoniall ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and accordingly the precepts of the Ceremoniall Law are called Heb. 9. 1. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The ordinances of divine service and because they were but externall observations vers 10. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã carnall ordinances Secondly it signifieth the judgements of God Apoc. 15. 4. which by the vulgar Latine and others is translated Iudicia And as ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã sometimes signifieth the just workes of God which are the acts of his justice so in the last place some expound ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Apoc. 19. 8. to bee the just workes of the Saints and as the author of the Homilies in Saint Augustine justa facta or justè facta as the Greeke writers sometimes use the word which the Papists will needs translate justifications meaning thereby just workes and hoping thereby to prove that men are justified by them which we deny not in that sense wherein Saint Iames saith we are justified that is declared and knowne to bee just by them But if justifications bee the true translation of ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in that place then we are thereby to understand the merits of Christ by which the Saints are justified which are more fitly resembled by a garment than either inherent righteousnesse or righteous workes And is indeed called Matth. 22. 11 12. the wedding garment which garment is put on by a true faith by which the faithfull as they are exhorted Rom. 13. 14. put on Christ. Whereof Baptisme is a seale Gal. 5. 27. And this is that white garment which is to bee had from Christ to cover our nakednesse Apoc. 3. 18. Sometimes indeed the white robes doe signifie the glorious and happy estate promised to the faithfull as Apoc. 3. 4. 6. 11. 7. 9. which is purchased by the merits of Christ for which cause their robes are said to bee made white in the blood of the Lambe But here the holy Ghost expoundeth the fine linnen wherewith the Saints are arrayed to bee the justifications of the Saints which as I said are the merits and obedience of Christ put on by a true faith which being without us as garments use to be and yet being applyed unto us and put on by faith doe cover our nakednesse and therefore are more fitly resembled by fine linnen pure and shining than our owne righteousnesse which neither is without us as a garment nor yet pure but Christs righteousnesse imputed is both as a garment pure and perfect in it selfe and shineth forth by the light of good works Mat. 5. 16. § VI. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is a verball derived from ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã either as ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã signifieth to be just in which sense the precepts of God are said to bee ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Psalm 19. 10. or as it signifieth to be justified In the former sense ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã signifieth that which is just either as the Law of God prescribing righteousnesse so the Law of nature written in the hearts of men is called ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Rom. 1. 32. or as the whole righteousnesse which in the Law is prescribed and so it is used Rom. 5. 18. For as by the transgression of one viz. the first Adam whereby the whole Law was violated guilt came upon all men that were in him unto condemnation so by the ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã of one the second Adam whereby he fulfilled the whole Law the free gift which is our right and title to heaven came upon all men who are in him unto justification of life and Rom. 8. 4. God sent his Sonne the Law being impossible to be fulfilled by us in the likenesse of sinfull flesh that ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã all that the Law requireth to justification might in our nature bee performed and fulfilled In the latter sense it is once onely used viz. Rom. 5. 16. in the same signification with ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that is justification vers 18. both of them being opposed to condemnation If therefore the words which the holy Ghost doth use to expresse the benefit of justification doe never signifie justification by inherent righteousnesse but the contrary as hath beene ââ¦hewed then that justification which the Papists teach is not that which is taught in the holy Scriptures but contrary to it § VII And the same is proved by these two reasons first because the Apostles when they expresse the benefit of justification in other termes they doe signifie the same not by such words as import infusion of righteousnesse but by such as plainely signifie either absolution from sinne which is the not imputing of sinne or imputation of righteousnesse Rom. 4. these phrases are used to signifie one and the same thing to justifie to impute righteousnesse without works vers 6. to remit sin to cover sins vers 7. not ââ¦o impute sin vers 8. to be justified and to be blessed and to be blessed is to have their sins remitted or covered vers 6. Rom. 5. 9 10. to bee justified by the blood of Christ and to be reconciled unto God by his death all one 2 Cor. 5. 19. to reconcile us unto himselfe not imputing our offences unto
justifications of the Saints then they justifie the Saints So may I say if the precepts of the Law be the justifications of the Lord then belike they justifie him but neither are fitly called justifications though the Greeke word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã may not unfitly be given both to the Law of God as the rule of justice and to the judgements of God as the acts of justice and to the good deeds of the Saints as workes of justice and also to the merits of Christ which notwithstanding doe not justifie him but us unlesse they meane that as by good workes the faithfull so by righteous commandements and just judgements God is declared and manifested to bee just And farther the law of Nature knowne to the Gentiles is called ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which notwithstanding doth not justifie either him or them and is by the Latine interpreter unfitly translated the justice of God And moreover Bellarmine himselfe as we have heard noteth that the Law is called justification because it teacheth righteousnesse and yet not that righteousnesse by which we are justified for that without the Law is manifested in the Gospell being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets even the righteousnesse of God which is by faith of Iesus Christ unto all and upon all that beleeve But to conclude Bellarmine had no reason to make this the first signification of the word in the Scriptures for the Hebrew word which the vulgar Latine translateth sometimes iustificationes and sometimes ceremonias in the same sense doth signifie no such matter and the Greeke which twice at the most in the Scriptures signifieth justification doth usually signifie the Law of God and his statutes and ordinances but more especially those of the ceremoniall Law which if they be any where called justifications it is to bee imputed to the corrupt translation and not to the originall truth § III. So much of the first signification The two next whereof there is no example in the Scriptures hee hath coined to fit their new-found distinction of justification it selfe which they distinguish into the first and the second The first when a man of a sinner is made just by infusion of habituall righteousnesse The second when a just man is made more just by practise of good workes Accordingly justification saith Bellarmine in the second place signifieth acquisition of righteousnesse viz. inherent which is their first justification and in the third place incrementum justitiae the encrease of justice which is their second justification which distinction if it were applied to sanctification were not to be rejected For that which they call their first justification is the first act of our sanctification which the Scriptures call ââ¦eration in which the holy Ghost doth ingenerate in the soule of the Elect the grace of faith and with it and by it other sanctifying graces wherein their justification which is habituall consisteth And that which they call their second justification being actuall is our new obedience by which our sanctification is continued and encreased But to justification it cannot truly be applyed for first justification is an action of God for it is God that doth justifie Their second justification is their owne act whereby they being just already make themselves more just Secondly justification as hath been said is an action of God without us not implying a reall mutation in us but relative such as is wrought by the sentence of a Iudge and is opposed to condemnation Thirdly because it is the righteousnesse of Christ by which wee are justified which is a perfect righteousnesse whereunto nothing can bee added Therefore of justification it selfe there are no degrees though of the assurance thereof there are degrees according to the measure of our faith § IV. But let us see how Bellarmine proveth his second signification To that purpose he alledgeth three testimonies of Scripture which prove nothing else but that the Papists have no sound proofe for their erronious conceit The first is taken out of 1 Cor. 6. 11. And such were you but ye are washed but ye are sanctified but ye are justified Where indeed the word is used but in a sense distinguished from sanctification The scope and intendment the Apostle is to exhort the Corinthians being now Christians to abstaine from those sinnes whereunto they were addicted whiles they lived in Gentilisme Such you were then saith the Apostle but now since you gave your names to Christ you were baptized into his Name and in your Baptisme were washed from those sinnes being sanctified from the corruption of them by the Spirit of God and iustified from the guilt of them in the Name of Iesus Christ that is by faith in his Name Thus therefore these three words are to bee distinguished The washing of the soule which is represented by the washing of the body is the generall word whereby the purging of the soule from sinne is generally signified Act. 22. 16. But as in sinne there are two things from which we had need to be purged that is the guilt of sinne and the corruption thereof so this ablution or washing of the soule hath two parts ablution from the guilt of sinne which is our justification ablution from the corruption of sinne which is our sanctification Both which are represented and sealed in the Sacrament of Baptisme wherein as the outward washing of the body doth represent the inward washing of the soule both from the guilt and corruption of sinne so the Element of water whereby the body is washed or sprinckled is a signe of the water and blood which issued out of Christs side whereby the soule is washed that is to say the blood of redemption and the water of sanctification for by the blood that is the merits of Christ wee are freed from the guilt of sinne and by the water that is the Spirit of sanctification wee are freed in some measure from the corruption And both these as I said are signified in Baptisme For wee are baptized into the remission of sinnes Act. 2. 38. Mar. 1. 4. Our soules being washed with the blood of Christ according to that in the Nicene Creed I beleeve one Baptisme for the remission of sinnes and wee are baptized unto the mortification of sinne and rising unto holinesse of life Rom. 6. 3 4. our soules being washed by the water of the holy Ghost For wee are baptized into the death of Christ and similitude of his resurrection that as Christ dyed and rose againe so wee that are baptized should dye unto sinne and rise to newnesse of life for which cause Baptisme also is called the Laver of regeneration Tit. 3. 5. This then is the summe and effect of the Apostles exhortation that seeing they having given their names unto Christ had been baptized into his Name and were therefore Sacramentally at the least washed and consequently both in their owne profession and opinion of others judging
justification by inherent righteousnesse he affirmeth that to be justified by Christ in that place doth signifie to bee made just by obtaining righteousnesse ãâã And this hee would prove by two reasons first out of those words jââ¦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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to bee constituted just should not be a judiciall word as well as ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ââ¦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
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
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 ââ¦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
were an utter deletion or abolition of sinne then in those that are justified there is no sinne But there is no mortall man though justified in whom there is no sinne Therefore in justification there is not a Totall deletion of sinne § XI Sixthly if remission of sin be an utter deletion of the corruption by infusion of righteousnesse and nothing else concurre to justification but infusion of righteousnesse expelling sin what then becommeth of the guilt of sinne and the punishment how is our debt satisfied The justice infused though it should utterly expell the corruption yet it neither doth nor can satisfie for the punishment as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth Neither is there any other satisfaction or propitiation for our sinnes whereby Gods justice may be satisfied our debt discharged our selves freed from hell and damnation but onely the satisfaction of Christ without imputation whereof there is no justification nor salvation but none of this is done by righteousnesse infused expelling sinne Wherefore the Papists if they will bee saved must acknowledge besides the benefit of the infusion of righteousnesse expelling the corruption of sinne which they call justification but is indeed sanctification another greater benefit whereby we are both freed from hell and entituled to heaven by imputation of Christs satisfaction called in the Scriptures justification which they by their Antichristian doctrine have utterly abolished § XII Seventhly that which worketh no reall change in the party doth not really take away and expell all sin from him by infusion of righteousnesse for that cannot bee done without a reall yea and a great change in the party True remission of sinne doth not worke a reall change in the party Therefore the true remission of sinne doth not really take away and expell all sinne by infusion of righteousnesse The assumption is thus proved first the forgiving of a debt worketh no reall change in the debtor but relative The true remission of sinne is the forgiving of our debt therefore the true remission doth not worke a reall change in the party Secondly that which is imputative doth not worke a reall change in the party but is an act wrought without the party True remission of sinne is imputative as the Apostle teacheth Rom. 4. 6 7 8. consisting in the not imputing of sinne presupposing the imputing of righteousnesse without workes therefore it worketh not a reall change § XIII My eighth argument is from theabsurdities which follow upon this Popish Doctrine First Necessity of despairing not onely to the tender conscience labouring under the burden of sinne but also to all not cauterized consciences which have any sense of their owne estate For if remission of sinne bee the utter deletion of sinne then have not they neither can they have remission of sinne in whom any sinne remaineth and those that neither have nor can have remission of sinne in this life because sinne doth ever remaine in them what remaineth to them but despaire Secondly that there is no necessity of the imputation of Christs righteousnesse for justification because there is in them both a totall deletion of sinne and an infusion of perfect righteousnesse whereby sinne is wholly expelled And these as you shall heare hereafter are two of Bellarmines principall Arguments to prove the imputation of Christs righteousnesse to bee needlesse both because when our sinnes are remitted they are utterly abolished so that whosoever is justified is no longer a sinner in himselfe nor hath any sinne remaining in him and also because in justification there is an infusion of perfect righteousnesse The third that to remission of sinne there needeth no favour or indulgence for pardon or forgivenesse for if remission of sinne be a totall deletion of sinne by infusion of perfect righteousnesse then without any accession of favour the one contrary is necessarily expelled by the other And this doth Vasques professe in expresse termes Mihi semper necessarium visum fuit asserere maculam peccati ipsa justitia inherente tanquam forma contraria nullo accedente favore condo natione deleri § XIV These absurdities doe necessarily follow upon their Antichristian doctrine of justification by inherent righteousnesse For if a man be justified before God by inherent righteousnesse then is he not a sinner in himselfe and consequently hath no sinne in him And if by infusion of righteousnesse there be a totall deletion of sinne then must that righteousnesse which is infused be perfect For that which is unperfect cannot wholly expell sinne the imperfection being of it selfe a sinne and if upon infusion of perfect righteousnesse there doth necessarily and of its owne accord follow a totall deletion of sinne then to remission of sinne favour and condonation is needlesse And yet we have not done with their absurdities For to dreame that men who are but infants in Christianity yea infants in age before they have the use of reason or are capable of habits are endued and that ordinarily with perfect righteousnesse in their first imaginary justification which is inciptentium of such as be but incipients whereunto the best proficients doe not in this life attaine is a monstrous absurdity CAP. VIII Bellarmines dispute that remission of sinne is the utter deletion of it confuted § I. BVT how absurd soever their assertion is Bellarmine will maintaine it and set a good face upon it telling us first that wee may not deny it unlesse wee will deny the Scriptures For the Scripture saith he useth all manner of words to expresse the true remission of sinne so that if a man would of purpose seeke words to signifie the utter abolition of sinne hee could not devise any which the Scripture hath not already used And to this purpose citeth eighteene Testimonies nine out of the Old Testament viz. 1 Chron. 21. 8. Esai 44. 22. Ezek. 36. 25. Psalm 51. 7. Prov. 15. 27. alias 16. 6. Psalm 103. 12. Mic. 7. 19. Psalm 10. 15. Cant. 4. 7. And nine out of the New Ioh. 1. 29. Act. 3. 19. 1 Ioh. 1. 7. Act. 22. 16. Heb. 1. 3. 9. 28. 1 Cor. 6. 11. Ephes. 5. 8. and 27. § II. Answ. These places are to be distinguished for either they are alleaged to prove the abolition of sinne or perfection of righteousnesse the former mention either the taking away of sinne or the wiping or blotting of it out or the purging of it or the not being of it For the taking away of sinne these are brought 1 Chron. 21. 8. Psalm 103. 12. Mic. 7. 19 Ioh. 1. 29. Heb. 9. 28. In 1 Chron. 21. 8. the word is Hahaber transire fac cause it to passe that is remove it out of thy sight not that it bee not at all but that it bee not punished or which is all one take away the guilt and so the word seemeth to be expounded 2 Sam. 12. 13. where Nathan saith to David the Lord hath taken away thy sinne thou shalt not
a prayer for the justification or sanctification of the wicked that his sinne may bee no more as Bellarmine absurdly expoundeth it dicet peccatum fuisse non esse but is a propheticall imprecation against the wicked that God would break their arme that is their power and strength and that when he as a judge should inquire into their wickednesse they should not be found according to that Prov. 10. 25. he shall be no more that is as Augustine expoundeth it that the wicked when he is judged shall perish for his sinne And so Vatabius make inquiry into his sinne thou shalt not finde him neither doth the Psalmist say non invenietur ipsum scil peccatum sed non invenietur ipse scilicet peccator not it but he shall not be found § VI. For the perfection of righteousnesse hee alleageth three places two out of Ephes. 5. vers 8. Yee were sometimes darkenesse but now light in the Lord where the abstract Light is put for the concrete Lightsome as being inlightned as the Children of Light not that they are that light in which there is no darkenesse Neither is it said that we are in our selves Light but notwithstanding that darkenesse which remaineth in us wee are Light in the Lord. The second place is Ephes. 5. 26 27. where it is said that Christ did give himselfe for his Church that he might sanctifie and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word that hee might present it to himselfe a glorious Church not having spot or wrinckle or any such thing but that it should be Holy and without blemish In which words there is no mention of justification but of sanctification which in this life is begun and increased by the worke of the Spirit in the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments that at the Marriage of the Lambe it may bee presented unto him a glorious Church not having spot or wrinckle c. Wherefore Augustine That which I said saith he that God hath chosen unto himselfe a glorious Church I did not therefore speake it because now it is altogether such though no doubt she was chosen that she might be such when Christ who is her life shall appeare for ââ¦en she also with him shall appeare in glory for which glory she is called a glorious Church And againe wheresoever I mentioned the Church not having spot or wrinckle it is not so to bee taken as though now it were but because it is prepared to be such when she also shall appeare glorious And the same answer will serve for the third place cited out of the Canticles 4. 7. Tota pulchraes macula non est in te thou are all faire there is no spot in thee unlesse perhaps he speake of the beauty of the Spouse adorned in her justification with the perfect righteousnesse of Christ for of her Sanctification which is but begun in this life it is not true But the Papists are without shame who apply such texts of Scripture to the now Church of Rome § VII Besides these places of Scripture Bellarmine saith many other very weighty arguments might bee brought but hee hath already produced them in his first booke De Baptismo cap. 13. which when they shall call come to bee weighed will be found light enough For those places which speake of the efficacie of Baptisme in washing cleansing and taking away our sinnes prove not that in justification sinnes are utterly abolished For in Baptisme is sealed to them that are Baptized yea and conferred to the faithfull the benefits not onely of justification but also of sanctification And therefore as it is the Sacrament of remission of sinne and the seale of that righteousnesse which is by faith so it is called the Laver of regeneration wherein we are Baptized into the similitude of Christ his death and resurrection And therefore though in Baptisme sinne were wholly taken away as well in respect of the corruption as of the guilt yet it would not follow that in justification there is a Totall deletion of sinne But neither in Baptisme is there a totall abolition of sin seeing it is manifest that originall sinne which is called the flesh the old man and evill concupiscence remaineth in all the faithfull though in some measure mortified yet never fully and altogether extinguished in this life And although the Papists for maintenance of their severall errors viz. of justification by inherent righteousnesse of the perfect fulfilling of the Law of merit of works of supererogation doe maintaine that concupiscence remaining in the faithfull after Baptisme is not a sinne and the Councell of Trent hath denounced Anathemà against them that shall say it is a sinne yet it is manifest not onely by the testimony of antiquity and evident reasons which I could produce if I would runne into another controversie but also by the doctrine of the Apostle who doth not onely in many places expressely call it a sinne and describeth it as a sinne but also setteth it forth as the mother of sinne the sinning sinne which because it taketh occasion by the Commandement forbidding lust to worke in men all manner of evill concupiscence is not only convinced to be a sinne but also to be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã exceedingly sinnefull § VIII And not only habituall concupiscence in generall which is the body of sinne and the body of death in respect of which sinne the body of the faithfull is said to be dead Rom. 8. 10. is sinne but also the severall members and branches thereof which remaine even in the best are so many habituall sinnes as a spice at the least of pride selfe-love carnall security infidelity hypocrisie envy worldly and carnall love of pleasure profit preferment and glory in this world c. Which though they bee not imputed to the faithfull yet in themselves are sins as being ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã swervings from the Law of God not onely as defects of righteousnesse which were enough to make them sinnes but as positive vices Neither is it to be doubted but that as the acts of pride and other habituall vices remaining even in the best are sinnes so much more the vices themselves from which they proceed are sinnes and are by the same Commandement of the Law forbidden Now whatsoever is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is sinne For as every sinne is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã so every ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã is a sin that being a perfect definition of sinne as Bellarmine himselfe confesseth Non potuit rectius brevius definiri peccatum quà m ut à S. Ioanne fuit definitum illis verbis ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã But all evill concupiscence both habituall and actuall both in generall the body of sinne and in particular the severall branches being so many habituall sinnes in whomsoever they are found even in the most regenerate are ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã aberrations from 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 peccaââ¦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 imputaââ¦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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the first moving cause or
maketh in the question of justification betweene grace and workes as that if wee bee justified by the one wee cannot be justified by the other but they might as well stand together as the first justification of the Papists which is habituall consisting in the habits of grace infused with the second which is actuall consisting in works or rather the one would infer the other because we cannot be justified by the one I speak of adulti without the other for if wee bee justified by inherent righteousnesse that righteousnesse must be totall and perfect and therfore both habituall and actuall and both must concur unto justification for neither without the other is perfect Object Yea but the Apostle when hee saith that faith doth justifie without workes hee speaketh of the first juââ¦ification unto which works doe not concurre and when hee opposeth grace to workes hee meaneth the works of the Law done before faith without grace by the power of nature Answ. This is all that the Papists have to excuse themselves that they doe not openly contradict the Apostle who so often and so peremptorily concludeth that wee are justified by grace and not by workes by faith without the workes of the Law But it is evident that by the workes of the Law is meant all that obedience and righteousnesse that is prescribed in the Law which is the perfect rule of all inherent righteousnesse And therefore when the workes of the Law are rejected all inherent righteousnesse is excluded from justification It is also manifest that the holy Ghost speaketh generally of all men whether in the state of nature or in the state of grace and of all workes whether going before or following after faith insomuch that the workes which wee have done in righteousnesse Tit 3. 5. are excluded yea the workes of faithfull Abraham are denied to have justified him before God And therefore those who have both faith and works are justified by faith without workes But these objectiots I shall fully satisfie in their due place § X. Sixthly whereas the Papists say that justifying grace is the same with charity I argue thus Charity is the fulfilling of the Law in our owne persons But wee are not justified by our fulfilling of the Law in our owne persons Gal. 2. 16. 3. 10 11. Therefore we are not justified by our charity and consequently not by grace inherent § XI Seventhly that the Apostle by grace in the articles of justification and salvation understood the gracious favour of God in Christ and not inherent grace appeareth both by his assention Rom. 5. 20. that where sinne abounded Gods grace did much more abound and by his question Rom. 6. 1. shall wee continue in sinne that grace may abound for it were a strange conceit that where sinne aboundeth inherent righteousnesse should abound so much the more And to these we may adde those places which speake of going to the throne of grace that we may obtaine mercie and find grace Heb. 4. 16. of the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindnesse towards us through Iesus Christ for by grace we are saved Eph. 2. 7. 8. of the grace of God and the gift of grace distinguished one from the other Rom. 5. 15. of those that beleeve by the grace of God Act. 18. 27. of commending men to the grace of God Act. 14. 26. 15. 40. of the word of his grace Act. 14. 3. 20. 32. of the Gospell of his grace Act. 20. 24. of the grace of our Lord Iesus Christ who being rich became poore for us 2 Cor. 8. 9. of our predestination to the praise of the glory of his grace Eph. 1. 5 6. of the election of grace Rom. 11. 5. of the appearing of the grace of God which bringeth salvation Tit. 2. 11. of Christ his tasting of death for us by the grace of God Heb. 2. 9. of the reward not imputed of grace to him that worketh Rom. 4. 4. of turning the grace of God into wantonnesse Iud. 4. c. § XII Lastly so cleare is this truth which wee deliver according to the scriptures concerning justifying grace that Albertus Pighius a famous divine among the Papists doth confesse that what the Schoolemen teach concerning justifying grace that it is a quality in our soules infused of God and there remaining after the manner of an habit and that it is the same in substance with the habit of charity c. are meere devises of men having no warrant in the Scriptures Thomas Aquinas also writing on Tit. 2. 11. it is to bee knowne saith he that grace signifieth mercie and mercie alwayes was in God yet in respect of men in times past it lay hid but when Christ the Sonne of God appeared grace appeared and it may be said that in the Nativity of Christ grace appeared two wayes the former because by the greatest grace of God he was given unto us and upon this grace in the second place followed the instruction of mankind wherupon he saith teachingus c. Whereunto we may adde that those few places which Bellarmine alleageth for inherent grace are by some of their owne writers understood of the gracious favour of God as we shall shew in the particulars which now we are to examine CHAP. III. Bellarmines allegation for grace inherent out of Rom. 3. 24. proved to make against himselfe § I. BVt before I propound them I am to advertise the Reader that we do not deny that there are divers graces of sanctification and those also necessary to salvation as faith hope charity the feare of God c. inherent in the soules of the faithfull as divine qualities residing there per modum habitus So that Bellarmine in his booke de gratia lib. arbitr might well have spared his labour whereby he endeavoreth to prove such grace or graces to bee inherent in the soule which never any of us denyed But wee deny that gratia gratum faciens or justifying grace is inherent in us This therefore Bellarmine laboureth to prove lib. 2. de justif cap. 3. unto which in the other place hee doth referre us alleaging Rom. 3. 24. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Iesus c. Answ. It cannot bee denyed but that the popish cause in this particular is very desperate when for the defence thereof they are able to alleage one onely place where grace is mentioned and that such a one as is a most pregnant testimony to prove free justification by faith onely without respect of any righteousnesse or grace inherent in us § II. And this is proved first by the context or coherence of these words with those which goe before For thus the Apostle reasoneth Those that bee in themselves sinners and by their sinne obnoxious to the judgement of God are not justified by righteousnesse inherent all which is prescribed in the Law but of necessity must be justified by a righteousnesse
ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
sanctus every godly man shall pray unto thee Our Saviour taught his owne Apostles and all other Christians to pray daily for remission of sinne Every one saith Cyprian is taught peccare se quotidie dum quotidie per peccatis jubetur orare that he sinneth daily seeing he is commanded to pray daily for his sinnes Therefore all even the best of us are sinners Fifthly whosoever doth that evill which he would not and doth not that good which hee would is a sinner both in respect of commission and omission but such is the condition of the best even of the Apostlâ⦠himselfe Rom. 7. 15. 19. for so he saith vers 25 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I my selfe Sixthly whosoever hath sinne is a sinner All men have sinne and that I prove thus Whosoever is a lyar himselfe and maketh God a lyar that saith he hath no sinne he undoubtedly is a sinner But every man though he were as holy as the beloved Apostle and Evangelist Saint Iohn is a lyar himselfe and maketh God a lyar that saith he hath no sinne for if wee saith he including himselfe say we have no sinne wee deceive our selves and the truth is not in us 1 Iohn 1. 8. if we say that we have not sinned we make him a lyar and his word is not in us vers 10. Therefore every man though hee be as holy as Saint Iohn himselfe is a sinner Seventhly whosoever is free from sinne is also free from death No mortall man is free from death Therefore no mortall man is free from sinne CHAP. III. The question concerning the imperfection of inherent righteousnesse further discussed § I. TO contradict this argument that we are not justified by righteousnesse inherent because it is unperfect Bellarmine indeavoureth to prove that it is perfect both in respect of habituall and actuall righteousnesse But in both hee useth to dispute Sophistically in the first because some men have beene indued with perfect righteousnesse in the second because some good works of the just are purely and perfectly good For though both these assertions were true as they are not yet would they not conclude justification by inherent righteousnesse For first as touching the persons the question is not whether some choice men in some part of their life after they have beene good and long proficients doe attaine to some perfection but whether they and all others when they are first justified are endued with perfect justice for if they be not then endued with perfect inherent righteousnesse they are not justified by it Now justification by habituall righteousnesse which they call their first justification is incipientium of incipients and themselves distinguish Christians into three rankes that some are incipients some proficients some perfect But incipients are such as be infants and babes either in respect of age when being baptized in their infancie are as they teach justified or in respect of religion being new converts But to imagine that either infants which have not so much as the use of reason nor are as yet capable of the habits of Faith Hope and Charity and much lesse are able to produce the Acts to Beleeve to Hope to Love or new converts who are like Babes to bee fed with Milke are indued with perfect righteousnesse is a great absurdity § II. Yea but saith Bellarmine the workes of God are perfect Deut. 32. 4. habituall righteousnesse is the worke of God therefore it is perfect Answ. The workes of God are either immediate and such as hee worketh at once or else mediate which hee worketh by degrees The former are perfect at the first according to their kinde as were the workes of creation The latter are not perfect at the first but by degrees are brought to perfection as the worke of procreation or carnall generation and of Spirituall Re-creation or Regeneration Adam was the immediate Worke of GOD created at once and therefore perfect in his kinde at the first Seth also was the Worke of GOD not immediate by creation but mediate by Procreation being first begotten by his parents and conceived then formed in the wombe then borne then growing from age to age untill hee came to bee a perfect man So it is in the Spirituall Re-creation For wee are the workemanship of God created unto good workes but we are not perfect Christians at the first For we are first begotten by the incorruptible seed of Gods Word receiving as it were the seeds of Gods graces at the first being but as Embryons in the wombe untill Christ bee formed in us And when wee are borne a new wee are at the first but as new borne Babes who are to desire the sincere milke of the worke that we may grow thereby and afterwards stronger meats that wee may grow more and more and then not contenting our selves with that measure of growth which wee have attained unto must still strive towards perfection being from day to day renewed in the inner man untill we come to be adult growne men or as the Apostle speaketh perfecti and when we are such because alwayes in this life we are in our ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã or growing age receiving onely the first fruits of the Spirit wee must imitate the Apostle Paul who though he farre excelled the most perfect among us acknowledged that he had not attained to perfection but did strive towards it exhorting all others who are perfect that is adulti or growne men to be of his minde that is that they should acknowledging their imperfection still more and more strive towards perfection § III. As touching actuall righteousnesse hee dealeth also Sophistically for first where hee should prove that the works of the faithfull are perfect or purely and absolutely good he proveth that they are truely good and not sinnes but especially when he should prove that all the workes of the faithfull or righteous are purely and perfectly good he proveth that some are As though a man who is not onely guilty of many sinnes and infected with manifold corruptions and infirmities but also in respect of his former sinnes obnoxious to damnation could bee justified by some good workes among many not good But this is a most erroneous conceit of the Papists who hold that every good worke proceeding from charity doth absolutely deserve heaven even as well as any evill worke committed against charity deserveth hell As though by one act of charity the whole Law were fulfilled as well as by one act committed against charity the whole Law is broken Hee that transgresseth one Commandement though it bee but once is guilty of all But hee doth not fulfill the Law and much lesse can bee justified by his obedience whose obedience is not totall perfect and perpetuall It is true that a faithfull man may bee justified that is declared and approved to be just by some one or more good workes as Abraham
whole body shall bee lightsome where Bellarmine without any probability by the body understandeth a good worke and by the single eye a right intention for who knoweth not that many times workes are done with good intentions that are not good This place in Matthew is diversly expounded and may bee applied to many purposes But the proper true meaning may be gathered out of the coherence as I have shewed elsewhere for in the latter part of that Chapter our Saviour sheweth both what in our judgements wee should esteeme out chiefe good vers 19. c. and consequently what in our afflictions and endeavours wee should chiefly desire and labour for vers 25. c. 33. As touching the former he exhorteth us not to lay up our treasure upon earth but in heaven that is that we should place our happinesse not in earthly but in heavenly things For where our treasure is there will our heart bee also That is whatsoever wee esteeme our chiese good upon that our hearts and affections will be set This judgement concerning our chiefe good is by our Saviour compared to the eye whereunto whether it be right or wrong the whole corps or course of our conversation which he compareth to the body will be sutable If we repose our happinesse in heaven our conversation will bee religious and heavenly but if we place our paradise on earth our conversation will be answerable As for example if pleasure be our chiefe good our conversation will be voluptuous if profit it will bee covetous if honour it will be ambitious Such therefore as our judgement is concerning happinesse such will be our desires our endeavours and in a word such will bee our whole conversation But as his allegation is to no purpose so his conclusion is besides the question as if wee held that good workes were in their owne nature mortall sinnes when notwithstanding wee acknowledge them to be good per se and in their kinde as namely prayer and almes-giving but sinfull by accident as being stained with the flââ¦sh § V. His fourth testimony is 1 Cor. 3. 12. If any man build upon this foundation gold silver stones of price c. where he supposeth by gold and silver good workes are understood c. Answ. If they were they might be good and yet not purely good Even as a wedge of gold or of silver is truely called gold or silver though there bee some drosse therein But the Apostle speaketh not of workes but of doctrines for he comparing himselfe and other preachers of the Gospell to builders saith that he as a master-builder had laid the foundation whereon others did build either sound and profitable doctrines which he compareth to gold and silver c. or unsound and unprofitable compared to hay and stubble § VI. His fifth testimony is Iam. 3. 2. In many things we offend all Why I pray saith he doth he not say in all things wee offend all for if all the works of the righteous be sinnes then not onely in many things but in all we offend But Saint Iames knew what to say for in the second chapter hee had distinguished good workes from sinnes If you performe the royall Law according to the Scriptures thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy selfe you doe well but if you accept persons you commit sinne and are reproved of the Law as transgressours Answ. The advise of Saint Iames in this place is that wee should not bee many Masters that is Censurers of our brethren knowing that by censuring and judging of others wee shall receive the greater judgement according to Matth. 7. 1. Rom. 2. 1. For he that will take upon him to censure other mens offences had need to be free from offence But we saith Saints Iames ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã we all of us offend many wayes we are subject to manifold sinnes and corruptions For the Apostle doth not speake of the singular individuall acts but of the divers sorts of sinne As sinnes against God our neighbour or our selves sinnes of omission and commission sinnes in deed in thought and in word which last kinde being the fault of Censurers is as hee noteth in the next words most hard to bee refrained when as the Apostle therefore speaking of all and including himselfe though hee were worthily called Iames the just saith that many wayes wee offend all hee signifieth that even the best of us are subject to manifold corruptions causing us many wayes to offend according tâ⦠the severall kinds thereof which is a manifest evidence that wee being sinners cannot bee justified by inherent righteousnesse especially if that bee added that as wee sinne many wayes according to the severall kinds of sinne so in our good workes which are good in their kind as in prayer almes giving c. wee offend by reason of the flesh which polluteth all our best actions But howsoever wee say that our righteousnesses are stained with the flesh yet wee distinguish them from our unrighteousnesses and with Saint Iames we distinguish good workes from sinnes things commanded from things forbidden things according to their kind good but by accident sinnefull from things which according to their kind are absolutely evill § VII His sixth testimony is from those places which exhort us not to sinne as Psalm 4. 4. Esa. 1. 16. Iohn 5. 14. 2 Pet. 1. 10. 1 Iohn 2. 1. For to what purpose serve these exhortations or admonitions if in every good worke wee cannot but sinne Answ. These exhortations doe not shew what wee are able to doe but what wee ought to doe Neither are they to no purpose for first they restraine men and especially the children of God from many particular sinnes Secondly though they exhort us to those things which in this corrupt estate wee are not able perfectly to performe as generally to abstaine from all manner of sin and to avoid all imperfectionsand defects which are incident unto our best actions yet they are to very good purpose For they serve to discover unto us our imperfections and to shew that perfection wherunto we ought to aspire to moveus not to performe our duties perfunctorily but to walke ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã accurately making conscience of all our waies to admonish us not to rely upon our owne righteousnesse which is so unperfect but to bewaile our imperfections and to crave pardon to teach us what need wee have of the imputation of Christs righteousnesse and of his intercession for us and lastly to move us with an upright endevour to keepe all Gods Commandements with our whole heart and to strive towards that perfection which in this life wee cannot attaine unto which if wee doe our labour shall not bee vaine in the Lord. For the Lord in his children accepteth of the will for the deed and of their upright endeavours for perfect performance So long therefore as we are upright before God our imperfections
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 crosââ¦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 alââ¦-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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 siââ¦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 righteousnesââ¦e ââ¦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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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
able to fulfill the Law of God CAP. VI. Our fiftâ⦠argument containing foure branches By that wââ¦e are justified by which we are absolved redeemed reconciled and for which wee shall be saved § I. THe fifth argument By what righteousnesse wee are justified by it wee are absolved from our sinnes redeemed from our iniquities reconciled unto God and for it we shall bee saved And againe by what righteousnesse wee are absolved redeemed reconciled and for which wee shall be saved by it we are justified By that righteousnesse which is inherent in our selves wee are not absolved from our sinnes nor redeemed from our iniquities nor reconciled unto God nor for it shall bee saved But by the righteousnesse of Christ which is out of us in him wee are absolved from our sinnes redeemed from our iniquities c. Therefore we are not justified by that righteousnesse which is inherent in our selves but by that righteousnesse which is out of us in Christ. The proposition in both the parts thereof containeth foure branches The first by what righteousnesse we are justified wee are by it absolved from our sinnes and a converso by what righteousnesse we are absolved from our sinnes by that we are justified This is proved from the signification of the word justifie as being a judiciall word opposed to condemnation which I have at large proved before For this doth invincibly demonstrate that by what wee are justified by that wee are acquitted and absolved and by what wee are absolved by that we are justified But more specially it may bee proved out of Act. 13. 38 39. where as I have shewed before not onely the word justification and remission of sinnes are promiscuously used but the phrase also of being justified from sinne signifieth plainely to be absolved from sinne where also the maine question itselfe is concluded Bee it knowne unto you saith S. Paul to his brethren the Iewes who feared God that through Iesus Christ is preached unto you forgivenesse of sinnes And by him all that beleeve are justified from all those things meaning sinnes from which yee could not be justified by the Law of Moses From our sinnes therefore we are justified or absolved by the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended by faith from which we could out be acquitted by any obedience which we could performe to the Law § II. But of this place we are further to speake in defence of Calvins allegation thereof against Bellarmines cavils Calvin prooving that God doth justifie us when hee absolveth us from our sinnes and accepteth of us in Christ alleageth this place Through this man that is Christ is preached unto you remission of sinnes and by him all that beleeve are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses You see saith Calvin that justification is here set after remission of sinnes by way of interpretation r you see plainely that it is taken for absolution you see that it is denied to the workes of the Law you see it is meerely the benefit of Christ you see that it is received by faith and finally you see that there is a satisfaction interposed where hee saith that through Christ wee are justified from our sinnes Bellarmine pretending to answere this argument relateth it thus as if Calvin had said First By this man that is by Christ we are justified and not by any vertues or qualities of ours Secondly is preached that signifyeth that the very preaching or declaring of the promise if it bee apprehended by faith doth justifie for so the Apostle presently expoundeth himselfe by him every one that beleeveth is justified Thirdly forgivenesse of sinnes that signifieth that justification consisteth in nothing else but in remission of sinnes wherefore tââ¦e inward renovation is not the other part of justication for that renovation is not so much justificaââ¦ion as an effect thereof And lastly these words from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses doe signifie that justification doth not consist in the observation of the Law but onely as hath beene said in remission of sinnes for or through the righteousnesse of Christ imputed Thus as you see hee maketh Calvin speake what hee pleaseth But because the things which he inforceth in Calvins name upon this place be for the most part our assertions it shall not bee amisse to weigh the answeres which he maketh to them And first where it is said per hunc by this man hee saith this doth not exclude our vertues or qualities infused of God For by Christ wee are justified as the efficient which is signified by the preposition per by vertues and qualities infused as the formall cause Now if Christ or his righteousnesse bee the efficient cause then it cannot be the formall cause for the forme is the effect of the efficient nor can the same thing be the cause and effect of the same thing Neither may they say as they are wont that this is a mystery of faith that reason cannot attaine unto For mysteries though they surmount reason yet are notrepugnant to reason Neither ought we to faine mysteries as the Papists use to doe where the Scriptures have an easie and perspicuous meaning Rââ¦ply This were a good caveat to the papists As for us we faineno such mysteries neither doe we say that Christ or his righteousnesse is both the efficient and formall cause of our justification But this we say that the righteousnesse of Christ is both the matter of our justification and also the merit both of our justification and salvation and that Christ himselfe as he is Mediatour is the secondary efficient of our justification affording unto it both the matter thereof and the merit § IV. That word is preached doth not signifie saith hee that by the onely preaching of Scriptures apprehended by faith men are justified For then Peter would not have said Act. 2. 38. Doe peââ¦ance and bee every one of you baptized for remission of sinnes But it signifieth that remission of sinnes is preached to all that beleeve in Christ as they ought that is in doing whatsoever he commaââ¦deth to be done according to that Mat. 28. 20. teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you In this sence every one that bââ¦leeveth is justified that is whosoever beleeveth as he ought namely by fulfilling all things which faith doth declare ought to be fulfilled For not he that beleeveth a Physician though he be never so skilfull and one that infallibly curââ¦th is healed unlesse he receive such medicines as hee doth appoint Reply Wee doe not say that preaching alone apprehended by faith doth justifie but wee say that a true and a lively faith which is begotten by the preaching of the Word doth justifie a man before God and that wicked is that aphorisine collected out of Bellarmine that by the preaching of the Word of God faith is stirred up and so sinnes are forgiven is a
fiction of the hereticks of our time Nay we say more that by the preaching of the Word faith is not onely excited where it was before but that it is first wrought ordinarily and begotten by the ministry of the Gospell The Papists ascribe the begetting of faith to the Sacraments and the stirring of it up to the Word As if faith infused in Baptisme did ly a sleep untill it be excited and awakned by the word But the Scripture teacheth us that faith commeth by hearing the Word that Preachers are Ministers by whom you do beleeve that without a preacher men cannot ordinarily beleeve Rom. 10. 14. that men are begotten to God by the preaching of the Word 1 Cor. 4. 15. that therefore preachers are their Fathers in the faith that they justifie men Dan. 12. 3. because they are the instruments of the holy Ghost to beget faith in them whereby they are justified Why then doth Peter require them to whom he had preached to repent and to be baptized I answer that the holy Ghost by Peters sermon had wrought the grace of faith in the hearers before they were baptized Act. 2. 41. as by Pauls preaching Act. 13. 48. in so many of the hearers as were ordained unto life in Lydia Act. 16. 14 15. By Philips preaching in the Eunuch Act. 8. 38. by Peters preaching in Cornelius and his company Act. 10. 43. 44. and by this faith they were justified before God before they were baptized even as Abraham was before he was circumcised Rom. 4. 11. But that they might be justified also in the Court of their owne Conscience and much more that they might be saved many other things as repentance and a godly life with the use of the Sacraments and of all other good meanes are required besides that faith whereby alone they are justified before God And to this end did Peter require them to repent and to bee baptized not that Baptisme properly doth justifie and much lesse that it begetteth ââ¦aith for in all these faith was wrought before they were baptized but because it is a seale of that righteousnesse which is by faith to them that are baptized not onely at the time of Baptisme but whensoever or how long soever they beleeve And whereas he saith that remission of sinnes is preached to those that beleeve as they ought I confesse it is true that remission is not promised to an idle dead or counterfeit faith but to the true lively and effectuall faith which in some measure purifieth the heart and worketh by love causing a man though not to fulfill all things that are commanded as Bellarmine speaketh yet to will to desire and to endevour that hee may performe all things commanded according to the measure of grace received But though obedience bee a necessary consequent of faith yet it is very absurd to confound it with faith as Bellarmine here seemeth to doe § V. As for his similitude of the Physitian I answer the onely meanes to bee cured of the wounds of our soules which are our sinnes by our spirituall Physitian which is Christ is to beleeve in him and the onely plaisters to bee applied are his sufferings and merits for by his stripes we are healed Esa. 53. 5. and the onely meanes on our part to apply them is faith For even as Moses lifted up the brazen Serpent in the Wildernesse that those who were bitten by the fiery serpents might by looking upon that which was but a figure of Christ be healed even so our Saviour Christ was lifted up upon the Crosse that whosoever being stung as we all are by the old Serpent and made subject to eââ¦all death shall looke upon him with the eye of a true faith shall bee saved To which remedie alone all true physicians of mens soules do use to direct the wounded Conscience when the Iaylour Act. 16. 30 31. in great consternation of mind came trembling and falling downe before Paul and Silas demanded of them what he might doe that he might bee saved they said beleeve on the Lord Iesus Christ and thou shalt be saved And this remedy ââ¦in curing miraculously corporall discases was used sometimes with good successe Mat. 9. 21. 22. 14. 36. and was by our Saviour himself prescribed as the onely receipt Mar. 5. 36. Luk. 8. 50. § VI. Thirdly where the Apostle in this place nameth onely remission of sinnes hee saith it hindreth not but that justââ¦fication may bee understood to consist in remission of sinnes and infusion of righteousnesse For as we have not once shewed saith hee remission of sinnes is not onely the pardââ¦ning of the punishment but also the washing away and cleansing of the fault which is not done but by the cleannesse of grace and comelinesse of justice comming in the place which the name of justification pretendeth being named from justice Reply Not once but very oft hath hee said that remission of sinne is the utter deletion and extinction of sinne and that it is not a distinct act from infusion of righteousnesse because by infusion of justice sinne is expelled as by the accession of heat and light cold and darkenesse is expelled But as for condonation and pardon of the guilt and punishment that he hath utterly excluded from justification For the pardoning of the guilt and punishment is not done by infusion of righteousnesse which as hee teacheth is the onely act of justification whereof there is but one formall cause which is righteousnesse insuââ¦ed as the Councel of Trent hath defined but by imputation of the satisfaction of Christ. For righteousnesse infused as Bellarmine hath confessed doth not or cannot satisfie for our sinnes Now if there bee but one formall cause of justification as indeed there is but one and that one be not the imputation but the infusion of justice or as they rather use to speake the justice infused which expelleth sinne which expulsion or deletion they call the remission yea the true remission of sinne then the forgivenesse of the guilt and punishment belongeth not to justification But if the forgiving of the guilt and punishment be the not imputing of sinne which necessarily bringeth with it imputation of righteousnesse as Bellarmine confesseth and the Apostle proveth Rom. 4. viz. that the Lord imputeth righteousnesse without workes when hee imputeth not sinne then it will necessarily follow that imputation of Christs satisfaction or righteousnesse is the onely formall cause of justification whereby we being absolved from sinne are accepted as just yea constituted righteous in Christ. And that infusion of righteousnesse expelling sinne is another thing which the Scriptures call Sanctification And this I take to be a manifest truth which being granted we have obtained the whole cause § VII Fourthly againe saith he although there were mention made in this place of justification only from sinnes yet in many other places there is mention made of Sanctification of cleansing of washing and renewing which shew
the other part of justification Reply we doubt not but the Scriptures make mention of both these benefits sometimes severally and sometimes joyntly which though in use and practice they alwayes goe together yet they must bee carefully distinguished And howsoever the Scriptures often make mention of Sanctification as well as of justification yet no where doe they make Sanctification a part of justification This Bellarmine should have proved and not have craved Neither is it to bee doubted but that if forgivenesse of the guilt and punishment concurre unto justification as a part thereof renovation or infusion of righteousnesse being the other part as Bellarmine here affirmeth theââ¦e are two actions and two formall causes of justification which themselves utterly deny And therefore they must bee forced to acknowledge these two actions having distinct formes to bee justification whose forme is imputation and sanctification whose forme is infusion of righteousnesse § VIII Finally saith he from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses signifieth that the observation of the Law neither by the strength of nature nor by helpe of the Law alone presumed doth justifie not because the true observation of the Law is not righteousnesse but because before remission of sinne the Law cannot be kept Reply By the observation of Law is meant all obedience and righteousnesse inherent whatsoever prescribed in the Law whether it goe before faith and justification or follow after For before as Bellarmine truly saith the Law cannot be fulfilled neither can there be any true righteousnesse And that obedience which is performed after though it be a righteousnesse begun in us and be not onely accepted in Christ but also graciously rewarded yet it cannot satisfie for our former sinnes nor justifie us from them That which Bellarmine addeth I admit with some small qualification as making for us For God saith he when by the merits of Christ he reconcileth any man hee doth withall forgive his sinnes so saith the Apostle 2 Cor. 5. 19. which is all one as if Bellarmine had said when God justifieth a man not imputing his sinne and accepting of him as righteous in Christ then hee infuseth charity by which he may keepe the Law which is all one as if he had said when God hath justified a man he doth also Sanctifie him This saith he is that which Saint Augustine so often repeateth and wholly maketh for us opera non prââ¦cedere justificandum that workes goe not before as causes of justification sed sequi justificatum but follow after as effects and fruits thereof And this Augustine speaketh not of such workes as perfectly fulfill the Commandements for such there are none whiles they are stained with the flesh but of all good works which notwithstanding their defectivenesse are accepted of God in Christ that which he addeth out of Rom. 8. 4. I have discussed elsewhere § IX But to returne to the proofe of my proposition to that place of the Acts I adde for the further proofe of the first branch Rom. 4. vers 5 6 7 8. where the Apostle useth these words promiscuously justification and blessednesse and proveth out of Psal. 32. 1. that this blessednesse consisteth in remission of sin or as he also speaketh in the not imputing of sinne and imputation of righteousnesse without works from whence this is proved by what righteousnesse we have remission of sinne by that we are justified and by what wee are justified we have remission of sinne The second branch by what righteousnesse we are redeemed by that we are justified and è converso by what we are justified by that we are redeemed The benefit of redemption is explained by the Apostle Ephes. 1. 7. Col. 1. 14. to bee remission of sinne and expressed by the phrase of redeeming from all iniquttie Tit. 2. 14. Psalm 133. 8. The third branch by what righteousnesse wee are reconciled to God by it we are justified and by what we are justified we are reconciled The Apostle Rom. 5. 9 10. useth these words promiscuously to bee justified by the bloud of Christ and to bee reconciled to God by the death of his Sonne and 2 Cor 5. 19. God is said to reconcile men unto him in Christ when hee doth not impute untio them their sinnes but imputeth unto them righteousnesse even the righteousnesse of God that is of Christ that they only may be made the righteousnesse of God in him vers 21. The fourth branch for what righteousnesse wee are saved by that wee are justified and è converso that which is the matter of justification is the merit of salvation for which cause justification and to be justified is many times expressed by salvation or to bee saved for they that are justified are saved in hope and by what they are justified by that they are intituled to salvation and by what we receive remission of sinnes by that also we receive our inheritance Iustification may bee compared to the institution of a Minister unto a benefice which giveth jus ad rem glorification to induction which giveth possession and jus in re § X. I come to the assumption the first branch whereof is that we are absolved from our sinnes by the righteousnesse of Christ and not by any righteousnesse inherent in usâ⦠both wich are plainely averred Act. 3. 38 39. The former also is every where testified that the bloud of Christ was shed for the remission of sinnes and that it doth cleanse us from all our sinnes that he is the propitiation for our sinnes c. The latter is also evident that we cannot be absolved from our sinnes by righteousnesse inherent first because it cannot satisfie for our sinnes secondly because it cannot stand in judgement If wee should plead it before God we could not be justified thereby Psal. 143. 2. Neither are we able to answere him one of a thousand Ioâ⦠9. 3. Thirdly because our obedience though it were totall as it is never in this life yet it were a debt and we cannot be absolved from one debt by the payment of another when ye shall have done all things which are commanded you say we are unprofitable servants we have done that which was our duty to doe Luk. 17. 10. The second branch that we are redeemed by the merits of Christ and not by our owne righteousnesse needeth no proofe neither in respect of the affirmative that by his bloud we have redemption even the remission of our sinnes that he gave himselfe to bee ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã a full price of ransome to redeeme us from all iniquity Nor in respect of the Negative unlesse it may be thought that we who were held captives under sinne and Satan to doe his will could deliver our selves which God doth sweare to bee his gift Luk. 1. 73 74. Neither could we be delivered out of the hands of the strong man but by him that is stronger than he The third branch also
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
bee justified by his owne fulfilling of the Law for none can fulfill it therefore none are justified by inherent righteousnesse § X. Our eighth argument we are not justified before God both by faith and by workes by Gods righteousnesse and our owne by that righteousnesse which is out of us in Christ and by that which is inherent in our selves For the holy Ghost maketh such an opposition betweene these as that they cannot stand together Rom. 3. 28. 4. 4 5. 9. 30 31 32. 11. 5 6. Phil. 3. 9. Gal. 2. 16. 3. 11. Eph. 2. 8 9. But wee are justified by faith by the righteousnesse of God through faith by Christs righteousnesse which is out of us in him viz. by his sufferings and by his obedience as besides the places even now quoted appeareth Rom. 5. 9. 19. Therfore we are not justified by righteousnesse inherent in our selves § XI Our ninth argument Imputative righteousnesse is not inherent as being not ours nor in us but communicated to us by imputation The righteousnesse by which we are justified is imputative that I prove first by testimony Rom. 4. 6 7 8 23 24. for then is God said to justifie when not imputing sinne hee imputeth righteousnesse without workes Secondly by reason The personall righteousnesse of Christ is inherent in him and not in us being proper to his person though by imputation communicated unto us The righteousnesse of God by which we are justified is the personall righteousnesse of Christ 2 Pet. 11. viz. his passive and active righteousnesse Rom. 5. 9. 19. And that it is his personall righteousnesse appeareth evidently because it is the righteousnes and obedience of one onely wheras if it were a righteousnesse from him in us it would be the justice of so many as are justified so saith the Councell of Trent justitiam in nobis recipientes unusquisque suam § XII Our tenth argument That justification which the Scripture teacheth taketh away all matter of boasting Rom. 3. 27. Epbes. 2. 9. But justification by works or by inherent righteousnesse doth not take away all matter of boasting Rom. 3. 27. 4. 2. Eph. 2. 9. Therefore justification by workes or inherent righteousnesse is not that which the Scriptures teach we must therefore say with Ambrose that is profitable to me that we are not justified by the works of the Law wherefore I have not whereof to glory in my workes I have not whereof to boast And therefore I will glory in Christ. I will not glory because I am just but I will glory because I am redeemed I will glory not that I am without sinne but because my sinnes are forgiven mee I will not glory because I have beene profitable or because any other hath profited me but because Christ is an Advocate for me with the Father and because his bloud was shed for me § XIII Our eleventh argument If there be no justification but by righteousnes inherent and that also perfect and pure then is justification promised upon an impossible condition and so consequently the promise should be void and of none effect But farre be it from us to thinke that the promise of justification by Christ is void and of none effect Therefore wee are not justified by workes or by righteousnesse inherent but by faith that the promise might bee sure to all the seed as the Apostle reasoneth Rom. 4. 13 14 15 16. § XIV Our twelfth argument because unto justification concurreth remission of sinnes as a necessary part thereof from whence three arguments arise First true justification is not without remission of sinne The popish justification by infusion of perfect righteousnesse is without remission of sinne For although they pretend that to their justification concurreth remission of sinne yet by remission they not understanding the pardoning or forgiving but the extinction and abolition of sinne have utterly excluded from justification the forgivenesse of sinne as I have shewed before Secondly unto true justification necessarily concurreth remission of sinne And where is remission of sin there is imputation of righteousnesse without workes But in the popish justification there needeth no imputation of righteousnesse and that for two reasons which Bellarmine doth prosecute at large in his dispute against imputation The one because in justification by infusion of righteousnesse sinne is fully expelled and therefore no need of imputation And secondly because the righteousnesse which is infused is perfect of it selfe without imputation of any other righteousnesse Thirdly if our justification and blessednesse doth consist in the forgivenesse of our sinnes as it doth Rom. 4. 6 7. ex Psal. 32. 1. then not in perfect inherent righteousnesse for where is neede of the forgivenesse of sinne there is no perfect righteousnesse inherent And where perfect righteousnesse is infused there needeth not imputation of righteousnesse § XV. Our thirteenth argument If Abraham David and Paul were not justified by righteousnesse inherent then much lesse any of us who are so farre inferiour to any of them Not Abraham whose example was a samplar in this behalfe Rom. 4. 23 24. For as Abraham the father of the faithful was justified so are we Abraham though he were a mirrour of piety abounding with good workes yet was not justified thereby As the Apostle proveth Rom. 4. 3 4 5. For to whom righteousnesse is imputed of grace through faith he is not justified by workes before God And contrariwise whosoever is justified by workes to him the reward of righteousnesse is not imputed of grace but rendred as a due and deserved debt ver 4. To Abraham righteousnesse was imputed of grace through faith vers 3. and 5. and therefore though hee abounded with workes yet hee was not justified by workes verse 2. or inherent righteousnesse but by faith without workes Not David for hee though a man according to Gods owne heart walking before God in truth and righteousnesse and in uprightnesse of heart yet he desireth the Lord that he would not enter into judgement with him for if hee did not onely himselfe but no man living could be justified for himselfe he maketh this confession as Augustine understandeth him nam me invenies reum si in judicium intraveris mecum for thou shalt finde me guilty if thou shalt enter into judgement with me And therefore he places his blessednesse or justification in the not imputing of sinne and imputing of righteousnesse without workes Psal. 32. 1 2. Rom. 4. 6 7. and professeth Psal. 71. 16. I will remember thy righteousnesse onely Not Paul for he though he knew nothing by himselfe yet professeth that he was not thereby justified 1 Cor. 4. 4. though hee had lived after his conversion in all good conscience before God Act. 23. 1. though herein he did exercise himselfe to have alwayes his conscience ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã cleare and without offence towards God and man yet in the question of justification he renounceth all his righteousnesse
inherent that he might be found in Christ indued with his righteousnesse And ââ¦o these we might adde Iob Esay and Daniel who as well as the former had that righteousnesse which is à Domino I meane righteousnesse inherent but were not justified thereby see Iob 9. 2 3. 15. 20. 10. 15. 42. 6. Esai 6. 1. 5. Dan. 6. 7. 18. § XVI Our foureteénth argument The righteousnesse by which we are justified is the righteousnesse and obedience of one and but of one Rom. 5. 18 19. Inherent righteousnesse is not of one but of so many as are indued therewith Therefore inherent righteousnesse is not that whereby we are justified CAP. IX The severall proofe of our assertion that wee are justified by that righteousnesse of Christ which is out of us in him § I. _ââ¦Ow I am to prove severally our assertion that we are justified by Christs righteousnesse And first I prove it by that argument which Bellarmines useth against Osiander what righteousnesse God accepteth in our behalfe by that we are justified The righteousnesse of Christ which he performed for us in the dayes of his flesh God accepteth in our behalfe otherwise saith hee why did the Sonne of God take our flesh upon him why did hee humble himselfe to become obedient untill death c. Therefore by the righteousnesse of Christ performed in his manhood wee are justified c. § II. Hereunto I adde a second out of the same place for Bellarmine though he holdeth against Osiander that wee are not justified by the essentiall righteousnesse of the Godhead yet he confesseth that the Lord accepteth of no righteousnesse as a satisfaction for sinne but that which is of infinite value such is the righteousnesse of Christ onely in regard of the dignity of his Person being the true God the great God God above all blessed for evââ¦rmore therefore by his righteousnesse only we are justified but of this see more in the seventh Chapter here I argue thus what righteousnesse the Lord accepteth as a full satisfaction for our sinnes by that we are justified The righteousnesse of Christ the Lord accepteth as a full satisfaction for our sinne Therefore by Christs righteousnesse we are justified By Christs righteousnesse I say imputed and accepted of God in our behalfe The assumtion is thus proved What righteousnesse is of iââ¦finite value that and that alone the Lord accepteth as a full satisfaction for our sinnes The righteousnesse of Christ is of infinite value as being the righteousnesse of God as it is often called It therefore and by it alone the Lord accepteth as a full satisfaction for our sinnes § III. My third argument shall be from those places wherein either it is said that our righteousnesse is in Christ Esai 45. 24 25. and that we are righteous in him 2 Cor. 5. 21. Phil. 3. 8 9. or our Saviour Christ himselfe is said to bee our righteousnesse Ieremy prophecying of the Messias the righteous Branch whom God would raise to David saith In his daies Iuda shall be saved and Israel shall dwell sasely and this is the name whereby he shall be called IEHOVAH our righteousnesse Ier. 23. 6. and the very same prophecy is repeated Iââ¦r 33. 16. that the Branch of righteousnesse should grow up to David in whose dayes Iuda should be saved and Ierusalem shall dwell safely and he who shall call her that is Ierusalem his Church for so it ought to be read is IEHOVAH our righteousnesse 1 Cor. 1. 30. But of him ye are in Christ Iesus who of God is made unto us wisedome and righteousnesse and sanctification and redemption where Christ is said to bee made our righteoââ¦snesse To this Bellarmine answereth that Christ is rightly called our righteousnesse for two causes first because he is the efficient cause of our justice For as God in the Psalmes is called our strength and our Salvation because it is God that strengthneth and saveth us and in this place as Christ is said to bee made our wisedome and redemption because he maketh us wise and redeemeth us So Christ is called our rightââ¦ousnesse because he maketh us just viz. by infusion of righteousnesse § IV. Reply It is true that Christ when hee doth sanctifie us by his Spirit is the Author of inherent righteousnesse in us but this is that which followeth in the text that he is our Sanctification These two benefits as they are here distinguished so they ought not to bee confounded Bernard in a Sermon of his doth oftentimes very eleganââ¦ly goe over these foure unctions as he calleth them distinguishing justification and sanctification as we doe Christ saith hee was made unto us wisedome in preaching justice in absolution of sinnes sanctification in his conversation redemption in his passion the shadow of thine ignorance hee hath driven away with the light of his wisedome and by that righteousnesse which is of faith hee hath loosed the cords of sinne freely justifying the sinner by his godly conversation he hath given a forme of life and by his death he hath given a price of satisfaction he freeth from errour by his wisedome he covereth faults by his righteousnesse he giveth merits that is ability of working well by his life and rewards by his death enlighten mine eyes O Lord that I may bee wise remember not the sinnes of my youth and mine ignorances and I am just lead me O Lord in the way and I am holy but unlesse thy bloud mediate for mee I am not safe hee was made unto us of God wisedome teaching prudence justice forgiving sinnes c. They onely are wise who are instructed by his doctrine they onely just who of his mercie have obtained pardon of sinne those onely temperate or holy who study to imitate his life they onely valiant who imitate his patience § V. And that they are here to bee distinguished appeareth by this consideration that in this text all the benefits which we have by Christ besides our election which is also noted in the first words of him yee are in Christ are reduced unto foure heads For of God wee were elected in Christ who of God is made unto us wisedome in our vocation righteousnesse in our justification holinesse in our Sanctification full redemption in our glorification that so we may learne not to boast in our selves but to ascribe the whole glory of our salvation and of all the degrees thereof to Iesus Christ our alone and perfect Saviour To the like purpose Theophylact observeth the order here used by the Apostle first he exempteth from errour and making men wise instructeth them to the knowledge of God then hee giveth the pardon of sinnes and by his holy Spirit indueth them with holinesse and then granteth perfect deliverance from all evils which hee calleth redemption as Chrysostome also and Oââ¦cumenius who observe the same order And likewise Theoderet he gave you true wisedome he gave unto you
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 ââ¦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 consââ¦ituit peccatores non formaliter sed ãâã 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 impuââ¦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 Chrysââ¦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 Regeââ¦ration ââ¦r renââ¦vation is formally wrought by some inherent gift Iustisication according to the Apostle in this place is regeneration ââ¦r renovation Thââ¦refore justification is formally wrought
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 alââ¦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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the price of ransome which hee as our Redeemer laid downe for us But wee doe not suffer as redeemers neither are our sufferings ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã a price of ransome but either ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã chastisements for sinne or ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã trialls for our good or ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã our sufferings for Christ or ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 suppââ¦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 transitââ¦s à non esse ad esse in illumination which is transitââ¦s à tenebris ad lââ¦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 ââ¦ââ¦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 sinââ¦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. ãâã 13. 38 39. but never to renovation § III. His assumption Bellarmine proveth because it cannot be doubtââ¦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 evidââ¦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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 reââ¦urrection For according to the doctrine of the Catholike Church these two cannot bee severed fââ¦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
surety hee voluntarily undertooke our debt so by and for his satisfaction which hee performed for us and which the Lord accepteth in our behalfe as if we had performed the same in our owne persons wee are justified And yet though our sinnes being imputed to him he was reputed and as it were made a sinner and though his righteousnesse being imputed to us wee are made righteous in him yet this hindreth not but that hee in himselfe was just and wee in our selves sinners Yea this argueth that hee in himselfe was just and we in our selves sinners § VII Now that Christ was made a sinner for us that is was condemned and crucified as if hee had beene a sinner the Greeke expositours with one consent doe teach Chrysostome him that knew no sin saith the Apostle him who was righteousnesse it selfe he made sin that is he suffer'd him to be condemn'd as a sinner and to dye as one accursed and againe more plainely for him that was righteous saith the Apostle he made a sinner that those which bee sinners he might make righteous But saith he the Apostle saith more him he made sinne and us hee made righteous The like have Decumenius his Sonne being righteousnesse and holinesse he made sinne that is hee suffered him to bee crucified as a sinner and as a guilty person and againe he made sinne that is to bee condemned as a sinner and elsewhere very plainely for now the father sent him making him sinne for Christ was very much a sinner as having ãâã upon him the sinnes ââ¦f the whole world and ââ¦ade them his owne for that Christ was a sinner here saith he him that knew no sinne ââ¦e made sinne for us that were in very deed sinne And also Theophylact his Sonne who knew not sinne that is who himselfe was righteousnesse he made to dye for us as if he had beene a sinner and malefactor For cursed saith he is he who hangeth on a tree and hee was numbred among the transgressours Theodoret likewise being free from sinne he did undergoe the death of sinners that hee might take away the sinne of men and being called that which we are that is a sinner he made us that which he was that is righteous To the like purpose Augustine interpreting those words of Psalme 22. vers 1. according to the translation of the Septuagints and the vulgar Latine verba delictorum meorum the words of my sinnes of what sinnes saith he of whom it is said that he did no sinne neither was any guile found in his mouth how then doth he say of my sinnes but that hee prayeth for our sinnes and our sinnes he hath made his owne sinnes that his righteousnesse he might make our righteousnesse Hierome upon the same words Verbâ⦠delictorum meorâ⦠quia nostra peccââ¦ta sua reputat he saith the words of my sinne because our sinnes hee reputeth to bee his owne and againe on those words Psalm 38. 7. because mine iniquity for ââ¦s he was made subject to the curse that he might deliver us from the curse of the Law so he professeth himselfe a sinner who bare our sinnes and on these words Cogitabâ⦠pro peccaâ⦠meo Christs sinnes are the sinnes of mankinde Peccata Christi humani delicta sunt generis VIII Thirdly Bishop and other Papists commonly by sinne in this place understand a sacrifice for sinne according to the interpretation of some of the ancient acknowledged by Oecumeniââ¦s in which sense not onely the word Ascham is often used as Leviâ⦠5. 6. 16. 18 19. 7. 1 2. Numb 5. 7. but also Chattath Exod. 30. 10. Levit. 7. 7. 37. Levit. 4. 3. 8. 14. 20. 24. 9. 7. Ezek. 44. 27. 45. 19. 23. Hos. 4. 8. they eate the sinne of my people Answere This exposition maketh wholly for us For if God did make Christ a sacrifice for sinne he imputed our sinnes unto him or as the Prophet Esay speaketh he laid on him the iniquity of us all Esai 53. 6. Neither can it bee conceived how he should be made a sacrifice for our sinne unlesse our sinne were imputed unto him In sacrifices for sinne all which were types of Christ his sacrifice the manner was that the party who offered the sacrifice for sinne should lay his hand upon the head of the sacrifice the meaning of which ceremony is fully explained Lev. 16. 21 22. Where Aaron is required in the name of all the Congregation to lay his hands upon the head of the Scape-Goat which the Hebrews call Azazel the Greekes ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the Latines Emissarium and confesse over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel and all their transgressions in all their sins putting them upon the head of the Goate and the Goate shall beare upon him all their iniquities So it is said of our Saviour Christ that when his soule shall be made an offering for sinne the Lord would lay upon him the iniquities of us all and that he should beare our sinnes And as our sinnes are imputed to him so his sufferings are imputed to us and accepted for us and in our behalfe as a full satisfaction and propitiation for our sinnes Ephes. 5. 2. 1 Ioh. 2. 2. which is also said of those Sacrifices which were but types and figures of his sacrifice Levit. 1. 4. and whereas Bellarmine saith that we cannot by Christs satisfaction imputed to us bee accounted just that is saith he cleane and without spot if the spots and defilements of sinne be truely inherent in us I answere If none bee justified in whom remaine any spots of sinne then no mortall man is justified But as Christ was reputed a sinner and was punished as a sinner because our sinne that is our debt which hee as our surety undertooke was imputed to him though in him was no spot of sinne even so we are by Christs satisfaction imputed to us reputed and rewarded as just and that by such a justice in which as Chrysostome saith there is no spot or blemish and is therefore called Gods righteousnesse though in us doe remaine some spots and blemishes of sinne For here it is said not that wee are made righteous but righteousnesse yea Gods righteousnesse and that not in our selves but in him For that is Gods righteousnesse when we are not justified by workes that is by righteousnesse inherent seeing it is necessary that no spot bee found as Chrysostome saith The like have Oecumenius and Theophylact. Hee did not say that wee might be made righteous saith Oecumenius but righteousnesse it selfe which is more and the righteousnesse of God Now Gods righteousnesse is to bee justified not by workes ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã but by indulgence in him and by him § IX Bellarmine having rejected our exposition which is indeed the exposition of the Fathers as hath been shewed he saith it may be expounded three waies first that by the
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 siââ¦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 heââ¦d as appeareth also by the places alleaged by Bellarmine Esay 53. 6. posuit in eâ⦠iniquitatem omnium nostââ¦Ã»m he laid upon him that is hee imputed unto him the iniquity of us all and Psal. ââ¦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 sââ¦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 hââ¦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 impuââ¦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
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 Chrisââ¦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. ââ¦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 ãâã 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 testimââ¦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 aââ¦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 ãâã viae because by it we are intitled to the eternall happinesse which is beatitudo patriae all other ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in this place The second is a meere depravation of the Apostles meaning and intenââ¦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 Abrahââ¦ms example is an excellent proofe which Chrysostome well observed as Cardinall Tââ¦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 infââ¦sed as darkenesse is not driven
that most miserable had beene our estate if God had not most mercifully fuccoured us in his Son nostrâ justitiâ vacuos ejus involvisset justitia and being void of our owne righteousnesse had inwrapped us in his righteousnesse and a little after nisi ipse sua impartiretur justitia qui nostra planè destituimur quae nostram iniquitatem injustitiam tegeret David doth not say the man is blessed who hath not committed sinne nor done iniquity but blessed are they whose iniquities are mercifully forgiven of God whose sinnes he doth cover and hide with his justice Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sinne which he can scarcely be without or at least never is without and againe In illo c. in Christ therefore wee are justified before God not in ourselves not with our righteousnesse but with his which now is imputed to us having communion with him wanting righteousnesse in our selves we are taught extra nos in illo justitiam quaerere to seeke for righteousnesse out of ourselves in him Now saith he that our righteousnesse standeth in Christs obedience hence it is because wee being incorporated into him it is accepted of God in our behalfe as if it were ours insomuch that by it selfe we are held just And even as Iacob when not being the first borne but hiding himselfe under the habit of his brother and clothed with his garment which sent forth a fragrant smell obtayned the blessing from his Father so we that we may obtaine the blessing of righteousnesse from our heavenly Father it behoveth us to lye hid under the pretious purity of our eldest Brother to smell sweet with his odour and to have our sinnes covered with his perfection And finally he saith that if wee speake formally and properly wee are justified neither by faith nor charity but by the onely righteousnesse of God in Christ by the onely righteousnesse of Christ communicated to us and by the onely mercie of God forgiving our sinnes which saith he I have before made evident 11. Conradus Clingius maketh justification to be either imputative which we call justification or active which we call sanctification the righteousnesse of the former being wholly in Christ of the latter in us so that he differeth but in termes from us 12. The Auââ¦hors of the Booke called Antididagm Coloniens say that the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to us is the principall and chââ¦efe cause of our justification upon which chiefly we ought to rely and trust 13. To these we may adde the confession of our adversaries who cannot deny but that Christ his satisfaction is imputed to all that are justified or shall be saved as I have shewed before Yeâ⦠this is the confession of all Christians who professe Christ to be our Saviour that the Lord accepteth the merits of Christ that is his obedience and sufferings in their behalfe as if they had performed the same in their owne persons And what is this but to impute the obedience of Christ and his sufferings unto us Doth not God accept Christs righteousnes for us or did hee not thereby satisfie for us To what end then as Bellarmine well inferreth did Christ take upon him our nature to what end and purpose did he humble himselfe to doe and to suffer so great things for us For this confession I argue thus What righteousnesse and obedience of another the Lord accepteth for us that hee imputeth to us for righteousnesse for by imputation we meane nothing else But the righteousnesse and obedience of Christ the Lord accepteth for us otherwise he could not have been our Saviour Therefore the righteousnesse and obedience of Christ is imputed to us for righteousnesse CHAP. V. The objections of the Papists against imputation § I. FIrst they cavill at the word and that in divers respects for first they say it is new Secondly they deride it calliug it justitiam putatitiam an imaginary justice Thirdly they say this assertion that wee are justified by imputation of Christs righteousnesse is no where to bee found To the first concerning novelty I answere that the word is used tenne times Rom. 4. and in the same sence that wee doe use it for accepting a man as righteous who in himselfe is a sinner verse 5. or imputing to a man righteousnesse that worketh not vers 5. or without workes vers 6. that is without respect of any righteousnesse inherent in him or performed by him besides other places of the Scriptures both in the Old Testament and in the New where the Hebrew Chashab is read with Lamed or the Greek ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã with a dative of the person whether in the Greeke translation of the Old Testament or in the Greeke Text of the New Examples of the Old Testament both in the Hebrew text and in the Greeke translation may bee these Gen. 15. 6. Levit. 7. 18. 17. 4. Nââ¦m 18. 27. 30. 2 Sam. 19. 19. Hebr. Psal. 32. 2. 105. 31. Prov. 17. 28. Graec. Examples of the New Testament besides those in the Epistle to the Romanes 2 Cor. 5. 19. Gal. 3 6. 2 Tim. 4. 16. Iam. 2. 23. In the Latine vulgar translation not onely the Verbe imputare and imputari are used in the same sense as 2 Chron. 30. 19. Iob 42. 8. Psalm 32. 2. Sap. 12. 1â⦠Eââ¦ek 33. 16. Rom. 4. 4. 8. 5. 13. 2 Tim. 4. 16. Philem. 18. but also reputure and rââ¦putari construed with a dative as Gen. 15. 6. Numb 18. 27. 30. Deut. 21. 8. ââ¦bsque dativo Deut. 23. 21. 24. 15. Iud. 4. 9. 2 Sam. 19. 19. 1 Chron. 21. 3. Psal. 106. 31. 1 Mac. 2. 52. Rom. 4. 3. 5. 9. 10. 11. 22. 24. Galath 3. 6. Iam. 2. 23. But say they the Greeke ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which is a simple Verbe and the Hebrew chashab doth signifie pââ¦rare not imputarâ⦠to thinke esteeme or account not to impute I answer when the Hebrew Verbe is read with Lamed or the Greeke with the dative of the person it signifieth properly to impute as in the places even now quoted and is all one with ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which word also is used by the Apostle Rom. 5. 13. Phile. 18. or ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã as Variââ¦us doth expound it producing this example ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã The sinnes of the children of God ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to the Fathers that is imputeth or layeth them to their charge and so the vulgar Latine translateth the Greeke ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã by the Latine imputare as Rom. 4 4. 8. or reputare with a dative as Rom. 4. 3. 5 c. or accepta ferre as Rom 4. 6. which are all one even in the opinion of that Latine interpeter Neither should this act of imputation seeme strange seeing the practise thereof is usuall among men For as when the debtour being not able to make payment if the surety shall pay the whole summe or satisfie for the
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 ââ¦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 ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 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 righteoââ¦snesse but wee stand righteous before God in the righteousnesse of Christ which farre surpasseth the righteousnesse of Adam c. § V. Hââ¦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 trââ¦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 Chââ¦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 falââ¦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 trââ¦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 lââ¦ver of regeneratiââ¦n hee might better have said after regeneration it selfe calleth us righteous and holy and the sonnââ¦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 rightââ¦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 transgââ¦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 wherââ¦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
what Pharisaicall conceit the Papists have of themselves that being once ex opere operato justified by their Sacraments though they neither have knowledge nor faith nor repentance nor any sanctifying grace in them yet they are not truely and indeed sinners in themselves neither is there any sinne in them And therefore unlesse they will play the hypocrites and dally with God they ought not to pray as Christ taught his owne Apostles to pray forgive us our sinnes But by saying there is no sinne in themselves it is evident that there is no truth in them 1 loh. 1. 8. § VIII His eighth argument is taken out of the Canticles where Christ is compared to the Husband or Bridegrome the Church or justified soule to the Spouse which Spouse is said to bee most faire and beautifull yea tota pulchra viz. by beauty inhereââ¦t in her selfe and not by the beauty of her Husband imputed to her Answ. From allegoricall Scriptures no sound argument can bee drawne especially when they are not understood But be it that by the Spouse is meant the Church of Christ. Is it the Church triumphant as it mayseeme when she is said to be tota pulchra then is it to no purpose alleaged As for the Church militant that commendation cannot be verified of it by reason of many deformed members which be alwayes in the visible Church besides which the Papists acknowledge no other But if the Church militant bee meant then of what time for it may not be thought that what is spoken in the Canticles doth agree to the Church at al times The Spouse which somtimes is said to be tota pulchra in other places is said to be blacke sometimes She enjoyethher Beloved somtimes She is at a losse sometimes she adhereth to her Love sometimes She neglecteth him But suppose she be alwaies and altogether beautiful which me thinks should hardly be verified of the Church of Rome besides which they acknowledg no other true Church especially when the visible Head therof the Popes have beene monsters of men their Clergie Sodomiticall their Laity void of all truth and power of Religion their whole Church in respect of her faith hereticall in regard of her religion idolatrous and in respect of both apostaticall but suppose I say the true universall Church which is the company of the elect to be wholly beautifull This totall beauty cannot be understood of her inherent righteousnesse which is stayned and unperfect but of that righteousnesse which her husband hath imputed and imparted to her as we heard before out of Gregory Nyssen § IX Yea but Bellarmine will prove that this beauty is inherent first because her beauty is described as that which is proper to women and his as that which is proper to men and therefore that his beauty is one and hers another Secondly because it is absurd to imagine hee absurdly chargeth us that the Spouse of Christ is deformed in herselfe being onââ¦ly adorned outwardly with her Husbands garment But this labour Bellarmine might have spared For wee doe acknowledge that the true Church is beautifull and that by a twofold beauty the one the perfect beauty of her Husband communicated to her by imputation the other unperfect and inherent which being but begun in this life is to be perfected in the life to come but howsoever this inward beauty be unperfect yet because it is upright her Husband is delighted therewith and in regard of this inward uprightnesse and integrity she is said to be glorious within In which respect the Tabernacle of the Congregation was a fit type of the Church militant which in outward appearance is black and brown like the tents of Kedar but within faire and beautifull like the hangings of Salomon even as the tabernacle which outwardly made but a homely shew being covered with Rams skinnes and Badgers skins was inwardly glorious wee acknowledge therefore that there is inherent righteousnesse in the true Church and in all the true and lively memââ¦ers thereof In regard whereof in the Creed we professe our selves to beleeve that she is holy and that the communion of her members among themselves and with their head is the communion of Saints But that by this inherent righteousnesse either the Church or any member thereof is justified before God we doe utterly deny § X. His ninth and tenth arguments I will put together because one answere may serve for both His ninth reason is this by justification the heart is cleansed that it may be prepared for the vision of God for untill it be cleane it cannot see God The tenth Christ suffered and gave himselfe for his Church that he might sanctifie it Heb. 13. 12. Ephes. 5. 26. Tit. 2. 14. loh. 17. 19. which is not done by imputation c. Both those objections arise from the wilfull ignorance of the Papists who will not distinguish justification from sanctification The righteousnesse of sanctification of which these places speake wee acknowledge to be inherent though that of justification be imputed and that which I have shewed heretofore as wee are by justification entitled to the kingdome of heaven so by sanctification we are fitted and prepared for it We confesse that the heart must be cleane and pure before it can see God and that by sanctification begun in this life the heart is prepared but never fully cleansed untill it come to see God wee acknowledge that our sanctification is the end not onely of our redemption but also of our Election Ephes. 1. 4. of our creation and recreation according to Gods image Ephes. 4. 24. of our vocation 1 Thes. 4. 7. of our justification and reconciliation Col. 1. 22. Luk. 1. 74. 75. That sanctification is the way wherein men being elected called justified are to walke to their glorification But though it bee via regni yet it is not causa regnandi that our Saviour by his Spirit doth truly really and inherently worke the worke of sanctification in all those that are justified But I beseech you what is the force of both these arguments Our hearts must be cleansed by inherent purity therefore we are not justified by imputed righteousnesse Christ dyed and gave himselfe for us that wee might bee sanctified with true inherent grace therefore we are not justified by righteousnesse imputed Christ gave himselfe for us that he might redeeme and justifie us that being reedeemed and justified wee might worship him in holinesse and righteousnesse before him Finally Bellarmine telleth us that many other arguments might bee produced but these he saith were the principall which notwithstanding for the most part were such as deserved with scome to bee rejected rather than to bee in good earnest refuted which neverthelesse argueth not the insufficiencie of the disputant but the badnesse of the cause which admitteth no better proofes A TREATISE OF IVSTIFICATION THE SIXTH BOOKE Concerning Faith CAP. I. What Faith is and that it is not without knowledge § I. THââ¦
of Christ through fââ¦ith then are we not justified by workes But the first I have demonstrated by many undeniable arguments therefore the second must be granted 4. If we be justified by imputative righteousnesse that is to say by the righteousnesse of Christ imputed to them that beleeve the Lord imputing righteousnesse unto them without workes then it is evident that wee are not justified by workes but that is most true as hath plentifully beene proved therefore this 5. If we be justified by faith alone then not by workes But we are justified by faith alone as hath beene proved therefore not by workes The arguments reduced to these five heads which were very many and impregnable might satisfie any reasonable man who is not wilfully addicted to his owne erroneous conceits though I should adde no more but because wee have to deale with men unreasonable I will adde some § III. And first out of Rom. 4. 4 5 6. He that worketh not is not justified by workes he that beleeveth worketh not as the Apostle there sheweth And againe to whom faith is impured unto righteousnesse without workes they are not justified by workes to all the faithfull faith is imputed unto righteousnesse without workes therefore none of the faithfull are justified by workes The assumption is thus proved If to Abraham his faith was imputed for righteousnesse without works then are all the faithfull justified without workes for Abraham is by the Apostle propounded as a patterne therefore as he was justified so are we Rom. 4. 22 23. 24. But to Abraham his faith was imputed for righteousnesse as the Apo stle teacheth Rom. 4. 3 4 5. Therefore all the faithfull are justified without workes 2. The true doctrine of justification is taught in the Scriptures justification by workes is not taught in the Scriptures for the justification taught in the Scriptures is an action of God justifying a sinner but this by workes is neither an action of God neither is it the justification of a sinner but the action of the justitiary himselfe who by the exercise and practise of good workes increaseth his inherent justice or fanctification which hath no affinity with that justification which is taught in the Scriptures 3. None that are justified by faith are justified by workes all the faithfull are justified by faith therefore none of the faithfull are justified by workes The proposition is evidently proved by that opposition which the Apostle constantly maketh betweene faith and workes in the question of justification asfirming that men though abounding with works of grace are justified by faith without workes and saved by faith and not by workes Rom. 3. 28. 4. 3 4 5. Ephes. 2. 8 9. Tit. 3. 5. 4. If any be justified by workes then either the regenerate man or the unregenerate but neither the unregenerate as the Papists confesse nor the regenerate for they are justified already Neither doe the Scriptures acknowledge any sorts or degrees of justification before God § IV. 5. All that are justified by workes are justified by that obedience which they performe to the Law But none are justified by the obedience which they performe to the Law therefore none are justified by workes The proposition is manifest Because the Law being a perfect rule of all inherent righteousnes there neither are nor can be any good works which are not prescribed in the Law Yea whatsoever worke is not conmable to the Law is sinne The assumpââ¦ion may bee proved by many undeniable arguments First by all those places which plainely testifie that by the workes of the Law that is by obedience done to the Law no man living shall be justified Rom. 3. 20 28. Gal. 2. 16. For by the workes of the Law wee understand all duties prescibed and all that obedience which is required in the Law 2. Those that are accursed by the Law are not justified by their obedience of it For to bee justified is to bee blessed Rom. 4. 6. and therefore to be justified and to be accursed are things repugnant But all men whatsoever even those which seeke to bee justified by their obedience to the Law are by the Law accursed Therefore no man is justified by his obedience performed to the Law And this is the Apostles argument Gal. 3. 10. as I have shewed before All transgressours of the Law are by the Law accursed All men since the fall are transgressours of the Law Christ onely ãâã excepted this assumption the Apostle omitteth because hee taketh it for granted as being a truth received among the faithfull in those times though in these dayes denied by the justitiaries of Rome but elsewhere it is by the Apostle expressed as Rom. 3. 23. all have sinned Wherefore as God hath concluded all under sinne Rom. 11. 32. Gal. 3. 22. so the Law hath concluded them under the curse 3. All that are justified by their obedience to the Law doe perfectly fulfill it by a totall perfect and perpetuall obedience for he that doth not so fulfill it by doing the things commanded though he did nothing that is forbidden by doing all though he did the most by continuing in doing all and in that measure and degree which the Law requireth though he sinned but once in all his life and that either by omission or comming short of his duety is a transgressour of the Law and therefore subject to the curse of the Law because hee hath not continued in all things which are written in the booke of the Law to doe them And he that offendeth in one is guilty of all Iam. 2. 10. To whom the perfect fulfilling of the Law is impossible by reason of the flesh they cannot be justified by their obedience performed to it To all even the most regenerate the perfect fulfilling of the Law is impossible by reason of the flesh Rom. 8. 3. Gal. 5. 17. as elsewhere I prove at large Therefore none though regenerate can bee justified by their obedience performed to the Law § V. Sixthly That Doctrine which is repugnant to the Scriptures is false The Doctrine of justification by workes is repugnant to the Scriptures Therefore it is false The assumption is thus proved because the Scriptures in all places where they treat of justification before God doe from the act of justification exclude workes The places of Scripture which we produce to this end Bellarmine reciteth at least some of them with purpose to answere them Rom. 3. 27. Where is boasting then It is excluded By what Law Of workes No but by the Law of faith Verse 28. Therefore wee conclude that a man is justified by faith without the workes of the Law to which hee might have added verse 20. Therefore by the deeds of the Law there shall no flesh be justified Rom. 4. 2. If Abraham were justified by workes he hath whereof to glory but not before God To which he might have added vers 5. 6. To him that worketh not but
avoid the force of the Apostles arguments as if he concluded not against them we conclude that a man is justified by faith without workes but thus wee conclude that a man is not justified by workes without faith neither the Iewes by the workes of the Law nor the Gentiles by their morall workes without faith as if with faith they did justifie And this he maketh to be the Apostles meaning that workes done before or without faith doe not justifie but proceeding from faith they doe justifie and so is not ashamed to make the Apostle to contradict himselfe But the Apostle doth constantly teach that a man is justified by faith without the workes of the Law by faith and not by workes and maketh such an opposition betweene faith and works in the question of justification that if we bee justified by the one we are not justified by the other for if by faith then of grace and if of grace then not by workes or if by workes then not of grace It is therefore a most shamelesse and Antichristian perverting of the Apostles doctrine to make him teach that works proceeding from faith doe justifie and that we are justified both by faith and by workes when hee plainely teacheth the contrary CHAP. III. Bellarmines answers to the forenamed places of Scripture refuted § I. FRom these three things thus premised Bellarmine saith it will bee easy to answere all those places which were alleaged And first to Rom. 3. 27. he shapeth an answere unto which I have sufficiently replyed before saving that here hee addeth that not all glorying is excluded but only that which ariseth from such workes as are only done by the strength of â⦠mans owne freewill And that hee proveth because the Apostle saith Ubi est gloriatio tua Where is thy boasting that is that boasting whereby thou gloriest in thy selfe and not in the Lord. Whereunto I reply that the word tua thine is not in the originall And if it were yet that glorying whereby thou dost glory though it bee in the Lord though in the grace and favour of God though in thy workes proceeding from grace is thy glorying As the Apostle saith this is our glorying even the testimony of our conscience c. 2 Cor. 1. 12. and 1 Cor. 9. 15. it were better for mâ⦠to dye than that any man should make my glorying void 1 Cor. 15. 31. By our rejoycing which I have in Christ Iesus our Lord. § II. The second testimony recited by Bellarminâ⦠was from the example of Abraham Rom. 4. For if Abraham who was a most excellent precedent of faith and obedience and is propounded as a patterne for the matter and forme of justification was not justified by his works which proceeded from his faith but notwithstanding that he abounded with workes of grace hee was justified by faith without workes then all the faithfull in like manner though abounding with workes of grace proceeding from faith are not justified by their workes of grace but are justified by faith without workes but the antecedent is evident by the testimony of the Apostle therefore the consequent is a certaine truth Bellarmine answereth that Abraham was justified by faith not by workes going before faith because they could not bee truely just unlesse it were in respect of externall righteousnesse and therefore if he had beene justified by them which he could not have beene unlesse they were truly just hee should have had glory but with men not with God But when we reply that Abraham at that time whereof the Apostle speaketh that he was justified by faith and not by workes and that righteousnesse was imputed unto him without workes was a man regenerate excelling in the grace of faith and abounding in good workes which he wrought by faith And therefore when hee denieth him to bee justified by workes he plainely teacheth that the faithfull are not justified by workes proceeding from faith but although they abound with workes of grace proceeding from their faith yet they are justified by faith without workes To this unanswerable argument taken from the example of Abraham Bellarmine frameth two answeres but such as men use to make when they are brought to a meere non-plus First he saith that Abraham indeed at that time whereof the Apostle speaketh was regenerate and through faith wrought many good workes Notwithstanding the Apostle when hee saith that hee was justified by faith and not by workes doth not reject his workes wrought by faith but affirmeth that they were not wrought without faith because if they had beene such they would not have justified him Therefore he excludeth the workes which Abraham might have wrought not by faith § III. Where Bellarmine first taketh that for granted which the Apostle professedly disputeth against and concludeth the contrary namely that Abraham was justified by workes As if the meaning of the Apostle when he argueth that Abraham was justified by faith without works had beene this that he was justified by workes but yet such as were not without faith Secondly he inverteth the question and perverteth the disputation of the Apostle for the mainetenance of his owne errour As if the question were not whether faith doe justifie without workes which the Apostle affirmatively concludeth but whether works doe justifie without faith which question the Apostle doth not once mention which I desire the readers to take notice of For if the question which the Apostle disputeth be not this whether works doe justifie without faith but this whetheâ⦠faith doth justifie without workes then are the Papists evidently confuted by the disputation of the Apostle 3. He supposeth that faithfull Abraham endued with abundant grace might doe good workes without faith and without grace and that the Apostle excludeth such workes not which Abraham did but such as the might have done but did not For it is certaine that the faithfull as when they sinne through infirmity doing that evill which they would not doe may say with the Apostle Rom. 7. 17. Not I but sinne that dwelleth in me so when they performe any good worke they may say with the same Apostle 1 Cor. 15. 10. Not I but the grace of God which is with me 4. It is against sense to make the Apostle dispute that Abraham was not justified by such works as he might have done but did not but more senselesse when he maketh the Apostle to dispute that Abraham was not justified by his sinnes For how doth he prove that they who have faith may worke sometimes without faith by two instances as namely first when they sinne As if the Apostle had said though Abraham were a faithfull man yet some workes he might doe not of faith as namely when he sinned for sinnes are not of faith and by such workes hee was not justified And the like is his second instance when they doe workes purely morall without relation to God for such if they be not of faith are sins But
these morall duties in the faithfull because they are not workes of the flesh must needs bee the fruits of the Spirit Gal. 5. 19. 21. and although perhaps performed to men yet are done in obedience to God 5. Neither doth the Apostle distinguish betwixt Abrahams workes as if hee were justified by some and not by others but in generall denieth him to have beene justified by any workes at all And that hee proveth because his faith was imputed for righteousnesse As if hee had said to whom faith is imputed for righteousnesse he is not justified by workes to Abraham faith was imputed for righteousnesse therefore Abraham was not justified by workes The proposition is thus proved to him that worketh that is to him that fulfilleth the Law righteousnesse is not imputed or reckoned of Grace but of debt But to him that worketh not that is that doth not fulfill the Law but beleeveth on him that justifieth a sinner as all are and as hee acknowledgeth himselfe to be who therefore can merit nothing but punishment his faith is counted or imputed for righteousnesse 6. By this example of Abraham Bellarmine is notably confounded in two other respects § IV. For first whereas justification before God is but one wherein the Lord by imputation of Christs righteousnesse to a beleeving sinner doth absolve him from his sinnes and also accepteth of him as righteous in Christ not onely in the first moment of justification wherein being a sinner in himselfe he was first constituted righteous in Christ but also in the continuance of justification wherein the beleever being still a sinner in himselfe is continued in the favour of God by the merits and intercession of Christ and though a sinner in himselfe yet beleeving in him that justifieth a sinner is made the righteousnesse of God in Christ. Bellarmine notwithstanding maketh two justifications the first wherein a sinner is made righteous by infusion of habituall righteousnes the second when a just man maketh himselfe more just by the practise of actuall righteousnesse that is to say of good works which two are degrees of sanctification and not of justification and saith that the Apostle in the Epistle to the Romans speaketh only of the former wherein workes going before faith are excluded from the act of justification So that in Bellarmines conceit when the Apostle saith that a man is justified by faith without workes his meaning is without workes going before justification But what the Apostle speaketh of other men hee affirmeth of faithfull Abraham at what time he was a man regenerate as Bellarmine consesseth and abounded with good workes which as the same Apostle testifieth Heb. 11. 8. c. he wrought by faith And yet of him the Apostle saith that he was justified by faith and not by works that the Lord imputed unto him righteousnesse without workes that hisâ⦠justification or blessednesse consisted in the remission of his sinnes and imputation of righteousnesse and being a sinner in himselfe as all mortall men are hee was in Christ the promised seed made blessed through faith By the example of Abraham therefore we learne first that that distinction of justification is forged For Abraham as when hee first beleeved was justified by faith without workes so afterwards when hee abounded with good workes hee was justified by faith and not by workes And undoubtedly if ever any man attained to the second justification which the Papists ascribe to workes Abraham had it then when the Apostle affirmeth that he was justified without workes Secondly that workes are excluded from justification not onely those which goe before faith but also those that follow and are wrought by it § V. The second respect when Bellarmine endeavoureth to reconcile the seeming difference betweene the Apostle Paul Rom. 3. 4. and Saint Iames Chap. 2. hee saith that Paul speaking of the first justification saith that a man is justified by faith without workes namely going before justification but Saint Iames speaking of the second justification saith that a man is justified by workes and not by faith onely But both the Apostle use the example of Abraham for the proofe of their assertion Paul proving that a man is justified before God by faith without workes demonstrateth his assertion by the example of Abraham who though hee were most fruitfull of good workes yet he was justified by faith without workes And as Abraham was justified so are all the faithfull Saint Iames concluding that a man is justified that is declared and knowne to be just by workes and not by profession of faith onely proveth also his assertion by the example of Abraham who demonstrated his faith by his workes By which though he were declared and knowne to be a just man as Saint Iames saith yet by them he was not justified before God but by faith only as Saint Paul teacheth This example therefore of Abraham doth prove that the Apostle Paul doth not speake of the first justification which is habituall nor of workes onely going before justification for Abraham was a man long before regenerated and justified and his workes were such as hee wrought by faith But that this is a false and counterfeit distinction of justification it may further be proved For if this be true that the Apostle excluding workes from justification speaketh of the first justification which they say is meerely habituall then the Apostle must bee thought toâ⦠have taken all these paines to prove that to habituall righteousnesse good workes doe not concurre or that habituall righteousnesse is not actuall which needeth no proofe And againe if onely workes going before grace be exculded from justification then the Apostle must be thought to have ââ¦boured seriously to prove that we are not justified by such workes as are not good which needeth no proofe for how should a man be justified by that which is not just This example therefore of Abraham is as Chrysostome speaketh ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã abundant matter of much victory wherein we may truely and seriously triumph § VI. Bellarmine second answere is that the Apostle speaketh with condition if Abraham was justified by workes not proceeding from the grace of faith as they thought who to their owne strength attributed righteousnesse then surely he had glory but not with God And because it is evident enough that Abraham had glory even with God thence hee gathereth that hee was not justified by workes without faith but by faith from which good workes truly proceed hee should have said by workes which proceed from faith if he meant to contradict us for we doe confesse that he was justified by faith from which good workes did proceed but withall we say that he was justified by his faith and not by his workes But in this senselesse answere of Bellarmine there are many absurdities for first by incredible impudencie hee taketh for granted that which the Apostle disputeth against namely that Abraham was justified by workes viz. such workes as proceeded
to the liberty of justification the former in that they are to be subject to the fearefull curse of the Law if at any time they transgresse it though in the least degree as wee doe very often and sometimes in an high degree the other to be excluded from justification if they doe not ââ¦otally perfectly and perpetually fulfill it which by reason of the flesh is utterly impossible to us Now Christ came to free us from this double bondage of the Law himselfe being made a curse for us and performing all righteousnesse in our behalfe that by the imputation of his sufferings and of his obedience wee might not onely bee freed from the curse but also bee entituled to the Kingdome of heaven And therefore to him that remaineth under this double yoake of bondage Christ profiteth nothing I come to the assumption those that seeke to bee justified by the workes of the Law that is by righteousnesse inherent are debtours to the whole Law for neither are they free from the curse if they breake it as all doe And therefore the Apostle concludeth them who are of workes that is who seeke justification by righteousnesse inherent are under the curse Neither can they be justified unlesse they perfectly keepe it Therefore they who seeke to be justified by the workes of the Law that is by inherent righteousnesse whatsoever whether going before or following grace to them Christ is become of none effect to them he dyed in vaine to them the covenant of grace is disanulled to them the promise is of none effect c. So that whether you conceive of workes as going before or following grace the consequences of the Apostle are one and the same § XII Indeed if the popish doctrine were true that Christ hath merited for us the infusion of that righteousnesse by which we are justied as hee hath done that by which wee are sanctified and that hee hath merited for our workes to make them meritorious of eternall life then those consequences would not be so strong against the workes of grace as of nature But the Scriptures teach us that Christ doth justifie and save us by his blood and by his obedience that is by his owne personall righteousnesse and merits and not by any satisfaction of ours purchased by him nor by any merit of ours by him made meritorious For if his satisfaction and merits for us be full and perfect what need we to patch to them the ragges of our owne satisfactions and merits But if that were the end why Christ died for us that wee by his merits should obtaine both inherent justice whereby we should be justified and also merits of our owne whereby we should be saved as the Papists teach then either that righteousnesse and those workes wââ¦ich wee have by grace are sufficient to justifie and to save us or else Christ died in vaine for us But neither is that inherent righteousnesse which we have from Christ sufficient to justifie us nor those good workes of grace which wee performe sufficient to merit eternall life as I have in this treatise abundantly proved neither did Christ dye in vaine for that to imagine were blasphemy Therfore that was not the end why Christ our Saviour died for us I say againe if Christ dyed to this end that he might merit grace for us whereby we might in our owne persons satisfie the Law and so be justified thereby then he merited not onely that we should perfectly and perpetually without any omission or intermission in all our life fulfill the Law and be alwayes and altogether without sinne which by reason of our sinfulnesse is utterly impossible wee having beene sinners from the wombe yea in the wombe but also that wee should in our owne personâ⦠satisfie the penalty which cannot be done but by punishment eternall or that which is equivalent for where hath beene guilt of sinne as in all hath beene there the Law cannot be satisfied without the punishment threatned in the Law And therefore if this were the end of Christs death it must be confessed that he died in vaine but this consequent is Blasphemous and therefore the antecedent is Antichristian § XIII To the fourth place which is Ephesians 2. 8 9. Bellarmine vouchsafeth no severall answere but sleights it over with that common answere that it excludeth onely workes done before faith But this place ought not so to bee sleighted For it doth ex professo teach that salvation and all the degrees thereof as namely justification are to bee ascribed wholly to the grace of God in Christ through faith and not to any workes or deserts of ours whether going before or following justification For first it may seeme needlesse that the Apostle should tell the Ephesians whom before in the same Chapter hee had convicted to have beene before their conversion children of wrath as all are by nature dead in sinne bondslaves of Satan living according to to the course of this world in all manner of sinne untill God in his abundant mercies in Christ by whose grace they were saved quickned them together with Christ that hee I say should tell them that they were not justified by the workes which they had wrought before their conversion Secondly when the Apostle saith you are saved by grace and not by workes will they say hee excludeth onely workes going before salvation why then hee excludeth all And that distinction with which Bellarmine contenteth himfelfe as a sufficient answere cannot be fitted to this place If it be said that the Apostle by Salvation meaneth justification I confesse that among the degrees of Salvation hee doth specially meane justification whereby we receive the right to our inheritance and are intitled to the kingdome of heaven and saved in hope But from hence it is inevitably proved that by what wee are justified we are saved and by what we are saved we are justified But we are saved as the Apostle here saith by the free grace of God through faith not of any workes of ours whatsoever or whensoever performed therefore in the like manner we are justified What then will you say if we bee neither justified by good workes nor saved for them are they therefore to bee neglected I answere in the third place that good workes though they be excluded from the act of justification or merit of salvation yet they are not excluded from the conversation of the faithfull but are therein required as necessary fruits of our regeneration and consequents of our justification as also being the way wherein wee are to walke towards our glorification As the Apostle sheweth in the next words vers 10. for wee are saith he Gods woââ¦kemanship created in Christ Iesus unto good workes which God hath preordained not that wee should bee justified by them or saved for them but that wee should walke in them as the way to eternall life where we are to observe that those words being a prevention of a secret objection
viz. if wee be not justified by good workes nor saved for them are they therefore to be neglected No saith the Apostle they that are justified are the workemanship of God created unto good workes which God hath prepared that we being justified and regenerated should walke in them And therefore the Apostle speaketh manifestly not of workes going before grace but of such good workes as are consequents of our justification and fruits of our regeneration wherein we being regenerated and justified are to walke as in the way to our glorification § XIV The next place viz. Tit. 3. 5. which is like to the former Bellarmine shifteth off with the like common answere that it speaketh of workes going before faith But hee may not carry it so For the Apostle having as hee had done Eph. 2. signified that all of us before our conversion lived in all manner of sinne But after that the kindnesse and love of God our Saviour to man appeared not by the workes of righteousnesse which wee have done but according to his mercie hee saved us c. Where as in the former place he useth the phrase of saving unto which as I said Bellarmines distinction cannot bee fitted And secondly the workes which he excludeth hee doth expressely call the works of righteousnesse which terme cannot agree to the works of such men as the Apostle describeth vers 3. and such are all men unregenerate § XV. The sixth and last testimony whereunto Bellarmine answereth is Phil. 3. 8 9. Where the Apostle in the question of justification renouncing his owne inherent righteousnesse which not onely hee had in his Pharisaisme but which then hee had according to the Law desireth to bee found in Christ having that righteousnesse which is through the faith of Christ. Bellarmine answereth according to his distinction formerly used that by the righteousnesse which is of the Law are meant workes done through the knowledge of the Law by the onely strength of nature which I have before confuted Neither would Paul make any question of his justification by his works done before his conversion For before his conversion notwithstanding his Pharisaicall proââ¦ession of righteousnesse hee doth confesse that he was a blasphemer and injurious and of all sinners the chiefe 1 Tim. 1. 13 15. And whereas Chemnitius objecteth that Paul rejecteth not onely his workes before his conversion which he siââ¦nifieth speaking in the time past ver 7. but what things were gaine unto me I counted losse for Christ but also the workes of his present condition which hee noteth speaking in the present tence and using particles of amplification ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã yea doubtlesse and â⦠doe count all things but losse c. As if he should have said nay more than that I even now doe count all things as losse and I doe count all but as dung c. Bellarmine answereth that as the Apostle in the beginning of his conversion had counted them losse so hee did still But if the Apostle had spoken of the same workes whereof he spake ver 7. the amplification used vers 8. would have been but an idle repetition and the exposition which we give was long since delivered by Chrysostome The Apostle saith hee having said these things ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã I counted losse for Christ he saith ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã yea that which is more I doe count all things losse ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã he said all both past long since and also present § XVI But here Bellarmine thinketh he hath Chemnitius at a great advantage as if hee had spoken blasphemy for saying that the Apostle calleth his workes done after his calling which were the fruits of the Spirit and for which he expected a reward 2 Tim. 4. 7. even a Crowne of righteousnesse c. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã dung Whereunto I reply in the question of sanctification wee doe highly esteeme of good workes but in the question of justification if they shall be obtruded as the matter by which wee stand just before God by which we are both freed from hell and entituled to heaven if affiance or trust be put in them for our justification before God then seeme they never so glorious they are to bee esteemed as things of no worth yea as losse And in the like cause as hath beene shewed the godly have compared their most righteous works to menstââ¦uous clouts And in this sense Chemnitius speaketh that the Apostle quod attinet ad articulum justificationis did thus speake of his workes done after his renovation Immo saith he si fiducâ⦠justitiae cor am Deo ad vitam aeternam illis operibus assuaââ¦ur pronunciat ille esse stercora detrimenta But if the word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã translated by the vulgar Latine stercora offend Bellarmine hee may translate it quisquilias as Hierome doth meaning thereby things of no value such things as use to be cast to Dogges or Swine according to the notation of the word For as Suidas saith ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã or as others ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that which is cast to swine And from hence is the verbe ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which signifieth to bee rejected as a thing of no worth Chrysostome and Theophylact upon the place by ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã understand ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã chaffe Photius ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã straw or stubble But Heââ¦ychius expoundeth it by ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã dung I conclude as Bellarmine doth against Chemnitius Eat nunc Bellarminus queratur c. Let him complaine that wee are enemies to good workes because in the question of justification when men trust to them to bee justified before God by them and so make Idols of them which the holy Ghost calleth Deos stercoreos wee esteeme them not onely as things of no ââ¦alew but also as losse § XVII To these testimonies I added others out of the same Chapters or Epistles no lesse pregnant than these unto which more might bee adjoyned as Rom. 3. 24. being justified freely by his grace which text affordeth two arguments from the words gratis and gratia From the former I argue thus Those that are justified freely gratis are justified without workes All the faithfull are justified gratis freely Therefore all the faithfull are justified without workes The assumption is proved out of the text The proposition because the word gratis is so expounded by all sorââ¦s of Writers both old and new both protestants and Papists gratis id est siââ¦e ââ¦ueribus sine meritis as I have shewed heretofore Gratis saith ãâã quia nihil ââ¦perantes nec vicem reddentes sola fide justificati sunt dââ¦ne Dei by which words hee excludeth all workes as well following after as going before Oecumenius ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã thou art saved freely without any good workes of thine which words exclude all merits as well from salvation as from justification And so doe
servant doing or rather but endeavouring to doe his duety is rewarded In these two the arguments are not the same A servant that doth not his duety deserveth punishment and his disobedience is the meritorious cause of his punishment But by doing his duety especially if it bee done unperfectly which is alwayes our case he doth not deserve reward and therefore if hee bee rewarded it is to be ascribed to his masters bounty and not to his desert Such an Antithesis the Apostle maketh betweene the reward of sinne and of godlinesse Rom. 6. 23. Death is the due wages of sinne but eternall life which is the reward of godlinesse is the free gift of God And further as I said before when I formerly answered this allegation In this and many other such conditionall speeches the antecedent is not the cause but a signe token or presage of the consequent If God have given you grace to mortifie the deeds of the flesh it is an evident token that you shall live If God hath adorned you with his grace it is to be presumed that he will crowne his owne grace with glory § IX And such is his seventh testimony p as before I have shewed Rom. 8. 17 18. The Spirit beareth witnesse with our spirits that we are the sonnes and heires of God and coheires with Christ if we suffer with him that wee may also bee glorified with him where is no relation at all of efficiency betwixt our sufferings and glory But Bellarmine will prove it first by the conditionall particle of which I spake in answere to the last argument which doth not as hee saith point out the cause but the evidence by which the holy Ghost doth assure us that wee are the sonnes and heires of God and coheires of Christ who shall bee glorified with him namely if we suffer with him Secondly from the reason which is added concerning the excesse of glory to our sufferings which to my understanding doth plainly confute it For if the sufferings of this life be not condigne as the Vulgar readeth it to the glory that is to come how should they merit it ex condigno as they arrogantly speake But the scope of the Apostle in this place is to encourage the faithfull to suffer for Christ which he doth by two arguments the one from the happy event which is assurance of glorification testified by the holy Spirit who testifieth unto us that if we have grace from God to suffer with Christ that we are the sonnes and heires of God and coheires of Christ who shall bee glorified with him Not that ouâ⦠sufferings doe make us the sonnes and heires of God c. but that they are the signes and evidences by which the holy Ghost doth assure us that we are so The other from the disproportion betweene our sufferings from him and the glory which we shall have with him For the Aposââ¦le having weighed both resolveth for so hee saith ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that all the sufferings of this life are not comparable to that glory but of this place more hereafter § X. His eighth testimony Rom. 10. 10. with the heart wee beleeve unto righteousnesse and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation We see here saith he that faith sufficeth not to salvation because it is not true and entire in the heart unlesse thereto be added externall confession And it seemeth that the Apostle alludeth to that speech of our Saviour Matth. 12. 32 33. Him that confesseth me before men will I confesse before my Father and him that denyeth me before men will I deny before my Father that is in heaven Answ. All this we confesse that besides faith confession and many other graces and duties are necessary to salvation not as causes but as causae sine quibus non as I have often said which are no causes § XI His ninth testimony Matth. 25. 34 35. Come yee blessed of my Father possesse the kingdom prepared for you before the beginning of the world For I was hungry and you gave mee to eate c. Surely saith hee the reason which is rendred doth plainely shew that good workes are aliquo modo some way causes of salvation and that for them the kingdome of heaven is given Answ. Of this place I have spoken before when I shewed that the causes of salvation were noted vers 34. Come yee blessed of my Father inherit the Kingdome prepared for you from the foundation of the world And the reason which is rendred is taken from good workes not as the cause for which salvation is given but as the evidence according to which our Saviour judgeth § XII His tenth testimony is out of the Epistle of Saint Iames and it is twofold the former Iam. 1. 25. He that is not a forgetfull hearer but a doer of the worke this man shall bee blessed in his deed the latter Iam. 2. 14. what will it profit my brethren if a man say that he hath faith and have not workes will faith save him But how saith hee out of the former is a man blessed in his deed if his deeds have no relation to happinââ¦sse but affoââ¦diheir idle presence Answ. Wee confesse that good works have relation to happinesse as they are necessary unto it as the way as the causa sine qua non Neither doe I conceive how good works can be idle where they are present though they doe not merit that which infinitely exceedeth their worth And as touching the other place Iam. 2. We confesse also that that faith which is in profession onely and is void of good workes doth not save a man because it is an idle and dead faith This therefore proveth good workes to be necessary necessitate praesentiae but for necessity efficioncie there is no shew nor colour § XIII After those severall testimonies he appealeth to the whole Epistles of Peter Iohn Iames and Iude whose chiefe intention was to prove that to justified men good workes are necessary to salvation and that faith alone doth not suffice as some in these times out of the Epistles of Paul not well understood began to preach I answere that as the Apostles whom he nameth urge the necessity of good workes so doe all true preachers of the Gospell at this day yea Paul himselfe did urge it as much as any of them if not more But the necessity of efficiencie he may as soone prove out of our sermons as out of the writings of the Apostles § XIV To the Scriptures hee addeth the testimonies of the Fathers who as they censured for heretickes those which denyed workes to bee necessary unto salvation so themselves taught that they bee necessary To which both censure and doctrine of the Fathers wee doe most willingly subscribe And wee should greatly wonder how this great Master of Controversies could bee so idle so impertinent so frivolous a disputant but that as I said before these his discourses proving
the flesh but after the Spirit § XI As if the Apostle had said Although the body of sinne and death remaine in us who are both justified which made mee cry out chap. 7. 24 yet forasmuch as wee are delivered therefrom by Iesus Christ our Lord to whom all thanks is therefore due vers 25. I doe therfore now assure all the faithfull and true members of Christ who may be knowne by this marke that they live not after the flesh but after the Spirit that they are delivered from damnation and their salvation is sure Now there are 2. things whereby Christ hath delivered us from the law of sin and death that is from the power or guilt of sin and of death the former is the power and merit of Christs perfect obedience and holynes which is called the law of the Spirit of life in Christ the other his sufferings wherein he yeelded an all-sufficient satisfaction by bearing the punishment whereby sinne was condemned in our nature which had sinned which nature though ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã free from sinne as Chrysostââ¦me speaketh yet like to the sinfull flesh that is to say passible hee therefore tooke upon him that because by the observation of the law in our owne persons it was impossible by reason of our flesh to be justified all which the Law required to justification might ââ¦ee doth not say by us but in us that is in our nature be performed by Christ for it is Christ as Chrysostââ¦me saith that fulfilled ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in us and for us who are his true members and are to be knowne as I said by this marke that live not after the flesh but after the Spirit And therefore this place proveth that because it is impossible by reason of the flesh to bee justified by that righteousnesse which is prescribed in the Law therefore God in his mercy sent his Sonne to take our nature upon Him that therein he might performe for us whatsoever the Law it selfe required to justification Thus this place is expounded by Chrysostome ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã saith he is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã not to be subject to the curse and that Christ fulfilled it for us Oecumenius in like maner If any man should say what is this to us He saith these things Christ did that the scope of the Law for that is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã might be fulfilled in us And what is the scope of the Law That wee should not bee obnoxious to the curse Or as Chrysostome in another place the end of the Law is that a man might be justified For what did the Law intend To make a man just but it was not able because no man fulfilled it Theodoreâ⦠when the Law was not able to performe what it intended by reason of their weakenesse to whom it was given the onely begotten Word of God made man by the humane flesh overcame sinne having fulfilled all righteousnesse And being not infected with any blemish of sinne and having undergone the death of sinners as if hee had been a sinner c. And on those words that the righteousnesse of the law might bee in us hee paid our debt saith hee and performed the end and scope of the law What was that That he might declare them to be just that is that hee might justifie them to whom the law was given Ambrose Quando impletur in ââ¦bis justificatiâ⦠Legis nisâ⦠cum datur remissiâ⦠omnium peccatorum when is the justification of the law fulfilled in us but when the remission of all our sinnes is granted to us for as I have before alleaged out of Augustine All the Commandements are reputed done when that which is not done is pardoned If therefore this place were to bee understood of our fulfilling the righteousnesse of the law in or by our selves Christ had not obtained his end for so long as the flesh that is our inbred cotruption by reason whereof it is impossible for the law to justifie remaineth as in this life it alwayes doth even in the best so long it is not possible either to fulfill the law or to be justified by the observation of it § XII To the second place which is the third petition of the Lords Prayer I answere that wee pray not that we upon earth may in equality of obedience match the Angels in heaven but that we may imitate their obedience and bee like to them in doing the will of God willingly readily faithfully constantly For the particle ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã as signifieth not parity but likenessâ⦠In the life to come wee shall indeed be ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Matth. 22. 30. as the Angels but here wee may not dreame of Angelicall perfection To the third I answere that our Saviour is Authour of salvation to all that obey him which is to bee understood both of the obedience of faith which is the principall for this is the worke of God by which in Christ wee fulfill the law that wee beleeve in Christ and also of our new obedience But neither of both doth argue the perfect fulfilling of the law in our owne persons This threefold cord therefore is easily dissolved § XIII His fifth reason Whosoever have the holy Spirit they fulfill the Law All that are truely justified have the holy Spirit Rom. 5. 5. 8. 15. 1 Cor. 3. 16. Gal. 3. 2. Tit. 3. 6. Therefore all that are truely justified fulfill the Law The proposition hee proveth thus Whosoever have the fruits of the Spirit Gal. 5. they fulfill the Lawe All that have the Spirit have the fruits of the Spirit Therefore all that have the Spirit fulfill the Law This second proposition hee proveth because against those who produce the fruits of the Spirit as charity joy peace c. There is no Law that is the Law hath not whereof to accuse them as the breakers thereof Therefore whosoever is justified by the helpe of the Spirit he fulfilleth the Law and if he doe not fulfill the Law then hath he not received the Spirit neither is he truely justified To the proposition of the first syllogisme I answere that those who have received the Spirit doe keepe the Law But none fulfill the Law who have not the fulnesse of the Spirit and none have the fulnesse of the Spirit in whom the flesh remaineth lusting against the Spirit In whom this conflict is as it is in the best They cannot doe the things that they would Gal. 5. 17. And much lesse can they fulfill the Law from which they are so farre as that the good things they would they doe not and the evill things which they would not they doe Rom. 7. 19. And so to the proposition of the second syllogisme that those who have the Spirit have the fruits of the Spirit but not without measure nor in full measure but according to the measure of the gift of Christ Ephes. 4. 7.
Having received but the first fruits of the Spirit Rom. 8. 23. As for his third prosyllogisme that against such there is no law the meaning is not that those which have the fruits of the Spirit doe never transgresse the law for in many things we offend all but the words are to be understood either of the fruites of the Spirit that against such there is no law but against the contrary fruites of the flesh or of the persons indued with the fruites of the Spirit and then the meaning is either as 1 Tim. 1. 9. That the law is not given to such or as Gal. 5. 18. That those who are led by the Spirit are not under the law that is they are neither under the curse not yet under the terrour and dominion of the law as if they needed thereby to bee forced to obedience but they are as it were a law unto themselves willingly performing obedience to that which the law prescribeth according to the measure of grace received not but that sometimes they faile the flesh prevailing against the Spirit Not under the curse nor subject to the accusation and condemnation of the Law because in Christ who hath freed them from the curse their sinnes are forgiven Who then shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods children seeing it is God that doth justifie who shall condemne seeing Christ who dyed for us maketh also intercession for us But this doth not prove that therefore the faithfull sinne not But this proveth that when having sinned they confesse their sinnes God is just to forgive them because wee have an Advocate with the Father Christ Iesus the righteous and hee is the propitiation for our sinnes In this forgivenesse of our sinnes and Gods acceptation of us in Christ and not in our obedience doth our justification consist But he that fulfilleth the Law needeth not remission of sinnes which all doe need And therefore desperate is Bellarmines conclusion that whosoever is justified fulfilleth the Law and whosoever doth not fulfill the Law which no man doth is not justified § XIV And such also is his last argument which may thus bee framed Whosoever sinneth not fulfilleth the Law Of every justified man it may be verified that he sinneth not Therefore every justified man fulfilleth the Law The proposition he proveth because he that sinneth not doth not transgresse the Law and he that doth not transgresse the Law doth fulfill it First I answere to the proposition and the proofe thereof that they are true if understood of continued acts as thus hee that sinneth not that is that never sinneth hee that transgresseth not the Law that is that never doth transgresse it doth fulfill it For none doe fulfill the Law but they who continue in all the things that are written in the Booke of the Law to doe them which is duely to bee marked For the Papists seeme to bee of this opinion that by any one act of obedience wherein a man sinneth not hee doth fulfill the Law And so they feare not to say that every worke of charity doth absolutely merit eternall life wherein they doe grievously erre imagining that as one act committed against charity doth absolutely deserve damnation so any one act proceeding from charity doth absolutely merit salvation But who knoweth not that the whole law of God is copulative and so to bee understood As therefore in a copulative proposition consisting of many suppose twenty parts if any one bee false though all the rest be true the whole proposition is false and to be denyed So if a man should keepe all the Commandements and transgresse any one though it were but once hee is a transgressor of the law and is as Saint Iames saith guilty of all and by the sentence of the law is subject to the curse because he hath not continued in all the things which are written in the Booke of the law to doe them Hee that would bee thought to fulfill the law must not onely abstaine from all the things forbidden but hee must also doe the things commanded hee must doe all hee must continue in doing all And thus if the proposition and the proofe thereof bee understood he that sinneth not he that transgresseth not the Law that is he that never sinneth he that never transgresseth the Law doth fulfill it are true but otherwise they are false and to be denyed § XV. I come to the assumption which Bellarmine proveth thus Whosoever is regenerate and borne of God sinneth not All that are justified are regenerate and that because no man denyethit he proveth by manifold testimonies Ioh. 1. 12 13. 3. 5. 1 Pet. 2. 1 1 Ioh. 4. 7. Rom. 8. 15. Therefore those that are justified sinne not The proposition he proveth out of 1 Ioh. 3. 9. Whosoever is borne of God sinneth not neither can he sinne because he is borne of God Yet I will not answere him as he answereth us viz. that there be five expositions of this place and never a one of them to the purpose and so dismisse it being indeed unanswerable but I answer that the Apostle doth not meane that the regenerate are ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã or doe not sinne at all for to that erroneous sense both Iouin and Pelag. did abuse that place as Bellar. here doth but his meaning may be explained out of his own words in the same Epistle for as in the fifth chapter v. 18. When he saith whosoeveris borne of God sinneth not he meaneth as appeareth by the words going before that he sinneth not unto death that is committeth not that unpardonable sin for which we are not to pray v. 16. so here when hee saith whosoever is borne of God doth not commit sin his meaning may be collected out of the next verse going before vers 8. compared with Ioh. 8. 34. he that is borne of God worketh not sinne ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã for hee that worketh sinne he that is a worker of iniquity is of the Devill as hee saith vers 8. He that worketh sinne saith our Saviour Ioh. 8. 34. is the servant of sinne and therefore in him sinne reigneth As therefore in the fifth chapter when hee saith he that is borne of God sinneth not he meaneth that he doth not so sinne as he had said vers 16. viz. unto death so here when it is said he cannot sinne his meaning is in that manner as a worker of iniquity as the child of the Devill as the servant of sinne in whom sinne reigneth And in this sense Augustine saith in quo peccatum non regnat non peccat in whom sinne reigneth not he sinneth not namely as those who in the scriptures are called sinners that is impenitent sinners servants of sinne in whom sinne reigneth workers of iniquity Luk. 13. 27. Matth. 7. 23. who shall bee condemned But although they who are borne of God are not such as the Scripture calleth sinners neither doe so sinne
causa siââ¦e qâ⦠nââ¦n For as the Apostle saith without holinesse no man shall see God Heb. 12. 14. And for this cause we seriously exhââ¦rtall men who professe themselves to beleeve and to be iustified by faith to be careful that they may be precedents of good works for these are good and profitable and necessary as I shewed before when I propounded those arguments which wee doe use to move men unto good workes So much of his first testimony § XIX To that place of Saint Iames he addeth sixe other testimonies to which a short answer will suffice To the first out of Eccles. 18. 21 I have fully answered in the first controversie 2. His second testimony is Rom. 6. 19. As you have exhibited your members to serve uncleannessâ⦠and iniquity unto iniquity so now exhibit your members to serve justice unto sanctification Where unto sanctification doth not signifie to get the first holinesse sor he speaketh to them who were holy and just but to increase sanctification But that by sanctification is meant justification and by sanctity justice it is plaine by the antithesis for he opposeth sanctification to iniquity His argument is thus framed Sanctification may and must bee increased by good workes which is proved by this text and not denyed by us Iustification is sanctification And that he proveth because what is opposed to iniquity is justification sanctification is here opposed to iniquity Therefore here sanctification signifieth justification Ans. That justification and sanctification are by no means to be confounded I proved at large in the first question for this is the source of all their errours in the doctrine of justification The Apostle doth carefully distinguish them For having in the former chapters treated of justification by faith without works that men should not abuse that doctrine to licentiousnesse of life in this and the next chapter he treateth of sanctification shewing in this chapter that sanctification is a necessary companion of justification And therefore exhorteth those that are justifiâ⦠to the dueties of sanctification The abuse he preventeth vers 1. and 15. for wheras he had taught in the doctrine of justification that where sinne abounded grace did superabound he maketh this objection what then shall we continue in sinne that grace may abound God forbid So againe by Iustification we are freed from the curse of the Law and from the rigour and terrour or dominion it what then shall we sin because wee are not under the Law but under Grace God forbid The unseparable conjunction of these two benefits is shewed by the Sacrament of Baptisme for as it is a seale of that righteousnesse which is by faith unto us being baptized into the remission of sins so it is the laver of regeneration wherin as the Apostle saith we are baptized into Christs death and resurrection that as he dyed so we should dye unto sin and as he rose againe never to dye any more so wee should arise from the grave of sinne never to dye any more for how should they that are dead to sinne live any more therein And hereupon followeth his exhortation that we should not let sinne reigne in us nor give our members as instruments of unrighteousnes unto sin c. And as he doth dehort us from suffering sinne to relgne in us so he assureth the faithfull that sinne shall no more haue dominion over them because they are not under the Law but under grace and having prevented the abuse of that doctrine vers 15. he reneweth both his dehortation from suffering sinne to reigne in them because if it did reigne in them they must needes be the servants of it when as in their redemption they were freed from the bondage of sinne that they might become the servants of righteousnesse and also his exhortation vers 19. that they would yeeld their members as seruants to holinesse c. To his reason that by sanctification here is meant justification because it is opposed to iniquity I answere that both justification and sanctification are opposed to sinne and iniquity but with this difference In sin there are two things the guilt and the corruption or pollution By justification which is opposed to accusing and condemning Rom. 8. 33. wee are freed from the guilt of sin and damnation by our sanctification which is opposed to pollution wee are freed in some measure from the corruption that it is to say from the dominion of sinne § XX. His third testimony is 2 Cor. 7. 1. where the Apostle exhorteth that having these promises of our justification and adoption chap. 6. 16 28 wee should cleanse our selves from all pollution of the flesh and spirit perfecting or accomplishing our sanctification in the feare of God The Apostle doth not exhort us unto justification for that is never done in all the Scriptures but being justified and adopted wee are exhorted with our justification and adoption to joyne the dueties of sanctification and therein to grow and increase untill wee come to a perfect man in Christ. § XXI His fourth testimony 2 Cor. 9. 10. he will multiply your seed and will augment the increases of the fruits of our justice Where we are taught saith he that by almââ¦s-giving our wealth is diminished but our jââ¦stice is increased Answ. We answere that by the Christian practice of vertues our justice but not our justification is increased Howbeit the Apostle doth not speake of justice it selfe to be increased but of the fruites of justice by justice in this place meaning as vers 9. and Matth. 6. 1. liberalitie in almes-giving and by the fruites of righteousnesse almes Unto which that they might bee more and more enabled the Apostle prayeth that their seed may be multiplyed meaning thereby their store which in the faithfull is as it were the seed of almes that having alwayes all sufficiency in all things they might abound to every good worke being enriched in every thing to all bountifulnesse veââ¦s 8 11. so farre is the Apostle from signifying that by their almes-giving their wealth should be diminished § XXII His fifth testimony Ioh. 14. 23. If any love me hee will keepe my word and my Father will love him This new living after the fulfilling of the Commandements what is it sath he but the increase of love and thereby of righteousnesse which by observing the Law of God is required Answ. Wee confessè that by the observance of the Law of God our love of God is exercised and our righteousnesse increased though it be not proved out of this place For this love after the keeping of Christs word here mentioned is Gods love to us not ours to him § XXIII His sixth testimony is Apoc. 22. 11. hee that is just let him be justified yet Answ. The word yet or still doth not signifie increase but continuance or if increase were meant it could not bee understood of the righteousnesse of justification but of
eternall life is not a stipend or wages merited by us but ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the free gift of God which is a most pregnant place for if the Apostle had supposed eternall life to be a stipend or wages or merited reward he would have said that as death is the stipend of sinne so eternall life is the stipend of righteousnesse But the Apostle making an opposition between the reward of sinne and the reward of righteousnesse saith that the one is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã a military stipend due to those who serve under Satans colours the other is not a stipend or wages deserved but ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the free gift of God ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã signifieth a military stipend or wages due to souldiers As when Iohn Baptist biddeth the souldiers to bee content ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã with their stipend Luke 3. 14. So 1 Cor. 9. 7. For as Augustine saith Quod est merces operanti hoc militanti stipendium and worthily saith hee is death called a Stipendium Quia militiae diabolicae mors aeterna tanquam debitum redditur The word ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã which the vulgar Latine translateth Gratia signifieth a free gift not rendred as due to the merit of the receiver but vouchsafed freely out of the free bounty and undeserved favour of the giver For as Primasius saith Non est gratia si non gratis datur si debita merentibus redditur quod absit And Augustine Non erit Dei gratia ullo modo nisi gratuita fuerit omni modo wherefore it is called Gratia that we may understand it is of grace and not not of merits The Verbe ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã whence it is derived signifieth freely to bestow to gratifie or graciously to give And therefore is eternall life called ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã because God ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã doth freely bestow it The Argument standeth thus A free gift which is opposed to stipend or wages is not merited by us Eternall life is the free gift of God and is opposed to stipend or wages therefore it is not merited by us § XIV Bellarmine answereth that Augustine hath diligently answered this argument Epist. 105. Enchirid. ââ¦ap 107. But chiefly In libro de gratia lib. arb cap. 8. 9. From whence hee gathereth two Assertions First That the Apostle might well have said eternall life is the stipend of righteousnesse even as he said The stipend of sinne is death which confession of Augustine cutteth the thrââ¦at hee saith of our Assertion Sââ¦condly That the Apostle did not say Eternall life is the stipend of righteousnesse as he said Death is the stipend of sinne least any man should thinke that we so have righteousnesse of ourselves as we have sinne of our selves therefore eternall life is called grace not because it is not the reward of merit but that we have the merits themselves from grace To the former I reply that when Augustine saith that eternall life might well be called a stipend which hee maketh to bee all one with merces hee meaneth a stipend or reward freely given as if there were stipendium gratââ¦itum as well as merces gratuita And that this was his meaning I demonstrate out of the same places which Bellarmine doth quote and first out of Epist. 105. Debita redditur pââ¦na demnato indebita gratia liberato ââ¦t nec ille se indignum queratur nââ¦c dignum se iste glorietur Si antem gratia atque null is meritis reddits sed gratuita bââ¦nitate donata ipsa aterna vita gratia nuncupatur nââ¦n ob aliââ¦d nisi quia gratis datur Secondly Enchirid. cap. 107. Ipsam vitam aeternam quae certa merces est operum bonorum gratiam Dei appellat Apostolus stipendium enim inquit pââ¦ccatimors gratia autem Dei vita aeterna in Christo Iesu Dominâ⦠nââ¦stro stipendium pro opere militiae debitum redditur non donatur Idââ¦Ã² dixit stipendium peccatimors ut mortem peccato non immeritò illatam sed debitam demonstraret Gratia verò nisi gratis sit gratia non est Thirdly Praefat. in Psal. 31. Merces nostra gratia vocatur figratiâ⦠est gratis datur quid est gratis datur Gratis cââ¦nstat Si reddatur tibi quod debetur puniendus es quid ergò fit Non tibi Deus rââ¦ddit debitam poenam sed donat indebitam gratiam Fourthly Degratia lib. arbitr cap. 9. Cum Apostolus prius dixisset stipendium peccatimââ¦rs meritâ⦠inquit stipendium quia militiae diabolicae mors aeterna tanquam debitum redditur Vbi cum posset dicere rectè dicere stipendium autem justitiae vita aeterna maluit dicere Gratia autem Dei vita aeternâ⦠ut hinc intelligamus non meritis nostris Deum nos ad aeternam vitam sed pro sua miseratione perducere Whereby it appeareth that although hee saith that eternall life may bee called a stipend yet hee meaneth not a stipend or wages deserved or merited by us but a reward freely given us of God § XV. And as the former Assertion maketh not against us so the later maketh wholly for us against both the Pelagians and the Papists The Pelagians held that their good workes were done not by the helpe of grace but by the strength of their owne free will and so in that respect a reward was due unto them whereas they who bring forth good workes ex donâ⦠gratiae had neither commendation nor merit Against them Augustine in many places disputeth proving that eternall life which is the reward of our good workes is called by the Apostle Gratia not onely because it selfe is freely given but also because the good workes whereof it is the reward are to be ascribed to Gods grace And that therefore the Lord when he rewardeth the godly life of the faithfull with eternall life hee giveth them gratiam progratia and that when he rewardeth our merits thereby meaning our good workes hee doth crowne not our merits but his owne graces Thus hee writeth Epist. 105. Omne meritum nostrum non in nobis facit nisi gratia cum Deus cââ¦ronat meritâ⦠nââ¦stra nihil aliud ãâã quà m munerâ⦠suâ⦠Sicââ¦t enim ab initio fidei misericordiam consecuti sumus non quia fideles eramus sed ut esseââ¦us sic in finâ⦠quod erit in vita aeterna cââ¦ronabit nos sicut scriptum est in miseratione misericordia Vndè ipsa vita aeterna quâ⦠utique in fine sine fine habebitur ideò merit is praecedentibus redditur tamen quiâ⦠eadem merita quibus redditur non à nobis parata sunt per nââ¦stram sufficientiam sed in nobis facta per gratiââ¦m etiam ipsa grââ¦tia nuncupatur Non ob aliud niââ¦i quia gratis datur nec ideò quiâ⦠meritis non datur sed quia data sunt ipsa merita quibus datur Stipendium peccati mors rectè stipendium
quia debetur quia dignè retribuitur quia meritâ⦠redditur Deinde ne justitiâ⦠de humanose extolleret ãâã sicut humanum meritum malum non dubitatur esse peccatum non à contraâ⦠retulit dicens ââ¦ipendium justitiae vita ââ¦terna haec ne praeter Mediatorem aliqua alia via quaereretur adjecit in Christo Iesu Domino nostro tanquam diceret Auditâ⦠quod stipââ¦ndium peccaââ¦i sit mors quid te disponis extollere O humana non justitia sed nomine justitiae planè superbiâ⦠quid te disponis extollere ac contrariam morti vitam aeternam tanquam dââ¦bitum stipendium flagitare Quaprââ¦pter O homo si accepturus es vitam aeternam justitiae quidem stipendium est sed tibi gratia est cui gratia ipsa justitia Tibi enim tanquam dââ¦bita reddereââ¦ur si ex tetibi esset justitiâ⦠cui debetââ¦r Nunc igitur de plenitudine ejus accepimus non sââ¦lum gratiam qua nunc justè in laboribus usque in finem vivimus sed etiam gratiam pro hac gratia ut in requie postea sine fine vivamus Intelligendum est igitur etiam ipsa hominis bââ¦na merita esse Dei munera quibus cum vita aeternae redditur Quid ââ¦isi gratia pro gratia redditur Vita bona nostra nihil aliud est quam Dei gratia sine dubiâ⦠vita eteÅna quae bonae vitae reà ditur Dei gratia est Et ipsa enim gratis datur quia gratis data est illa cââ¦i datur Sed illa cui datur tantummodâ⦠gratia est haec autem quae illi datur quââ¦niam praemium ejus est grââ¦tia est prââ¦gratia tanquam merces pro justiââ¦ia That which Augustine speaketh of the grace of justification is true of all grace Quomodâ⦠est gratia si ex debito redditur How is it grace if it be rendred of duety § XI The Papists when thââ¦y are pressed with the authority of Saint Augustine would seeme to differ much from the Pelagians but it is more in shew than in trueth For they doe hold the merit of congruity and that grace is given to men according to their owne preparations and dispositions and that the efficacy of grace when it is offered is so to bee ascribed to our owne free will as that it is in our owne power either to accept or reject it For this Alphonsus a Castro setteh downe as a Catholike Assertion that when God hath stirred up our will to that which is good it is in the power of mans will either to assent to Gods monition or to dissent Ex hââ¦c autem quââ¦d nos monitioni illius consentimus qui tamen dissentire pââ¦teramus debetur nobis merces precium inde meritum nostrum And so our Rhemists that those whom God pardoneth worke by their owne free will and thereby deserve their owne salvation If therefore the grace of righteousnesse or the grace of glory be deserved by us both which the Papists teach the former by merit of congruity the latter by merit of condignity then contrary to Augustines Assertion neither the one nor the other is to bee called grace For that hee denieth to bee truely called grace which is not omni ââ¦odo gratuita So much concerning Augustines exposition now let us search the judgements of some others of the Fathers § XVII Tertullian interpreteth this Text thus Stipendiâ⦠delinquentiae mââ¦rs Donativum autem Dei vita aeterna in Christâ⦠Iesu Domino nostro Origen Benè autem Metaphââ¦ram i. Figuram militiae ex initio propositam servat ut militantibus sub peccati rege Stipendia debita mortem dicat exolvi Deum verò non erat dignum militibus suis stipendia tanquam aliquod debitum dare sed donum gratiam quae est vita aeterna in Christo Iesu Domino nostro The same hath Sedulius Hierome Stipendia peccati mors qui peccato militat remunerationem accipit mortem Gratia autem Dei vita aeterna non dixit similiter stipendia justitiae Nââ¦n enim nostro labore quaesita est sed Dei munere condonata Chrysostome the Apostle having spoken of the wages of sinne concerning the good he doth not observe the same order for hee did not say ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the wages of your good deeds but the free gift of God shewing that they were not delivered of themselves nor received ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã a due debt nor retribution or remuneration of their labours but that all things came to them by grace Theodoret worthily he called death ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã a military stipend but here saith hee upon those words Gratia autem Dei he doth not say wages but grace for eternall life is the gift of God For although a man should performe very great and absolute righteousnesse yet temporall labours are not equivalent to eternall blessings Phoââ¦ius ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã He said not the wages of your good workes but the free gift of God Theophylact Sinne to its servants for a reward of their service rendreth death but that which is to come from God hee calleth grace and not reward as if hee should say for you receive not the wages of your labours but by grace all these things happen to you in Christ who worketh these things Haymo What is it that speaking of the reward of sinne ââ¦e calleth it stipend but of the remuneration of the Elect he calleth it the grace of God For they that goe to warfare receive their owne wages but whatsoever the Elect have they receive it wholly from the grace of God whether they have faith or charity or any good worke and moreover for this grace of faith and good workes gratis accipiunt they freely receive eternall life c. And the same hath Rhemigius And to these you may adde two famous Cardinals the one Cajetan hee doth not say that the stipend of righteousnesse is eternall life but the gift of God is eternall life that we may understand that not by our merits but by the free gift of God we attaine to eternall life for the end The other Contarenus it is here to bee noted saith hee that the Apostle signifieth that death is due to sinne in justice for so much the name Stipend doth import but that eternall life is of the free gift of God § XIII Our fifth Testimony is Rom. 8. 18. which our Rhemists according to the vulgar Latine read thus For I thinke that the passions of this time are not condigne to the glory to come that shall be revealed in us which words so translated non condignae or as Ambrose and Augustine in many places read indignâ⦠are a direct contradiction to the merit of condignity Neither ought they to cavill at our former translations which reade they are not worthy For what is their non
purpose to give us wherewith to merit then would he have infused most perfect righteousnesse into us which should not have beene stained with any sinfulnesse neither should need remission or indulgence But we are so farre from having this power to merit heaven that the best of us had need to pray with David as being not more just than he Enter not into judgement with thy servants O Lord c. for if thou shouldest marke what is amisse who should stand and with the Apostles as being not more holy than they forgive us our trespasses c. our chiefe righteousnesse in this life consisting as Augustine truely saith in remission of sinnes rather than in perfection of virtues Now whiles we are sinners in our selves as all are wee cannot merit any thing but punishment at the hands of God and whiles wee deserve hell how can we possibly merit heaven § X. These were the arguments which Bellarmine tooke upon him to answere but could not satisfie Now wee are to adde some others Our third reason therefore is this If we cannot merit so much as temporall blessings at the hands of God then much lesse eternall But wee cannot merit so much as temporall blessings at Gods hands and therfore much lesse eternall 1. The assumption I prove thus first by the confession of Iacob Gen. 32. 10. that he was lesse than the least of Gods mercies Of David concerning mankinde in generall Psal. 8. 4. and concerning himselfe in particular 2 Sam. 7. 18. Secondly if by all our labours and endevours wee are not able to merit of God so mââ¦ch as a piece of bread but must beg it at Gods hands then can wee not merit eternall life of him But the former is true for therefore our Saviour hath taught us to make this daily praier that God would give us day by day our daily bread To this purpose Saint Hierome saith well that a man could not suffer any thing worthy the heavenly glory though it were such as this present life is But Chrysââ¦stome goeth further if we should dye ten thousand times c. as he was before Anastasius for what good things soever we doe we are not answerable to God ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã for the aire alone which we breathe Basill Those which are esteemed retributions are granted to men onely for the Lords bounty sake for all the righteousnesse of mortall men doe not match the gifts already vouchfafed much lesse those which are to come which exceed our thought But most agreeable to our doctrine is that assertion of Gregââ¦rius Ariminensis quòd ââ¦dum aeââ¦erna vita c. that no act of man though proceeding from never so great charity doth condignely merit with God not onely eternall life but not so much as any other reward whether eternall or temporall § XI Our fourth reason That which we attaine unto by right of adoption as our inheritance purchased by Christ and prepared for us from the beginning of the world without any respect to our merits that we doe not obtaine by our merits Vnto eternall life we doe attaine by right of adoption as our inheritance purchased by Christ and prepared for us from the beginning of the world and that without any respect of our merits Therefore we doe not attaine to eternall life by our merits The assumption is manifest for therefore in many places of Scripture the Kingdome of heaven is called our inheritance Act. 20. 32. 26. 18. Gal. 3. 18. Ephes. 1. 14. 18. 5. 5. Col. 3. 24. and that an eternall and incorruptible inheritance Heb. 9. 15. 1 Pet. 1. 4. And of this kingdome the faithfull are heires Iam. â⦠5. For therefore are we adopted the sons of God that we may be heires heires of God and fellow heires of Christ Rom. 8. 17. Gal. 4. 7. and to the same end are we justified by his grace that we might according to hope bee made heires of eternall life Tit. 3. 7. Bellarmine himselfe hath taught as we have heard that we are entituled to the Kingdome of heaven jure adoptionis And in that we begin to be the sons of God wee begin ââ¦o have right to the inheritance of the eternall ââ¦elicity now we begin to be the sonnes of God before wee begin to bring forth good workes And hereby appeareth the truth of the proposition for we have our right of adoption not by merit but by the free grace of God who hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Iesus Christ to himselfe according to the good pleasure of his will to the praise of the glory of his grace wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved And this inheritance was prepared for us from the beginning of the world Mat. 25 34. If it be objected that as it is called an inheritance so also a reward and reward presupposeth merit for so the Councill of Trent teacheth that eternall life is to be propounded to the godly both as grace that is a free gift promised by Christ and as a reward duely to be rendred to their merits according to Gods promise I answere that eternall life is no such reward as presupposeth merit for it is a free reward freely promised freely given Neither can those things stand together which the Councill of Trent hath conjoyned that eternall life should both bee gratia a free gift graciously promised and freely bestowed and also a due wages to be rendred to desert neither if it be the reward of inheritance as it is called Col. 3. 24. which is freely bestowed on the sonnes of God it cannot be a mercenary wages which is due to hired servants § XII Our fifth reason If good workes doâ⦠merit eternall life then are they causes of it for merits be the causes of that which is merited But good workes are not the cause of eternall life therefore they doe not merit it The assumption I prove first from that received testimony of Bernard that good workes are via regni non causa regnandi Quid autem hac conclusione firmius saith Cassander who also saith that Thomas Bradwardin and divers other Schoolemen deny good workes to bee the cause of the eternall reward and that some who call them causes doe meane Causam sine qua non which properly is no cause Secondly true causes of salvation may bee trusted in for the obtaining of salvation Our good workes are not to be trusted in for the obtaining of salvation Therefore they are not true causes thereof The proposition is Bellarmines Licet confidere in omni vera causa The assumption also in effect is his For if it be most safe as he truly saith by reason of the uncertainty of our owne righteousnesse which none of them can be certaine of without speciall revelation and danger of vaine glory not to trust in our owne merits but to repose ââ¦ur whole affiance in the only mercy and
are indeed two principall arguments which he bringeth to prove the merit of good workes which it shall suffice to answere in their due place For I doe not thinke them worthy of double paines Only for the present I answer to the first that where is speech of our dignity it is to bee ascribed to Gods dignation as Bernard well saith Digni nos sumus sedipsius dignatione non dignitate nostra wee are worthy but by his dignation or deigning to accept of us as worthy not by our own worthines secondly the words dignus and dignè sometimes do signifie not the equality of worth but that which is convenient meet or becomming as ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Col. 1. 10. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã 1 Thess. 2. 12. 3 Ioh. 6. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Eph. 4. 1. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Phil. 1. 27. To the second thatthere are rewards free liberal and undeserved as wel as those which be mercenary and deserved and therfore the name of reward doth not alwaies presuppose merit or desert To which purpose let the reader compare these paralell places Mat. 5. 46. Luk. 6. 32. where the words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã and ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã are used in the selfe same sense For if you love those that love you what reward have you quam mercedem habetis saith Matthew quae vobis est gratia saith Luke what thankes have you in the one is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã in the other ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã Thus much of the name § IV. For the thing Bellarmine bringeth three sorts of proofes Authority of Scripture Testimonies of Fathers and reason The authorityes of Scripture he reduceth to seven heads The first is of those places whââ¦re eternall life is called merces reward His reason is thus framed If eternall life be the reward of good workes then good workes doe merit it but the former is true viz. that eternall life is the reward good workes therefore the latter viz. that good workes doe merit eternall life Answ. The proposition he taketh for granted all his proofe in this place being that sine dubitatione without doubt it is true But in his second Chapter he proved it by this which goeth for a maxiââ¦e among them that merces and meritum are relatives But I answere by distinction That merces reward is of two sorts It is either debita due as justly deserved or gratââ¦ita as freely bestowed and without desert as Ambrose also distinguisheth Alia est merces saith hee liberalitatis gratia aliud virtutis stipendium laboris remââ¦neratio which distinction is insiunated by the Apostle Rom. 4. 4. for reward is either imputed ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã according to grace as the inheritance of an adopted sonne or rendred ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã according to debt or duty as the hire or wages of an hired servant or labourer who is worthy of his hire And is acknowledged by Bellarmine For when the Apostle saith to him that worketh the reward is not imputed according to grace but according to debt satis aperitè indicat esse quandam mercedem qua imputari possit secundum gratiam non secundum debitum he doth plainely enough shew that there is a certaine reward which may bee imputed according to grace not according to debt Merces noftra saith Augustine gratia vocatur Si gratia est gratis datur Our reward is called gratia so the Latine translateth ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã if it be grace it is freely given And againe God hath sent a Physitian hee hath sent a Saviour hee hath sent him who should heale freely that is but little that hee should heale freely who should also give reward to them that are healed Nothing can be added to this benevolence Who is he that will say let me heale thee and I give thee a reward Of this free reward wee have examples and Testimonies in the holy Scriptures as first that which Bellarmine in the first place citeth very impertinently to prove the name merit Gen 15. 1. where the Lord saith to Abraham I am thy shield and thy exceeding great reward Psalm 127. 3. heritage and reward used promiscuously Children are an heritage from the Lord and the fruit of the wombe is his reward And so merces and gratia as was noted before out of Matth. 5. 46. and Luk. 6. 30. Such a reward is our inheritance in heaven which is therefore called the reward of inheritance Col. 3. 24. And this most plainely appeareth in the antithesis which the Apostle maketh betweene the reward of sinne and the reward of piety The wages of sinne is death but eternall life is ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã the free gift of GOD in IESVS CHRIST our LORD Rom. 6. 23. But of this place we have spoken in our fourth Testimonie whereby it appeareth that howsoever merces debita that is wages and meriââ¦um are relatives yet merit and the reward of eternall life or any other free reward are not relatives Among men wages hath place because the labourer deserveth it and he that hireth him is benefited by the labour and there is ordinarily a due proportion betweene the labour and the wages But with God it is otherwise we can deserve nothing of him neither is hee benefited by our labours neither is there any proportion betweene our workes and the reward of eternall life The proposition therefore though by him taken for granted is by us to be denyed § V. The assumption that eternall life is the reward of good workes wee freely confesse so it bee understood of a free reward which as it was graciously promised so it is freely and undeservedly given Bellarmine therefore should have proved that eternall life is a mercenary and on our part a deserved reward But of all the places which he quoteth both in the second and third Chapters where the word merââ¦es is used not one doth prove eternall life to bee a deserved reward or imply the merit of condignity As Genes 15. 1. I am thy shield and thy exceeding great reward 2 Chron. 15. 7. Your worke shall be rewarded Prov. 11. 18. To him that soweââ¦h righteousnesse there shall bee a sure reward For as Hos. 10. 12. Hee that soweth in righteousnesse shall reape in mercie Wisd. 5. 16. The righteous shall live for ever and their reward is with the Lord Eccl. 18. 22. The reward of the Lord abideth for ever Esai 40. 10. Behold the Lord will come and his reward with him so Apoâ⦠22. 12. Matth. 5. 12. great is your reward in heaven 1 Cor. 3. 8. Every one shall recive his owne reward according to his owne labour § VI. Onely there may bee question of that place Matth. 20. 8. Call the labourers and give them their wages which Bellarminâ⦠citeth in the third Chapter and afterwards urgeth both in the same Chapter and in the seventeenth and also nineteenth And for
a harsh speech that God should bee said to bee a debtour to any crââ¦ature yet as Augustine saith hee may bee said to be a debtour as hee is a promiser and because it is a just thing to keepe promise hee may be said to owe the performance of that which hee hath promised But as his promise was not de debito but de gratuitâ⦠so what hee freely promised he freely giveth 7. Out of Augustine he citeth three testimonies two out of his Epistle to Sixtus out of which Epistle I have before produced divers pregnant testimonies against merits so properlycalled His first allegation is this nullane sunt merita justorââ¦m sunt planè quia ââ¦usti sunt sed ut justi fierent merita non fuerunt In which testimony there is nothing for the merit of condignity but onely the name of merit which notwithstanding ââ¦ignifieth nothing but the good workes of the just which God will reward As if hee had said have the just no good workes which God will reward They have no doubt because they are just For as Saint Iohn saith he thââ¦t worketh righteousnesse is righteous 1 Iââ¦h 3. 7. But as the former words doe not prove the merit of condignity so the later words plainely disprove merits of congruity that they might become righteous saith hee they had no merits for as in the same Epistle Augustine teacheth against bothsorts of merits Sicut ab initio fidei misericordiam consequuti sumus non quia fideles eramus sed ut essemus sic in fine quod eââ¦it in vita aeterna coronabit nos sicut scriptum est in miseratione misericââ¦rdia Secondly as touching the other Augustine indeed saith that as the Apostle calleth death the stipend of sinne so he might truly have called eternall life the stipend of righteousnesse But yet hee could not say that it was debitum stipendium Because the Apostle by way of opposition saith that death is the stipend meaning the due and deserved stipend of sinne but eternall life is the free gift of God Nay he saith the contrary that it is not to be demanded tanquam debitum stipendium And elsewhere as we heard before though the Apostle might have said that eternall life is the stipend of righteousnesse yet he would rather say that it is the grace of God that hereby we might understand that God doth not bring us to eternall life by our merits but by his mercie And in the same hundred and fifth Epistle The stipend of sinne is death and worthily it is called a stipend because it is due c. Deinde ne justitia de humano se extolleret bono sicut humanum meritum malum non dubitatur esse peccatum non à contrario retulit dicens stipendium justitiâ⦠vita aeterna sed gratia inquit Dei vita aeterna tanquam diceret audito quòd stipendium peccati est mors quid te disponis extollere contrariam mââ¦rti vitam aeternam tanquam debitum stipendium flagitare But of this point I have spoken more than sufficiently when I urged our fourth testimony out of Rom. 6. 23. But the third testimony Bellarmine chiefly urgeth Vita aeterna est tââ¦tum praemium cujus promissione gaudemus Eternall life is the whole reward in the promise whereof we doe rejoyce nor can this reward come before merits be had neither may it be given to a man before he be worthy For what more unjust than this and what more just than God We must not therefore demand the reward before wee merit to receive it Answ. Augustine as himselfe testifieth wrote this booke when he was newly baptised and as yet not accustomed or well versed in the Scriptures and therefore if he should have written any thing therein contrary to that which I have heretofore proved out of him it ought not to prejudge those manifold pregnant Testimonies by mee cited before which he wrought when he was of more mature judgement and of riper yeares Notwithstanding out of this testimony such as it is Bellarminâ⦠collecteth five conclusions against us First that a man he meaneth ââ¦o doubt a righteous man hath the merits of eternall life that is as Bellarmine acknowledgeth Augustine to use the terme that he hath good workes which God will reward with eternall life and that we confesse Secondly that eternall life is one and all our reward But Augustine doth not say unââ¦m neither is it true For temporall Blessings are also rewards though but petty rewards in comparison of eternall life neither doth he say simply totum but tââ¦tum cujus promissione gaudemus For temporall benefits we are to use but not to set our hearts upon them but spirituall blessings are those wherein we are to rejoyce them we use these we are to enjoy for those are utenda but these are sruenda Thirdly that the reward of eternall life is given in justice that we should not say that it is given of meere liberality But Augustine every where else teacheth that it is given of grace and that it is called grace non ob aliud nisi quia gratis datur for no other cause but because it is freââ¦ly given and that it is not grace si non sit omni modo gratuita Neither doth it hinder it to be of Gods free grace that it is given in justice For these two in the workes of God especially in the worke of justification and salvation doe meet together Grace and mercie in respect of us in that he doth justifie and save us gratis by his grace justice not in respect of our merits which in justice can merit nothing at the hands of God but punishment but partly in reââ¦pect of Christs merits unto which eternall life is due and partly in respect of his promise made in Christ to all that truely beleeve which promise he is faithfull and just to performe Fourthly that the reward is not given before they be found worthy of it that shall have it lest wee should fay there is no dignity in workes I answere that our dignity standeth in Gods dignation or acceptation in Christ which dignity he vouchsafeth to all that truely beleeve in Christ. For to them Christ is the end and complement of the Law insomuch that whosoever beleeve in Christ they are esteemed to have fulfilled the Law Wee acknowledge the dignitie of good workes as being the fruits of the Spirit and as being good profitable and necessary but no dignity of merit doe we ascribe to them And yet the faithfull are not therefore unworthy nor destitute of merits so long as they are accepted in Christ and made partakers of his merits by faith Unto which faith Augustine useth to ascribe merit For indeed faith is that worke of God which hee requireth instead of all our merits because by it wee are partakers of the merits of Christ which whosoever hath is not without merits nor unworthy of the Kingdome
Lib. 7. cap. 4. §. 11. q Lib. 8. c. 2. §. 18 c. His eighth testimony Rom. 10. 0. His ninth testimony Mat. 25 34 35. r Supr Cap 4. §. 12. His tenth testimony Iam. 1. 25. 2. 14. The Epistles by him vouched s Rom. 6. Tit. 3. 8. 14. Heb. 1â⦠14. Testimonies of Fathers De justif l. 4. c. 8. t See Lib. 6. c. 9. u Lib. 7. cap. 1. His reason De justif l 4 c. 9. * De justif l. 1. cap. 13. x De justif l. 1. c. 18. Bellarmiues reasons that faith doth not save alone y Iam. 214. z Iam. 2. 26. Bellarmine his unlike likenesses a Lib. 6. Cap. 2. 3. De justif lib. 4. cap. 10. Of the truth of the justice of good workes not denyed by us a Iam. 3. 2. b Iam. 2. 10. Bellarmines dispute is indeed defensive Whether the faithfull doe or can fulfill the Law c De peccator meritis remiss l. 2. c. 6. 7. d Rom. 10. 4. e in Rom. 10. f Apud Oecum in Rom. 10. g in Rom. 2. 13. h Retract Lib. i. cap. 13. i Ephes. 4. 7. 2 Cor. 8. 12. l Qui legem implet observat totus totam per totam vitam That the Law is possible Bel larmine proveth by ãâã Matth. 11. 30. m Gal. 5. 1. n Ioh. 3. 4 5. o Ioh. 6. 40. Christs yoke easie in respect of our new obedience p Apoc. 8. 4. q Exod. 28. ââ¦6 38. Bellarmines dilemma The obedience of the crosse is also the yoke of Christ. r Psal. 94 12. s Heb. 5. 8. t Psal. 119. 71. u Vers. 67. * 2 Cor. 4. 17. x Rom. 8. 18. y Heb. 12. 2 z Iam. 1. 2 12. a 1 Pet. 1. 8. 4. 13. p Psal. 94. 19â⦠His second place 1 Ioh. 5. 3. c Gen. 29. 20. d Lib. de perfectione justitiae e Rom. 5. 5. f Psal. 119. 3â⦠His second rank of testimonies Bellarmines reply g Psal. 19. 7. h De perfect justif ad 15. i Epist. 29. His second reply k De spiritu litera cap. 36. l Covenant of grace cââ¦ap 10. His third reply m Vers. 21. n Psal. 25. 7. 11. 38. 4 18. Psal. 51. 5 119. 17â⦠o Psal. 143. 2. 130. 3 4. p Psal. 32. 1. Rom. 4. 6. q 2 King 23. 25. r 2 Chro. 15. 15. s 2 Chro. 15. 17. t 2 Chro. 16. 7 10 12. u Iosh. 11. 14 15. * Deut. 7. 2. x Luk. 1 6. y Luk. 1. ââ¦0 62. z Luk. 12. 4. Ioh. 15. 15. Joh. 17. 6. a Rom. 7. 7 8. Whether concupiscence in the Apostle were a sinne b Rom. 7. ââ¦4 25. c Rom. 7. 23. d Mat. 5. 28. e Retract l. 1. cap. 19. Bellarmines instance that the godly before mentioned absolutely fulfilled the Law and were perfect f Gen. 17. 1. What is meant by a perfect heart What is meant by whole heart g De justif l. 4. cap. 12. His testimonies out of the Fathers g Contr. Iulian Pelag. lib. 1. c. 2. The difference betweene the Pelagianâ⦠and Papists not great * §. 20. h In Ios. hââ¦mil 9. in sin in c. 8. 35. i Mat 19. 21. k Cont. Iulian. lib. 3. To the rest of Fathers l Hier. adv Pelag. l. 3. Aug. de Nat. gr cap. 43. De Grat. lib. arb cap. 6. m Rom. 8. 7. n Hypognost l. 3. o De Nat. gra cap. 48. p Lib. 2. dist 25. F. G. Answ. to those testimonies which affirme that men may fulfill the law if they will q De pecââ¦at merit remiss Cap. 14. That the fathers did not meane that the Law is absolutely poââ¦ible r Contr. 2. Epist. Pelag. lib. 3. c. 7 s Retract l. c. 19. t De ãâã Dei l. ââ¦9 c 27 u Contr. 2 Episââ¦olas Pelag. lib. 3. cap. 7. Bââ¦llarminesââ¦paradox ââ¦paradox that a man may fulfill the Law though he cannot live without sinne * 1 Ioâ⦠3. 4. x 1 Ioh. 1. 7 8. Tit. 2. 14. y De justiâ⦠l. 4. c. 14. ad 4. z Deut. 5. 32. 28. 14. Testimonyes of the Fathers that the law is not possible to be fulfilled of us a Lib. 4 cap. 5. §. 5. c. b Dialog cum ãâã pag. 98. c Demonstr Evang. l. 1. d In Gal. 3. e In Rom. 10. 4. hom 17. f In vers 5. g In Gal 3. h Lib. 2. in Gal. 3. 10. i Ad Ctesiphââ¦nt advers Pelag. 254. k Ibid. 255. l Ibid. 256. m Contr. Pelag. lib 1. 264. inâ⦠llud Mââ¦t 19. si vis esse perse cius n Ibib. 265. o Lib. 2. advers Peââ¦ag 283. p Ibid. 284. f. q Lib. 3. 298. r In Psal. 67. s De spiritu litera c. 36. t Ibid. u Contr. 2. epistolas Pelag. lib. 3. cap. 7. * 2 Cor. 4. 16. x De peccat merit remiss l. 2. c. 7. y De temp serm 45. z Epist. 29. a In Rom. 10. b In Gal. 3. c In Cantic serm 50. d In vigil Nativit Dei serm 2. e Thâ⦠Aqui. in Gal. 3. f Exercit. l. 10. serm in parasceue pag. 664. g Sess. 6. can 18. De justif l. â⦠cap. 13. Reason 1. because a man may doe more than is commanded a Mat. 19. 21. b De panit hom 8. c De verbis Apestoli serm 18. d Deut. 4. 2 12. 32. Prov. 30. 6. e Apââ¦c 22. 18. f Matth. 15. 6. Whether in any morall duety more can be well performed than is commanded His first proofâ⦠Matth. 16. 21. g Matth. 5 20. h Matth. 19 24. Counsell of voluntary poverty i Matth. 6. 11 Luk. 11. 3. k Ephes. 4. 28. l Matth. 15. 4 5 6. Mark 7. 10 11 12 13. m Non facias tibi n Cor 2. 22 23. Of the ââ¦ounsell and vow of single life o Rom. 7. 14. p Matth. 5. 28. q 1 Thes. 4. 3 4 5. r Caââ¦titas ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã s 1 Cor. 7. 2. t 1 Pet. 2. 11. The vowed single life among the Papists a sinfull state His sââ¦cond reason if the precepts were not possible they would binde no man Bellarmines objectioââ¦s that a man doth not sinne in that which he cannot avoid His third reason God should be more cruell and more foolish than any tyrant c. u De iustif l 4. c 4. §. Sextum discrimen * De perfectione justitiâ⦠970. x InCantic serm 50. y Rom. 3. 19. 20. z Tâ⦠3. 5. His fourth reason collected out of three testimonies The 1. place Rom. 8. 4. a Rom. 8. The text Rom. 8. expounded b Oecum in Rom. 8. ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã c Homil. 13. in Rom. 8. 34. d In Rom. 8. 4. e In locum f In Rom. 10. Hom. 17. g In locum h In locum i Rââ¦tract Lib. â⦠cap. 19. Answ. To his second and third testimonies Mat. 6. 10. k Heb. 5. 9. l Ioâ⦠6. 29. His fifth reason m Gal. 5. 23. n Iam. 3. 2. o Rom. 8. 33 34. His sixth reason because the
according to charity sanctified from the corruption of sinne and justified from the guilt of the same therefore they should take heed lest they should againe bee polluted with those sinnes from which they were sanctified or made guilty of those crimes from which they were justified § V. His second testimony is Rom. 8. 30. Whom he hath called them hee hath justified Answ. The Context doth shew that the word in the 30. verse is used in the same sense as verse 33. For having shewed that whom the Lord calleth hee doth justifie and whom he doth justifie them also hee doth glorifie from thence hee inferreth this consolation who shall lay any thing to the charge of Gods elect It is God that justifieth as was said verse 30. who shall condemne c. Where justifying most plainely is used as a judiciall word signifying by sentence to justifie as Chrysostome and Oââ¦cumenius on this place doe note as opposed to accusing and condemning and cannot with any shew of reason be drawne to signifie contrary to the perpetuall use of the word infusion of righteousnesse But heere it may bee objected that in this place where the Apostle setteth downe the degrees of salvation sanctification is either included in justification or left our Answ. It is left out for the Apostle setting downe the chaine of the causes of salvation in the degrees whereof every former being the cause of the latter left out sanctification as being no cause of salvation but the way unto it and the cognizance of them that are saved And these degrees are so set downe Act. 26. 18. where the end of the ministery is expressed first Vocation that men should bee called and thereby brought to beleeve secondly Iustification that by faith they may receive remission of sinnes thirdly Glorification that by faith they may receive the inheritance among them that are sanctified where sanctification is mentioned onely as the cognizance of them that are saved Againe sanctification is left out because it is included in respect of the beginning thereof which is our conversion or regeneration in vocation and in respect of the consummation in glorification for as sanctification is gloria inchoata so glorification is gratia consummata § VI. His third testimony is Rom. 4. 5. to him that beleeveth in him who justifieth the ungodly Ans. he should have done well to have made up the sentence his faith is imputed for righteousnesse which place is so farre srom favouring the Popish conceit that it plainely confutes it first it is called the justification of the ungodly that is of one who is a sinner in himselfe for he that is a sinner in himselfe by inherent sinne and so remaineth cannot be justified by righteousnesse inherent secondly because to him that beleeveth in Christ faith relatively understood that is the righteousnesse of Christ apprehended by faith is imputed for righteousnesse thirdly because in this place justification is expressed by these termes not imputing sinne remitting or covering of sinne imputing righteousnesse without workes imputing faith for righteousnesse to him that worketh not that is that seeketh not to bee justified by his owne righteousnesse but beleeveth in him that justifieth a sinner CAP. IIII. The third and fourth signification of the word justification assigned by Bellarmine § I. THirdly saith Bellarmine justification is taken for increase of justice for even as he is said to be heated not only who of cold is mà de hot but also who of hot is made hotter even so he is said to be justified who not onely of a sinner is made just but also of just is made more just Ans. In this comparison of like there is a great unlikenesse for calefaction implyeth a reall mutation and a positive change in the subject from cold to hot but in justification the change is not reall but relative as before hath beene shewed Bellarmine therefore must prove that to justifie doth signifie to make righteous formally by righteousnesse inherent before he can prove that it signifieth the increase of inherent justice But if the former cannot be proved much lesse the latter But yet he bringeth three proofes such as they be § II. The first Ecclus. 18. 21. Ne verearis usque ad mortem justificari quââ¦niam merces Domini manet in aeternum feare not to be justified untill death for the reward of the Lord adideth for ever Answ. To omit that the booke is Apocryphall which ought not to bee alleaged in controversies of faith the testimonie it selfe is vilely depraved The words in the Originall are ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã that is stay not untill death to be justified or as their own interlinear translation readeth it ne expectes usque ad mortem justificari wait not untill death to be justified where it is evident that he speaketh of justification in our first conversion which he would not have differred untill the time of death and not of the continuance or increase of it for then the sentence would beare a contrary and indeed an ungodly sense ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã abide not or continue not to be justified or to be just untill thy death And the words untill death are not to be joyned with the last word justified but with the first stay not untill death And their translation of the words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã whether as Bellarmine here readeth ne verearis or as some editions have ne vetéris hath no affinity with the Originall But our interpretation as it agreeth with the words of the Text so it is confirmed by the context Vse Physike before thou bee sicke before judgement prepare thy selfe humble thy selfe before thou bee sicke and in the time of sinnes that is whiles thou mai'st yet sinne shew thy conversion let nothing hinder thee to pay thy vowes in due season and deferre not untill death to be justified or to become just § III. But this testimony Bellarmine urgeth againe in another place shewing that the place is to bee understood of continuing and proceeding in justice and the words ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã are as much as cease not And this he would prove by that which goeth before be not hindred to pray alwayes where the wise man admonisheth us to increase our justice by continuall prayer and also by that which immediately followeth because the reward of the Lord endureth for ever for reward agreeth not to the first justification of the wicked but indulgence Answ. This interpretation of Bellarmine may then be admitted when it shal be proved first that ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã signifieth to cease secondly ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to pray thirdly ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã alwaies fourthly that those words but the reward of the Lord endureth for ever are found in the Originall Text. But if Bellarmine knew that ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã signifieth stay not or waite not and not cease not ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã to render the vow and not to pray ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã ãâã